This post is at least a year old. Some of the links in this post may no longer work correctly.
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-member GRC = SENSELESS…
– 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.”
“Two-thirds or more than 66 per cent of Singaporeans believe that they have little or no influence at all on national issues”.-h
– ST Fri 17Mar 06: of 413 persons (aged between 21-34) surveyed: 4/10 don’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 Singapore’s future- limit the number seats per GRC to 4 or less….
Every national policy must have sound concepts behind them… and the electorate shall see that the ruling party behaves fairly and squarely… perverse extensions of an existing policy to disadvantage alternative political representations are tyrannical and shameful displays of a party’s selfishness and ego.