Mathematic equation of a GRC

[RoyMcFarland]

The PAP says that the GRC system is to help minority candidates get into parliament. The argument being, that a minority candidate, no matter how good he/she is, will not beat a Chinese opposition candidate. (or at the very least, will struggle against the opposition candidate)

As a minority, I might accept this argument, although it also means that the Govt's multiracial policies of the past 52 years have been an abject failure.

The percentage of minorities in Singapore have generally been constant at about 20 to 25%. Even allowing for a maximum of 35%, that means about 30 minority candidates.

Why do we need 4 man, 5man and 6 man GRCs? Why not just have 30 2 man GRCs(pair a Chinese with an Indian or Malay) and 27 single member wards?

Bear in mind, I'm using the maximum of 35%. It will usually be lower than that. In that case some GRCs can have both Chinese candidates.

Or is the GRC another way of getting certain candidates into Parliament and on to higher office on the coat tails of existing ministers? Is it a coincidence that the PAP suddenly became aware of the minority problem after Mah Bow Tan lost against Chiam in 1984 when all were single member seats? The GRC concept emerged in the next elections in 1988....

 

[jw5]

This is one of their biggest "brainwave" in the history of SG politics and elections.
It would have been the second biggest if they had gone through on oldman's "1 man 3 vote" suggestion.

It is exactly as you said in the last para. And it's not even to get the top minority candidates in.
Take Jurong GRC for example. The candidates are Tharman, Halimah, and 3 chinese newbies.
Does someone like Tharman need the grc system to be elected? I think not. Some will argue that the newbies are riding on HIS coat-tails.
Tharman will win a one-on-one contest against almost anybody.

This is also an insult for the thinking ability of the Singaporean people.
Will a rational and intelligent voter, regardless of his race, vote for a less capable candidate of the same race? Again, I think not.

Even if they want to be super safe and super sure that minorities are represented, like you said, they could have 2 man or even 3 man grcs.
Another way is to allocate cetain smcs for minority candidates. Opposition wants to take part, put up the minority candidate. Don't want, don't contest.
SG is a multi racial country. If any voter in any constituency doesn't like his mp being a minority, then get out of the constituency or even the country.
Another way would be to make all parties contesting elections put up a certain % of minority candidates. The % could be exactly the same as the current population of SG. Trust the voters to be rational and intelligent and vote the capable candidate, not the one of same race.

Thanks for bringing up this topic. I also started a thread entitled "An Ironic Twist On The GRC system", which essentially says that this policy may just come back and bite the pappies in the ass. Now you may have "newbie CSM" riding on the coat-tails of popular and steady LTK. No wonder Georgie is getting all worried and flustered.

 

[Equalisation]

This whole GRC system is a big sham ....... totally shameless to say the least ....

 

[Cestbon]

This is one of their biggest "brainwave" in the history of SG politics and elections.
It would have been the second biggest if they had gone through on oldman's "1 man 3 vote" suggestion.

It is exactly as you said in the last para. And it's not even to get the top minority candidates in.
Take Jurong GRC for example. The candidates are Tharman, Halimah, and 3 chinese newbies.
Does someone like Tharman need the grc system to be elected? I think not. Some will argue that the newbies are riding on HIS coat-tails.
Tharman will win a one-on-one contest against almost anybody.

This is also an insult for the thinking ability of the Singaporean people.
Will a rational and intelligent voter, regardless of his race, vote for a less capable candidate of the same race? Again, I think not.

Even if they want to be super safe and super sure that minorities are represented, like you said, they could have 2 man or even 3 man grcs.
Another way is to allocate cetain smcs for minority candidates. Opposition wants to take part, put up the minority candidate. Don't want, don't contest.
SG is a multi racial country. If any voter in any constituency doesn't like his mp being a minority, then get out of the constituency or even the country.
Another way would be to make all parties contesting elections put up a certain % of minority candidates. The % could be exactly the same as the current population of SG. Trust the voters to be rational and intelligent and vote the capable candidate, not the one of same race.

Thanks for bringing up this topic. I also started a thread entitled "An Ironic Twist On The GRC system", which essentially says that this policy may just come back and bite the pappies in the ass. Now you may have "newbie CSM" riding on the coat-tails of popular and steady LTK. No wonder Georgie is getting all worried and flustered.

Good point.
If Tharman vs PM LHL in directly SMC fight . Tharman will win . Even he is minority as a opposition.

 

[yellow_people]

The PAP says that the GRC system is to help minority candidates get into parliament. The argument being, that a minority candidate, no matter how good he/she is, will not beat a Chinese opposition candidate. (or at the very least, will struggle against the opposition candidate)

This is not what the PAP says. Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong's comment on 27 April, was the opposition parties would not make the effort to field good minority candidates if there wasn't a GRC requirement.

Take a look at the minority candidates in the WP 'A' team. 6 months ago no one had even heard of Pritam Singh and Abdul Manap.

If the minority requirement wasn't there, would LTK bother to field Malay or Indian candidates let alone make the effort to look for one?

