Fine-tuning Singapore's GRC Electoral System
-
This is an article written by a fellow Singaporean, Vincent. A businessman and a law student.
Goh Meng Seng
Fine-tuning Singapore's GRC Electoral System
Hong Kong has just completed her Legislative Council elections. The
electoral system there is somewhat similar to Singapore's Group
Representation Constituency system. However, seats are allocated
according to the percentage of votes each group has won, i.e.
proportional representation instead of first-past-the-post (more
commonly known in Singapore as winner-takes-all).
Let's have an illustration loosely based on the Hong Kong system,
simplified for the Singapore context. Say, a GRC has five seats. Any
party winning more than 20% of the votes would be allocated one seat,
or more seats accordingly in multiple of 20%.
If the opposition party has won 60%, it would be allocated three seats
out five. The ruling party would not have to lose the minister, leader
or the whole team from Parliament as it would be allocated the other
two seats.
If an opposition party has won 40% of the votes, it would be allocated
two out of the five seats. The 40% who have voted for opposition,
minority but sizeable, would not be left completely unrepresented in
Parliament.
While the Hong Kong system has the advantage of proportional
representation for voters of different political opinions, it also has
the disadvantage of a candidate winning a seat with as little as 20%
of the votes. Whereas, the Singapore system has the disadvantage of a
party winning five or six seats with just a little more than 50% of
the votes.
There have been arguments that the Singapore GRC scheme helps to bring
good people into the ruling party for grooming into ministers.
Therefore it is important for the ruling party to take all seats for
future regeneration. However, that's contingent upon the ruling party
winning all GRCs.
Since the inception of GRCs in 1988, we've seen opposition
teams garnering more than 40% of the votes in Eunos (1988 and 1991),
Bedok (198
, Tiong Bahru (198 and Cheng San (1997). Will the ruling
party continue to win all GRCs?
Those features of the Hong Kong system that are advantageous can be
modified and adapted so as to improve our system. For example, the
percentage of votes required for a party to be allocated its first
seat in a GRC may be set at one-third of the votes except in
multi-cornered contests whereby no single party has won more than
one-third.
Two differences of our system from the Hong Kong system are our
built-in safeguard for representation of our minority races and
provision for Non-Constituency Members of Parliament and Nominated
Members of Parliament. -
BTW, forgotten to mention, ST refused to publish his article. Barracuda, any comments?
Goh Meng Seng -
Such a system may result in the formation of lobbying or interest groups who try to win votes by raising specific issues benefical to themselves this could be devisive to the society, pitting one group against another. The interest of such groups may also be short term, as oppose to the long term interest of the country.
-
I do not think so. A society is itself a place of diversity and of course, the parliament must be representative of the society, isn't it not?
Who has the right to say he represents "long term" interests of the country? What is "long term" and what does it actually means?
Goh Meng SengOriginally posted by The Barracuda:Such a system may result in the formation of lobbying or interest groups who try to win votes by raising specific issues benefical to themselves this could be devisive to the society, pitting one group against another. The interest of such groups may also be short term, as oppose to the long term interest of the country. -
...... and one thing to note is that voting in Singapore is compulsary. When people cast a vote for the opposition it means that they are signaling their unhappiness with PAP it does not necessary mean that they support the opposition.
It has been coventional wisdom that if Ah Meng the orangutan is contesting against the PAP, she would have gather 20-30 % of the votes. Does it mean people support Ah Meng ?
We have our own NCMP scheme which gives three seats to the opposition members if they fail to win the majority of the votes in an election.
Is this present in the HK system ?
In addition to the the NCMP there are NMPs who are non partisan. Being non partisan they do have to take a populalist stand instead they are independent and are free to speak on issues that concerns the society or in their own area of enterprise.
Is that present in the HK system ?
Each country has their own systems and the circumstances of each is different. We shd not follow blindly what others are doing but develop a system that meet our own needs.
The opposition is always complaining about the unlevel playing field. But the main reason why they fail to win more seats is because they fail to field credible candidates that warrant the support of the electorate. -
Hong Kong is a homogeneous society compared to Singapore.Originally posted by goh meng seng:I do not think so. A society is itself a place of diversity and of course, the parliament must be representative of the society, isn't it not?
