The recent 2011 election is really a watershed election in many ways and shows the pitfalls of the Group Representation Constituencies (GRC) system.
The introduction of GRCs in 1988 was to ensure that Singapore's
Parliament would continue to be multiracial in its composition and
representation by dictating that at least one candidate or Member of Parliament must be from the minority race. However at the same time, the government is also talking about meritocracy. Does the GRC system ensure meritocracy? I believe based on the number of cambridge scholars in the parliament, it will be easy to find ways to ensure representations from the minority race without using the GRC system.
From the results of the 2011 election, the problems with this GRC system are very apparent. A very good minister was booted out of parliament and a person whom everyone was against rode on the coat-tails of a minister and got into parliament through the GRC system. That particular constituency seemed to have also sent a message by having one of the largest number of voters that did not vote (over 13,000 I believe). Is that the objective of the GRC system? To reject good ministers and to let others hide behind other ministers to get into parliament?
Even the drawing of the boundaries of the GRC system leaves much to be desired. A family can be in a different constituency for every election due to the frequent redrawing of the boundaries. Is that also the purpose of a GRC system? Shouldn't the number of MPs decrease or increase depending on the number of voters within a fixed GRC boundary instead of redrawing the boundaries?
I believe Singaporeans have sent the message that we're willing to go broke if the opposition presents a slate of capable candidates during the election. In the next election, I hope all of us will be ready to send the same message again that Singapore policies are meant to benefit all the citizens. Let's hope the opposition use this 5 years to prove to the people that they can be our voice in parliament. People first.
2 comments:
There is really nothing wrong with the old system. It was obviously manipulated by PAP to serve its self-interests. If minorities' interests are of real concern, they could also have specified a certain no. of minority candidates with the highest votes be elected if none are voted in.
And if they are really that concerned, they would also have to very specific about the interests of each minority instead of lumping all minorities under one group, isn't it ?
For example, can one really believe that if a minority Indian MP is elected, the Malay minority's interests are equally protected by this MP ? And if that is really the case, it really puzzle me why can't any MP represent any other minority's interests ?
The PAP are really good at conning people to believe they have their interests at heart, aren't they ?
Here is a thought provoking article for all Singaporeans:
----- Start -----
Article by Ann Maria
I think it'll be difficult to change cause the problem lays deep. When the
ministers think it's perfectly fine to tell the Citizens to tighten their belts
and sacrifice to contribute to GDP growth, then reward themselves for this
growth, the problem is deeeeeeeeeeeeeeep.
When these ministers think welfare is a dirty word, yet see no harm in keeping
their pensions of 2/3s their highest drawn salary even after raising their
pay to the multi-millions and taking large bonuses, mooting the whole arguement
that "we sacrifice for the country, so the country looks after us" (side note:
isn't that true for us all too?).
Now lets just look at this simple example here - pensions. For the rest of us,
pensions gave way to CPF. This CPF payout date too has been raised how many
times now? From 55 to what is it now? 65?
Yet do you know our dear ministers still get their pensions from 55 onwards, on
TOP of their pay?
They see no harm nor wrong in this now do they?
They see no wrong in holding back our CPF, giving us a lower interest rate than
inflation. They see no wrong wiping out this CPF too with over priced
government housing. They will argue "market prices" ignoring the fact that they
control the influx of people here, control legistlation for foreign ownership,
own more than 80% of the land and therefore ARE the market.
They see no wrong that HDB is government housing built on stateland that they
acquired, using the land acquisition act, cheaply (I read $1.00 per square foot
in some cases) for the purpose of housing the Citizens. Now they lease it back
to us at hundreds per sqft x 20 (for a twenty storey block)... yet the title
deed never changes hands. It's a lease, on we also have to pay property tax on.
They see no problem that our retirement fund is being funneled into their
reserves and we can't even dream of retiring.
See my point yet? The government sees no wrong turning the Citizens into cash
cows for their "reserves", which they also tell us is huge, therefore they are
a great government worth more than the millions they take for themselves.
The problem is so extremely deep when a government sees no problem using the
blood and lives of it's Citizens to paint a beautiful picture which they will
then use to improve their own bank balances with.
How do you make changes to that, except to remove them all and replace them?
This current government does everything they can to ensure this system of
checks and balances isn't there, they have no transparency nor
accountability, they build the corruption into their system and keep harping
about how good and clean they are.
Honestly though, I think on many levels, they actually believe that they are
clean and good and honest. That they are making us sacrifice, made themselves
multi-millionaires and are working towards making themselves billionaires "for
our good"... Maybe they do believe that on many levels. That in fact though is
the danger with the current government and why they can not change.
They do not see anything wrong with what they are doing, they just need to,
"Communicate it better to us".
----- end -----
Post a Comment