Isn't GRC system affirmative action?

I REFER to last Thursday's report, 'Foreign Ministry responds to UN expert's comments'. On the sensitive issue of race, Singapore's Ministry of Foreign Affairs noted that United Nations Special Rapporteur Githu Muigai appears to advocate some form of 'affirmative action' to help the Malays progress in the area of education.

This approach, according to the ministry, 'has been tried by many countries without notable success'.

Even the president of the Islamic Religious Council of Singapore (Muis) told Mr Muigai that the Malays in Singapore do not need any affirmative action policy because 'the Malay community had a deep sense of pride in its own ability to achieve steady progress under the national system of meritocracy'.

If affirmative action is frowned on by minorities themselves, why does the Government insist on keeping the group representation constituency (GRC) system in the political landscape? The GRC system, as propagated by the Government, ensures minority representation. Thus it is an affirmative action policy.

Does it make sense that the minorities in Singapore need affirmative action only to protect their political rights and everything else can be based on meritocracy?

The minorities have spoken. They have the ability to achieve progress under the national system of meritocracy. The Government should recognise that and abolish the GRC system.

We are no longer living in the past. The tumultuous period of our early years can only serve as a lesson for all ethnic groups to maintain racial harmony at all costs. The past should not impede the desire of our multiracial populace to achieve the goal of becoming one nation, one people.

The GRC system, as an affirmative action policy, can take our nation only one step forward in theory and three steps backward in nation-building.

Png Eng Huat

Clivebenss

3 May 10, 17:53

Immaturity.

Let the best person win not by race, colour or ethnics.

Clivebenss

4 May 10, 14:21

May 4, 2010 - ST Forum

UN official's remarks

Why we need to be wary of external experts

I APPRECIATE the Ministry of Foreign Affairs' clarification of Mr Githu Muigai's comments regarding Singapore's internal policies ('Foreign Ministry responds to UN expert's comments'; last Thursday). What is apparent is that the short time Mr Muigai spent in Singapore was not sufficient for him to appreciate how well certain policies have worked for the country.

Singaporeans need to be wary of such findings by external experts, as different yardsticks, cultural contexts and varied criteria of living standards are used, not to mention the personal biases of the researcher himself.

Various international surveys have ranked Singapore poorly on human rights and freedom of speech. Yet, in the same breath, Singapore is ranked highly on its transparent and uncorrupt government, and as one of the safest countries in Asia. This may be due to a variance in the sample groups.

In every country, there may be an underprivileged or disadvantaged group, whether by heritage or race. What a government must do is to not only help the marginalised group, but also increase its investment in the group's human capital so the group can help itself.

Our society cannot improve if it is constantly spoon-fed and protected. We must also be wary of turning assistance into welfare as welfare policies do not work in the long term for any state.

Singapore does not have to prove itself to anyone. Its credibility in giving citizens a safe country and stable government has been proven.

There is always room for improvement in every country and its policies. Singapore-bashers (including Singaporeans) should make constructive comments and not just throw brickbats.

Rene Yap (Ms)