Who has the right to say he represents "long term" interests of the country? What is "long term" and what does it actually means?
Goh Meng Seng
Are Singaporeans prepared to or would they even want to see a Pauline Hanson in their parliament, if that represent diversity in the society ?
..... and dont give the " the Straits Times refuse to print my letter because I am from the opposition" crap. There are hundreds of letters and e-mails sent to the Straits Times each day. Its not surprising that your letter is not printed.
If it really were printed I am sure that there are more qualified people out there who are able to give more and better examples and points of arguement that will expose the fallacies of your idea.
.... and I am not and have never been and never intend to work in the SPH. Neither do I own any shares in SPH or its subsidiaries. I do not belong to any political parties and the views post here are mine and mine alone as a citizen.
Spare me the agony of listening to " this is another brain-wash supporter of PAP " crap. Its lame and overused. -
The GRC system should be scrapped without delay and superceded by proportional representation as practiced by the Scandinavians.
That is all I have to say. -
Dear Barracuda,
People vote "against" PAP is different from people vote for opposition. However, you are underestimating Singapore voters in this modern era. Some people would just spoil their votes in the end. There are people whom I know would still vote for PAP if they feel that the opposition candidates are not up to standard (like the slippers man).
You are wrong to say that any goon that runs against PAP will surely get 20-30% of the votes. It may be true 10 years ago, but not in modern days. 2001 GE has demonstrated that if you are just any good, you will get less than 17%, may even lost your deposit if you are really the goon! Yes, there will always people against PAP govt for whatever personal reasons or grievances. But I don't think that is significant enough; just 16% or less.
Check it out at the website:
http://www.singapore-elections.com/ge2001/
If what you say is true, then all the more this should be put into place. If there is 20% to 30% of unhappy voters out there, ready to vote any donkey into the parliament, it demonstrated that PAP has not done a good job in neglecting the need of this high percentage of voters! It will then serve a strong reminder that in the process of policy making and running the country, there is something really lacking and wrong which created 20% to 30% of "irrational" voters....nope, they are not "irrational" at all, they have seen the need to have a check and balance in Singapore parliament; even if a donkey could make noice in parliament, then be it. They have understood that the fact that they lack the "proper" choice is basically due to the FEAR factor that prevented good people from coming forward. They are willing to register their unhappiness even by voting the less qualified ones into parliament, send a strong signal to BOTH PAP as well as potential good opposition candidates.
Thus, I think it is all too presumptious on your part that such "irrational" voting pattern is unhealthy for Singapore. They know pretty well that even if they vote these donkeys or Ah Meng into parliament, they are not going to run the govt. But they could just make some noise in parliament. And historically, we have seen that those who don't perform well in either parliament or local Town Council, will get kick out. Singapore voters are very rational, they are not stupid. Thus, I think you are just being overly "self righteous" in assuming that Singapore voters are "irrational" or "irresponsible" in any ways. And yes, this 20% to 30% of discontented voters need to be represented in parliament in one way or another.
The NCMP and NMP schemes should be scrapped altogether. For those NMP wannabes, it is time to make the message clear to them that if they want to have their say, they will have to be tested through the electorate process. They could either join PAP or alternative political parties. By having NMP scheme, it reduces the incentive to put up the good fight to earn their place in parliament. IT will only breed opportunists and "soft" minds that would rather take the easier way out. Such people do not have the fire in their bellies. If the desire to serve Singapore is so great to motivate them to apply to be NMP, it should be also great enough for them to step into political ring to earn their right.
These NMP people could still be "non-partisan"; the fine tuned system will allow individuals like them to participate in the electorate process! That's the beauty of it! They could just group together and go for election. Or that they could just enter into the fight with a single person! That is, they must get at least 20% of the votes, then they will get into parliament! But they could still remain "non-partisan"! What's wrong with that?
