K Jeyaretnam sets up Facebook to call for abolition of GRC
-
Originally posted by TooFree:
In terms of business prospective, wouldnt it be a waste of resources to compete in SMCs instead of GRCs. The capital raised can be properly channelled coupled with a pool of strong candidates to compete in the election rather than having those capital diversified as a form of risky venture.
Party flags and banners, loan of cars, loudhailers, rental of places and manpower issues are cost induced activities.
Can a fair political system be determined by the simple reasoning in the economies of scale that a GRC system can have ?It is clear that a GRC system was introduced by LKY to prevent certain unpopular ministers from being thrown out of an election that only LKY can claim to be a freak election result - as if the citizen's choice are freak.
Each candidate will still have to pay the fee that is refundable only if 5% of the votes are received.
A pool of single candidates can still form a common resource to enjoy economy of scale as is available to a GRC.
The only difference between a GRC and a SRC is that in a GRC - an unpopular candidate can still sneak into Parliament even when the constituents do not want the candidate to represent them.
It will be a traversity of natural justice when an Opposition Candidate can have overwhelming support from the constituents in one of the 5 GRC grouping but can only achieve marginal results in the other 4.
With the familiar political gerrymeandering of electoral lines by the incumbent ruling party that also make constant changes to electoral rules, it will not be a surprise for the various blocks - that voted for the opposition parties in the previous elections - to be absorbed into a redrawn boundary that see these blocks being absorbed into other wards that are strongholds of the incumbent party.
-
Originally posted by Atobe:
It will be a traversity of natural justice when an Opposition Candidate can have overwhelming support from the constituents in one of the 5 GRC grouping but can only achieve marginal results in the other 4.
Isnt it equitable to say likewise that there is also one minister with four new candidates competing for the GRC? -
even with those existing single wards to contest, oppositions cant make much success out of them except for the present 2, still want to talk so much....haizzz
already got 2 of them in parliament and they dont seem to raise much voice at all and even with few more if they do win cant do much too as mostly they will be from different opposition parties.
GRC system puts a premium on parties to field credible teams, and so demonstrate that they are fit not just to become MPs but to form the government should they win a few GRCs under same umbrella. GRC requires any challenger also to field a strong team and offer a serious alternative. As such, they encourage responsible and credible political parties to emerge.
for the record, single wards will be increased for the next general elections as if PAP is thumbing its nose and mocking oppositions' continuing failure not making inroads in GRCs and its obsession with single wards and thus bending backwards to offer them a seemingly handicap albeit as the ruling party they need not have to..
-
Originally posted by TooFree:
Isnt it equitable to say likewise that there is also one minister with four new candidates competing for the GRC?
Equitable ?Can it be equitable when one who is rejected by a constituency which one has selected to stand in, but will get pulled up by the marginal results of the other candidates in the other constituencies that form a GRC ?
It would have been more equitable if in the GRC system - the losing candidate that cannot even garner 25 per cent of the ballot should concede to its opponent - even if this constituency is part of a GRC.
The manner in which the GRC is designed can only benefit the incumbent political party - when the other circumstances are all controlled by the incumbent.
Besides the GRC, the Electoral Commission is controlled by the Prime Minister's Office, and the electoral boundaries are headed by a Minister who is from the ruling party.
-
Originally posted by Bentsb05:
even with those existing single wards to contest, oppositions cant make much success out of them except for the present 2, still want to talk so much....haizzz
The problem with politics in Singapore is that there are many more Singaporeans willing to participate in politics, but have decided not to be pro-active due to the manner in which politics is conducted in Singapore by LKY and his cronies forming the PAP.
While LKY dare to criticise the Opposition candidates to be liars and gangsters - he failed to admit his own hypocritical stance as the Number ONE Political Gangster in Singapore Politics.
He can only talk big while in Singapore and when his own lawsuit is pursued in some overseas judicial system - his position do not stand up under the natural justice that somehow seems higher in the overseas judicial system.
In the last Election 2006, the PAP had to resort to heavy handed pressure on the local newspapers and the broadcast media to provide more positive publicity to its own position and portray the opposition parties as incapable.
already got 2 of them in parliament and they dont seem to raise much voice at all and even with few more if they do win cant do much too as mostly they will be from different opposition parties.
Can two opposition Members of Parliament stand up to 82 MPs from the PAP ?
The other 82 MPs from the PAP have been seen to display such childish attitude and impoliteness towards the present two MPs from the Opposition that it is shocking to see such hypocritical behaviour amongst adults.