In HK, there is special arrangement for this group of people actually. They will contest in the "special function group". In fact, the political parties could send representatives to contest in such "special function group". Nope, they are not "nominated" nor "appointed". They would have to be elected by those in their own profession. For illustration, if this guy is a social worker and he wants to represent the social workers. There is a seat in the parliament specially reserved for social workers. Those who want to vote for representative in this field, will have to register their name according with their professional qualifications. If there are more contesters, then an election within the profession would be called.
For whatever argument you have, our present system is bad for our development. It only serves to entrench the incumbant at great social cost. We don't need a GRC to make sure we have enough minority representatives. The simple way of doing it is to identify a few wards that require minority representation; Eunos SMC, Malay candidate...so on. Then, we will still able to have all SMC system what! Why isn't such simple system adapted instead of the GRC system? And yet, in the GRC system, they did the same, specifying this GRC must have Malay representation or Indian representation.... etc etc. The GRC system is made such that each minister could carry the younger, inexperience members into parliament. The aim, is not solely minority representation! And it is really ironic that after having such system, LKY actually laments that the younger generation of PAP MPs lack the baptism of fire! Hahahaha!
It is for PAP's own good to fine tune the GRC system. It is only a matter of time before PAP starts losing GRCs and in the event such thing happen, it will lose its heavy weight ministers along. This refined GRC system will allow PAP to lose less, at least not its ministers. And such retuning of the system will allow PAP to have the necessary political competition to keep it sharpen and brush up their competitive skills.
You could carry on to play your old records of opposition not able to win support by putting up credible candidates....blur blur blur, but I can tell you, it will only take a couple of loses for PAP to rethink about the GRC system. It is just a matter of time. They cannot afford to lose their ministers.
Goh Meng SengOriginally posted by The Barracuda:...... and one thing to note is that voting in Singapore is compulsary. When people cast a vote for the opposition it means that they are signaling their unhappiness with PAP it does not necessary mean that they support the opposition.
It has been coventional wisdom that if Ah Meng the orangutan is contesting against the PAP, she would have gather 20-30 % of the votes. Does it mean people support Ah Meng ?
We have our own NCMP scheme which gives three seats to the opposition members if they fail to win the majority of the votes in an election.
Is this present in the HK system ?
In addition to the the NCMP there are NMPs who are non partisan. Being non partisan they do have to take a populalist stand instead they are independent and are free to speak on issues that concerns the society or in their own area of enterprise.
Is that present in the HK system ?
Each country has their own systems and the circumstances of each is different. We shd not follow blindly what others are doing but develop a system that meet our own needs.
The opposition is always complaining about the unlevel playing field. But the main reason why they fail to win more seats is because they fail to field credible candidates that warrant the support of the electorate. -
To Goh Meng Seng :
You want a "Long Hair" or Pauline Hanson type of person to make noise in our parliament ? That will make our system "more healthy" ?
The opposition constantly lament about the lack of a platform to voice their views. Isnt the parliament the best platform.
An opposition member can use an NCMP seat to speak in parliament and win in the next election if he has really good proposals or ideas. -
Now, Barracuda, that's not something nice to hear.
PM Lee calls for "inclusive" society, do you know what it really entails? Basic Tolerance.
I know the Singapore media doesn't have good report on "Long Hair", but the simple fact is that he represents a sector of the helpless, the poor and destitutes. The fact that he gets elected, demonstrate that Hong Kongers have more tolerance of his extreme but witty styles. And Hong Kong voters thinks that with his logical argument demonstrated in the live TV debates, he deserves a place in Legco. By the way, how much do you know about "Long Hair" to make such comments? He may be a maverick with unconventional ways of doing things. But his logical thinking process is no way inferior than yours.
As for Pauline Hanson, I don't think any of such character will get voted in at all! Even if it is so, then don't prejudge the choice of the masses. You are in no position to say other people's choices are of inferior quality than yours!
The fact is that even if people like Pauline Hanson gets elected, it is not about whether he/she gets into parliament this time. Like Pauline Hanson, he/she will be sidelined eventually if such extreme stand carries on to be their main theme.
There is a tendency for political stand to move towards to the centre. This is simply because that's where most rational voters make their stand. We may have a slightly "unnatural" result in the first couple elections after a political reform into proportionate representations. But in the long run, it will stablize.