Of the two MPs from the Opposition Party in Parliament, CST from Potong Pasir is practically hopeless with a heart problem and with no ability to grow his own party with new and fresh members to serve other constituencies.
The best hope is with the Worker's Party - if only they can attract more professionals to accept the leadership of Low and Sylvia - especially when both are not known to have any clear political philosophy based on their unexpressed intellect.
GRC system puts a premium on parties to field credible teams, and so demonstrate that they are fit not just to become MPs but to form the government should they win a few GRCs under same umbrella. GRC requires any challenger also to field a strong team and offer a serious alternative. As such, they encourage responsible and credible political parties to emerge.
Does the GRC system put a premium on parties to field credible teams - or has it not been a fact that it is essential for any political parties to field credible candidates in either single representative constituencies or in GRCs ?
The GRC system is part of the multiple gerrymeandering strategies of LKY and the PAP to stack the cards in their own favor.
By itself, the GRC will probably offer a 50-50 chance to all parties concerned, but with the other tools of controls and influence manipulated and unashamedly wielded by the PAP - it allows the PAP to enjoy a handicapped advantage over all other parties.
for the record, single wards will be increased for the next general elections as if PAP is thumbing its nose and mocking oppositions' continuing failure not making inroads in GRCs and its obsession with single wards and thus bending backwards to offer them a seemingly handicap albeit as the ruling party they need not have to..
The fact that there will be more single wards in the upcoming election is not due to any altruistic efforts on the part of the PAP leadership, and is due to their internal grassroot reports that confirms a surge of discontentment in the heartlands towards the PAP.
The dismantling of the GRCs has more to do with self-preservation of the PAP - as they know that certain ministers are targetted by the population for the insenstivities and arrogance of their attitude towards public opinions.
Knowing that the ground has changed, and the politics of today is quite different from the last election in 2006, it will be sheer suicide for the PAP to remain arrogant when their own interest is at stake and ignore the signals from the ground.
The PAP is not stupid and even as much as they do not depend on straw polls, they will still depend on poll studies to gather intelligence of the political reactions to all the policies implemented over the last five years.
If the number of single wards are increased in the next general election, it is critical that Singaporeans should ignore any hint or insinuations of PAP's ability to trace the ballot papers to break the supposedly secrecy of the vote.
The fact that the PAP can know which HDB block to be moved into a redrawn electoral boundary is unsettling - as this serve to dilute the votes for the opposition that were abundant during the last election, and can only cast more doubt and fear in the Singapore electorate, especially when most are working for GLCs.
If the boundaries for the various wards remain fixed for every election, it would have at least allow the general population to vote without any undue influence.
-
Originally posted by Bentsb05:
even with those existing single wards to contest, oppositions cant make much success out of them except for the present 2, still want to talk so much....haizzz
already got 2 of them in parliament and they dont seem to raise much voice at all and even with few more if they do win cant do much too as mostly they will be from different opposition parties.
GRC system puts a premium on parties to field credible teams, and so demonstrate that they are fit not just to become MPs but to form the government should they win a few GRCs under same umbrella. GRC requires any challenger also to field a strong team and offer a serious alternative. As such, they encourage responsible and credible political parties to emerge.
for the record, single wards will be increased for the next general elections as if PAP is thumbing its nose and mocking oppositions' continuing failure not making inroads in GRCs and its obsession with single wards and thus bending backwards to offer them a seemingly handicap albeit as the ruling party they need not have to..
I strongly disagree with your posting
- There is no such thing as GRCs ANYWHERE else in the world. As such, it's only a gimmick for the PAP to protect their territory. The standard methods to prevent the opposition from becoming a force to be reckoned with are (a) propagate the myth that joining the opposition will result in negative consequences to an individual (See Jeya, CSJ, etc), (b) put up roadblocks such as deposits to reduce opposition participation in the elections, (c) create GRCs to ensure the effects of (a) and (b) are maximized
- And if the GRC system is as you mentioned, to "put a premium on parties to field credible teams", why not just have 1 seat to represent the entire GRC area, instead of putting several seats, which increases costs for the taxpayer?
As I said, your comments don't make much sense to me, because GRCs don't make sense in the 1st place.
Some other idiot (an individual who cannot decide if it wants to be a he or she) mentioned that a GRC helps to create economies of scale as decisions can be made for a larger region. In the 1st place, why do you even need to have a GRC then? Just have ONE SEAT to represent that region so that you have THAT economies of scale in the 1st place.