Barracuda, opposition members like me aren't aiming that low. Parliament is the best platform to voice out, but it is just as good as this forum if the mass media keeps minimum reporting on their speeches.
Look at it this way. If 5 PAP MPs get elected with 51% of the votes. In effect, each MP on average has only 10% of voters' approval. When one NCMP gets appointed into parliament, like Steve Chia, he got 36% of voters' approval. Why should he be the "second class" MP in parliament when in effect, he gets higher voters' approval rate?
Well, just mark my word. PAP will change their mind when they start losing GRC one by one.
Goh Meng SengOriginally posted by The Barracuda:To Goh Meng Seng :
You want a "Long Hair" or Pauline Hanson type of person to make noise in our parliament ? That will make our system "more healthy" ?
The opposition constantly lament about the lack of a platform to voice their views. Isnt the parliament the best platform.
An opposition member can use an NCMP seat to speak in parliament and win in the next election if he has really good proposals or ideas. -
Actually reason why Pauline Hanson got votes was not because voters were dumb or anything. I don't like her because I am asian , however I have to say this. She is an extreme right type of ideologist who thinks white australians are left out in the cold. She is anti foreigner except she forgot that not only asians (and that some asians are actually australian by birth) are taking the jobs , but other whites , like americans ,are snatching the top jobs. Her voters are actually thinking of themselves when they vote for her....jobs for them only ....a nationalistic view promoted to a near nazi view. Probably it is the lower crass of society that is not happy there because they lack jobs, lack resources so they cast a vote for her.Originally posted by The Barracuda:Are Singaporeans prepared to or would they even want to see a Pauline Hanson in their parliament, if that represent diversity in the society ?
..... and dont give the " the Straits Times refuse to print my letter because I am from the opposition" crap. There are hundreds of letters and e-mails sent to the Straits Times each day. Its not surprising that your letter is not printed.
If it really were printed I am sure that there are more qualified people out there who are able to give more and better examples and points of arguement that will expose the fallacies of your idea
Every media has some leanings - commercial and political. Heck some years back, I was told not to repeat what I said and what was said to me in a live discussion outside the room when I was student. Did I mention that my ic number copied down plus my name, I am not at all surprised about ST not publishing that letter . -
Dear Barracuda,
For your information, Vincent is NOT a member of any political party, least Workers' Party. He is writing this article as a neutral and he said he wants to try to get it published in ST for the Nation's sake. His letter was rejected not because he didn't make any good points nor he is an opposition member. His letter got rejected because it is a pretty sensitive "political" view that could put PAP's GRC system's deficiencies in the spot light. I told him in advance, that he will not get it published simply because it touches the core interests of PAP in witholding monopoly power. And unfortunately, I am right. Unless PAP starts to lose some GRCs, then they would seriously consider such moves, to minimize losses.
I am primarily the "researcher" for his article, as I am in Hong Kong and have done a little bit of research on its election system before.
Barracuda, if you know of anybody with better argument and points to beat me in my argument, please do introduce them to Sgforum. I would be glad to be able to learn from people like them and to sharpen my views and debating skills. Best, to refine my thoughts over such important issues. I have been in YPAP forum but what I have gotten so far, quite pathetically, incoherent arguments.
You have yet to provide enough points to dispute the merits of such proposed system, only trying to use "outliers" example to discredit such system. Even such attempts cannot hold ground. More and more advanced democracies are moving towards such proportionate representation; be it Sweden, Scandanivia in European or Hong Kong, Taiwan, Australia in Asia. The details may vary but the overall system is more or less the same structure. I don't think Singapore has that many "talents" that could prove so many "foreign talents" wrong.
And to me, your starting stand is already bias. An objective person will not try to nit pick on little things; only a bias mind would do that. Try to see the overall picture, how it would benefit us as a nation. That's how an objective person looks at things.
Goh Meng SengOriginally posted by The Barracuda:Hong Kong is a homogeneous society compared to Singapore.
Are Singaporeans prepared to or would they even want to see a Pauline Hanson in their parliament, if that represent diversity in the society ?
..... and dont give the " the Straits Times refuse to print my letter because I am from the opposition" crap. There are hundreds of letters and e-mails sent to the Straits Times each day. Its not surprising that your letter is not printed.
If it really were printed I am sure that there are more qualified people out there who are able to give more and better examples and points of arguement that will expose the fallacies of your idea.
.... and I am not and have never been and never intend to work in the SPH. Neither do I own any shares in SPH or its subsidiaries. I do not belong to any political parties and the views post here are mine and mine alone as a citizen.
Spare me the agony of listening to " this is another brain-wash supporter of PAP " crap. Its lame and overused. -
why must wait till this is published in Straits Times. Low Thia Kiang can bring this up in the parliament wat.
-
To Goh Meng Seng
If you see objections to your proposals as nit picking I see no point in carrying on the discussion.
I'll let the rest of the forumites here decide who's bias or have hidden agendas of their own. -
Dear Barracuda,
I do not believe there is any "perfect" political system, but the only rational way of making comparisons between two political system is to see the pros and cons of the system.
If your concerns is about having such system will result in having "mavericks" or "unconventional" people being elected into the parliament, then I believe I have addressed in clear perspective. First of all, it is not possible for them to gain power to become govt, no worry on that. Secondly, in the long run, such political stand or individuals cannot withstand the testing of time, if they do not shift towards the centre, the more rational mode of politics. Thirdly, if they really get elected, the more we should have such system because it signals that something must be very wrong with the ruling party to make the population so angry that they could garner enough votes to get into parliament.
Your concern is about "outliers", those occasional "random" problems of the system, not a systematic or structural problem of the proposed system. Weighing this against the benefits of having a more balanced political system and yet, being able to keep important ministers in the list elected even if the party lost the majority in that sector/GRC.
This is a rational and balanced approach towards a more matured political system. But alas, it could only put into serious considerations if and only if PAP started to lose a couple of GRCs.
There is no "hidden" agenda in this one. We are pretty confident of winning one GRC in the next 10 to 15 years. Having this system is actually against us; we could have won 5 or 6 seats in one GRC with the present system but with the proposed system, we may just be able to win only 3 or 4 seats if we get a small majority!
This explains why I am not writing this article under my name with my party's membership. Workers' Party CEC may not approve such political reform, in view of the growing strength. The official stand of Workers' Party at this moment, is to scrap the GRC altogether, appoint a proportional of seats as reserved for minority candidates.
Whichever way we look at it, having a mixed GRC cum SMC system defies the equity logic. Those in SMC, with one vote, they could only choose one MP, while those in GRC, their one vote, they could choose 5 or 6 MPs! That's not what our National Pledge says... "based on equality". Nope. You either have all GRC system or SMC system, with certain modifications. You cannot be "half virgin".
Goh Meng SengOriginally posted by The Barracuda:To Goh Meng Seng
If you see objections to your proposals as nit picking I see no point in carrying on the discussion.
I'll let the rest of the forumites here decide who's bias or have hidden agendas of their own. -
How come Uncle Goh never post this at YoungPAP see wat they say lah.
-
Dear Paperchicken,
As Vincent himself is a pretty active forumer in YPAP, it is his call to post or not to post in YPAP forum. This is basic courtesy and respect that I observe.
Goh Meng SengOriginally posted by paperchicken:How come Uncle Goh never post this at YoungPAP see wat they say lah. -
errm...it seems quite apparent that its you Barracuda.Originally posted by The Barracuda:To Goh Meng Seng
If you see objections to your proposals as nit picking I see no point in carrying on the discussion.
I'll let the rest of the forumites here decide who's bias or have hidden agendas of their own. -
+1
totally agree with fandango -
It appears that anybody can register to post at YoungPAP but not all are allowed to post. The members list shows many members registered with 0 posting. Anybody know why?Originally posted by paperchicken:How come Uncle Goh never post this at YoungPAP see wat they say lah. -
What it means is that to the 20-30% voters, Ah Meng is better than the PAP! Having said that, Ah Meng, in his career, has done much more in promoting singapore and making singaporean happy, than many PAP members. As a star in the zoo, Ah Meng was only given bananas, but the stars in PAP gets millions!Originally posted by The Barracuda:...... It has been coventional wisdom that if Ah Meng the orangutan is contesting against the PAP, she would have gather 20-30 % of the votes. Does it mean people support Ah Meng ?