PS: The reason why you feel the 2 opposition MPS are "not raising much noise at all", is because you solely rely on the media with the lowest freedom in the world for information. Therefore, all they need to do is NOT TO report on what the 2 opposition MPs are raising in parliament, and that's "not raising much noise" to you
-
GRC is a flawed system. It doesn't serve the interests of the people but politicians to stay in power.
-
the GRC system if anyone can remember, works like what atobe described, it allows a back door for incompetent mps to become maybe ministers, however the mistaken belief soul rage is that if the GRC as a team was to be 1 seat, it'll be back to like a SMC again, the loophole here in the GRC is that when one mp fails, theres 2 or 3 to back him/her up and the result counts on the overall performance as a team, not on the single member of the team, this is where the loophole is, this is the reason why GRC also will NOT be 1 seat to represent as a whole.
-
Originally posted by Atobe:
Equitable ?Can it be equitable when one who is rejected by a constituency which one has selected to stand in, but will get pulled up by the marginal results of the other candidates in the other constituencies that form a GRC ?
It would have been more equitable if in the GRC system - the losing candidate that cannot even garner 25 per cent of the ballot should concede to its opponent - even if this constituency is part of a GRC.
The manner in which the GRC is designed can only benefit the incumbent political party - when the other circumstances are all controlled by the incumbent.
Besides the GRC, the Electoral Commission is controlled by the Prime Minister's Office, and the electoral boundaries are headed by a Minister who is from the ruling party.
If all politicians or inspired-to-be politicians are all equal in strength with standard deviation of a few percentage, then how would dismantling the GRCs concept help?Given a single SRC, an equally in talent candidates from both parties is similar to a pool of all equal four-member team led by a veteran or minister. The frightening part is should the PAP lose a GRC, the opposite party wins big. Just like investment. The more risk involved, the more the rate of returns.
As for the Electoral Commission being controlled by PM's office, are you proposing that the government should privatise a sovernign, fair and dignify election process to a private company?
-
Originally posted by TooFree:
If all politicians or inspired-to-be politicians are all equal in strength with standard deviation of a few percentage, then how would dismantling the GRCs concept help?Given a single SRC, an equally in talent candidates from both parties is similar to a pool of all equal four-member team led by a veteran or minister. The frightening part is should the PAP lose a GRC, the opposite party wins big. Just like investment. The more risk involved, the more the rate of returns.
As for the Electoral Commission being controlled by PM's office, are you proposing that the government should privatise a sovernign, fair and dignify election process to a private company?
does favourtism that might lead to a downfall rings a bell ? if the election comission is indepedent from the PMO, the elections would more likely be based on the mps talent and capability.
-
well, they should get a neutral person like me to count the vote, those counter are public servant officers, alternatively, we can employ a third party to count for us, that will be more transparent.
My dad said there is a counter in seasme street very good in counting.
-
Another daily routine display of idiocy and irrelevance of the Taiwanese 'hum' to exercise its ‘Labia Majora’ and ‘Labia Minora’ - simply to attract attention to the itself as the resident 'Attention Seeking Whore'.
-
Originally posted by angel7030:
well, they should get a neutral person like me to count the vote, those counter are public servant officers, alternatively, we can employ a third party to count for us, that will be more transparent.
My dad said there is a counter in seasme street very good in counting.
They no stupid and blind to get you, getting you to do is asking for trouble. You will go there display your puay chau chee bye to disrupt attention to get men patronize you. Cheap whore talking dirt. -
Originally posted by soul_rage:
I strongly disagree with your posting
- There is no such thing as GRCs ANYWHERE else in the world. As such, it's only a gimmick for the PAP to protect their territory. The standard methods to prevent the opposition from becoming a force to be reckoned with are (a) propagate the myth that joining the opposition will result in negative consequences to an individual (See Jeya, CSJ, etc), (b) put up roadblocks such as deposits to reduce opposition participation in the elections, (c) create GRCs to ensure the effects of (a) and (b) are maximized
- And if the GRC system is as you mentioned, to "put a premium on parties to field credible teams", why not just have 1 seat to represent the entire GRC area, instead of putting several seats, which increases costs for the taxpayer?
As I said, your comments don't make much sense to me, because GRCs don't make sense in the 1st place.
Some other idiot (an individual who cannot decide if it wants to be a he or she) mentioned that a GRC helps to create economies of scale as decisions can be made for a larger region. In the 1st place, why do you even need to have a GRC then? Just have ONE SEAT to represent that region so that you have THAT economies of scale in the 1st place.
PS: The reason why you feel the 2 opposition MPS are "not raising much noise at all", is because you solely rely on the media with the lowest freedom in the world for information. Therefore, all they need to do is NOT TO report on what the 2 opposition MPs are raising in parliament, and that's "not raising much noise" to you
1: THERE IS GRC in somewhere else IN THE EARTH. It just that they dont name it as GRC (Probably due to non-English country or something else??)
The 3 other countries are Cameroon, Chad, Djibouti
All these 3 countries with GRC are from African countries. (No exception and all 3 have a lower GDP than ours)
Best of all, Djibouti has one of the "GRC" has 37 seats out of entire parliment's 65 seats.
Source: http://aceproject.org/ace-en/topics/es/esd/esd01/esd01c
-
Originally posted by Samuel Lee:
1: THERE IS GRC in somewhere else IN THE EARTH. It just that they dont name it as GRC (Probably due to non-English country or something else??)
The 3 other countries are Cameroon, Chad, Djibouti
All these 3 countries with GRC are from African countries. (No exception and all 3 have a lower GDP than ours)
Best of all, Djibouti has one of the "GRC" has 37 seats out of entire parliment's 65 seats.
Source: http://aceproject.org/ace-en/topics/es/esd/esd01/esd01c
Interesting fact. Thanks for the information.
Interestingly, the 3 countries are 3rd world countries not known for democracy as well. So, I guess our PAP can selectively choose these 3 countries to prove that GRCs exist in other places as well, and to justify their case.
-
For your info, those 3 countries took the formula from us during their learning journey in Singapore. We are infact a model for many countries who come and study...even in china, shanghai, the bus stop and taxi system is modelled from us,...i went there and find the same bus stop as singapore...maybe second hand one from singapore.
As for taxi, initially, comfort make a big loss in shanghai, because the drivers loan out the brand new taxi and drove home to his village without returning it....damn,
-
wheres the link to join?
-
Originally posted by Y_Shun:
wheres the link to join?
Google or go Temasek REview to find out -
Being born in the years of racial tumoil, I had originally thought that it is sensible that minorities rights are being represented in the GRC system (3 contituency in 1 GRC). However it seems to me that instead, in the name of racial harmony, I have given away my rights to vote when the system changes from 3 to 4 to 5, 6....where Braddel is Marine Parade GRC
I therefore support the cause of abolishing GRC before more changes may come and take away our rights to vote.
-
Originally posted by SevenEleven:
Being born in the years of racial tumoil, I had originally thought that it is sensible that minorities rights are being represented in the GRC system (3 contituency in 1 GRC). However it seems to me that instead, in the name of racial harmony, I have given away my rights to vote when the system changes from 3 to 4 to 5, 6....where Braddel is Marine Parade GRC
I therefore support the cause of abolishing GRC before more changes may come and take away our rights to vote.
so that means grc is still a good idea just that it has been abused. the best is not abolish grc, but bring it back to 3-man grc like before for minorituy representation. don't throw the baby out with the bath water
-
Originally posted by Samuel Lee:
1: THERE IS GRC in somewhere else IN THE EARTH. It just that they dont name it as GRC (Probably due to non-English country or something else??)
The 3 other countries are Cameroon, Chad, Djibouti
All these 3 countries with GRC are from African countries. (No exception and all 3 have a lower GDP than ours)
Best of all, Djibouti has one of the "GRC" has 37 seats out of entire parliment's 65 seats.
Source: http://aceproject.org/ace-en/topics/es/esd/esd01/esd01c
I think the other complex voting system is Lebanon. which has a religion representative and political factions voting system. -
if GRC really need minority representation why some GRC got 6 candidates leh? i tot only muslim, indians, chinese,eurasians. the other 2 includes china PRS and indian PRS?
we all know what GRC about, PAP claim are just to satisfy their own lust for power and the state control media will never make a challenge on that front.
-
Originally posted by SevenEleven:
Being born in the years of racial tumoil, I had originally thought that it is sensible that minorities rights are being represented in the GRC system (3 contituency in 1 GRC). However it seems to me that instead, in the name of racial harmony, I have given away my rights to vote when the system changes from 3 to 4 to 5, 6....where Braddel is Marine Parade GRC
I therefore support the cause of abolishing GRC before more changes may come and take away our rights to vote.
Agree with SevenEleven. -
it is time the PAPyoung members can stand up and fight like a man instead of being baby and hiding behind ministers
-
Originally posted by reyes:
it is time the PAPyoung members can stand up and fight like a man instead of being baby and hiding behind ministers
"Mollycoddled"