-
Chiam See Tong and Low Thia Kiang won slightly more than 50 % in the last election. Does that mean they have to share one seat between them and give up one to PAP ? Chee Soon Juan won about 20 % in the last election in the GRC. Does it mean one seat in the parliament will go to him ?Originally posted by goh meng seng:This is an article written by a fellow Singaporean, Vincent. A businessman and a law student.
Goh Meng Seng
Fine-tuning Singapore's GRC Electoral System
Hong Kong has just completed her Legislative Council elections. The
electoral system there is somewhat similar to Singapore's Group
Representation Constituency system. However, seats are allocated
according to the percentage of votes each group has won, i.e.
proportional representation instead of first-past-the-post (more
commonly known in Singapore as winner-takes-all).
Let's have an illustration loosely based on the Hong Kong system,
simplified for the Singapore context. Say, a GRC has five seats. Any
party winning more than 20% of the votes would be allocated one seat,
or more seats accordingly in multiple of 20%.
If the opposition party has won 60%, it would be allocated three seats
out five. The ruling party would not have to lose the minister, leader
or the whole team from Parliament as it would be allocated the other
two seats.
If an opposition party has won 40% of the votes, it would be allocated
two out of the five seats. The 40% who have voted for opposition,
minority but sizeable, would not be left completely unrepresented in
Parliament.
While the Hong Kong system has the advantage of proportional
representation for voters of different political opinions, it also has
the disadvantage of a candidate winning a seat with as little as 20%
of the votes. Whereas, the Singapore system has the disadvantage of a
party winning five or six seats with just a little more than 50% of
the votes.
There have been arguments that the Singapore GRC scheme helps to bring
good people into the ruling party for grooming into ministers.
Therefore it is important for the ruling party to take all seats for
future regeneration. However, that's contingent upon the ruling party
winning all GRCs.
Since the inception of GRCs in 1988, we've seen opposition
teams garnering more than 40% of the votes in Eunos (1988 and 1991),
Bedok (198, Tiong Bahru (198 and Cheng San (1997). Will the ruling
party continue to win all GRCs?
Those features of the Hong Kong system that are advantageous can be
modified and adapted so as to improve our system. For example, the
percentage of votes required for a party to be allocated its first
seat in a GRC may be set at one-third of the votes except in
multi-cornered contests whereby no single party has won more than
one-third.
Two differences of our system from the Hong Kong system are our
built-in safeguard for representation of our minority races and
provision for Non-Constituency Members of Parliament and Nominated
Members of Parliament. -
I will choose Ah Meng over goh Meng seng.Originally posted by sgdiehard:What it means is that to the 20-30% voters, Ah Meng is better than the PAP! Having said that, Ah Meng, in his career, has done much more in promoting singapore and making singaporean happy, than many PAP members. As a star in the zoo, Ah Meng was only given bananas, but the stars in PAP gets millions! -
I think you must put up your glasses.
Chiam and Low is now in Single ward! The proposed system is only applicable to GRCs!
AS for Dr. Chee, yes, if he gets 20%, he will be entitled to one seat.
Goh Meng SengOriginally posted by sgsentinel:Chiam See Tong and Low Thia Kiang won slightly more than 50 % in the last election. Does that mean they have to share one seat between them and give up one to PAP ? Chee Soon Juan won about 20 % in the last election in the GRC. Does it mean one seat in the parliament will go to him ? -
If it applys to GRC then to be fair must apply to single seat as well, unless you are bias ......Originally posted by goh meng seng:I think you must put up your glasses.
Chiam and Low is now in Single ward! The proposed system is only applicable to GRCs!
AS for Dr. Chee, yes, if he gets 20%, he will be entitled to one seat.
Goh Meng Seng
I cant imagine if Chee Soon Juan is in parliament.
If ppl like CSJ can get a seat in parliament because of your fine-tuning of Singapore's GRC Electoral System it must be a bad idea.