-

 

[Forvendet]

So now you're supporting the GRC system. Indian isn't even required at Aljunied GRC. Why did WP put them there?

 

[Debonerman]

I am sure the PAP has the spreadsheet numbers and I won't pretend I know what they are. But one thing for sure, basing on ground sentiments, this GE's results will not be a vindication of PAP rule but the implication of what they themselves had been deaf to. That is, the people are feeling enough is enough!

Stop harping on the minority question. The insecurity of the Malays MUST always be addressed hence an indispensable requirement. Bang for the buck, vis a vis a Chinese, nothing comes close to a glib tongued Indian.! Lawyer lawyer.

That said, I won't give a fuck if the Opposition send in an Eskimo as long as the question of housing and job competition from the FT invasion is resolved.

 

[yellow_people]

So now you're supporting the GRC system. Indian isn't even required at Aljunied GRC. Why did WP put them there?

Where did I say I support the GRC system? All I asked was if charlatan Low would have bothered with minority representation .. what do you think?

Not sure why Low Thai Khiang put Pritam Singh in Aljunied.. perhaps you may want to ask charlatan Low? Pritam is a Sikh by the way. He is as Indian as a Mongolian is Chinese.


-

 

[mscitw]

The GRC system smacks of patronage where new lackeys will rely on the anchorman as a backdoor to parliament. It will not work in the long term because the lackey will be disposed to assisting his patron detrimental to peasants' interests. The GRC should be abolished alone for this risk of patronage.

The purpose of representative democracy is to force the ruling class to consider retail politics when formulating policies. Without undergoing the rigours of vote canvassing (buying), the 'elected' representatives have no accountability to the peasants and will only assist the ruling party to rubber stamp policies that will ruin the country without popular support.

 

[Forvendet]

Where did I say I support the GRC system? All I asked was if charlatan Low would have bothered with minority representation .. what do you think?

Not sure why Low Thai Khiang put Pritam Singh in Aljunied.. perhaps you may want to ask charlatan Low? Pritam is a Sikh by the way. He is as Indian as a Mongolian is Chinese.


-

Last I checked, Sikhs are from Punjab and Punjab has been part of India for millennia. Also, Chinese Mongolians outnumber Mongolia Mongolians 10:1. So please, stop all these ethnic differentiations. It's clear from your strings of past postings, you're only interested in attacking WP and LTK, whatever they do. Fine, it's your democratic right to be personal. I don't know what's your personal history of grudge and vendetta against them, not my business.

 

[depeche]

Don't believe this nonsense lah...GRC is just a kiasu tactic from Old Man...It's a bao jia way to send them all into Parliament without contest.
Vote the opposition in GRC and prove the bastard wrong!

 

[yellow_people]

Stop harping on the minority question. The insecurity of the Malays MUST always be addressed hence an indispensable requirement. Bang for the buck, vis a vis a Chinese, nothing comes close to a glib tongued Indian.! Lawyer lawyer.

With all the harping on GRC system and gerrymander not only from Charlatan Low but from his support base.. it would appear the Chinese are the ones that are insecure.. Not the Malays. It is too bad LTK and his WP did not reach out to the Malay since 2006... he was told of the short-coming in his strategy back then.

That said, I won't give a fuck if the Opposition send in an Eskimo as long as the question of housing and job competition from the FT invasion is resolved.

Now that's a good point and I agree with you 100%. What has Charlatan Low and his side kick Sylvia done in parliament since 2006?

Besides saying the following:

1. Saying opposition should be responsible? So exactly who are the irresponsible opposition?

2. Alluding to CSJ as 'mad dog'?

3. Giving the PAP govt the thumbs up?

4. Agreeing that the PAP is best suited to form the govt?

5. SL agreeing with JayaKumar in IBF that Singapore judiciary is far and square. With opposition yes-men and women like this, what the kind of check and balance is WP talking about in the rallies?

6. Siding with LKY when Sadasivan hammered the PAP in parliament, that the pledge should be left out of parliament. I guess the pledge can be used in election rallies.. hmmm? Like when LTK and SL did on their closing rally in 2006?

This is rather important since WP are rallying on the grounds that we need "check and balance" in parliament, an insurance policy, spare tyre and a co-driver.. yet the WP has offered meek resistance in parliament and have sided with the PAP on several occasions to the detriment of the citizen. I can understand the fear factor.. believe me.. but in that case its easy .. just keep your fucking mouth shut when NMPs like Sadasivan are busy skewering old man and his team. Easy don't you think?

What the fuck kind of check and balance is the WP talking about?


-

 

[yellow_people]

Last I checked, Sikhs are from Punjab and Punjab has been part of India for millennia. Also, Chinese Mongolians outnumber Mongolia Mongolians 10:1. So please, stop all these ethnic differentiations. It's clear from your strings of past postings, you're only interested in attacking WP and LTK, whatever they do. Fine, it's your democratic right to be personal. I don't know what's your personal history of grudge and vendetta against them, not my business.

Punjab is merely a territory, or a state within the Indian sub-continent. Even than the relationship has been difficult as China's is with Tibet as the Golden temple incident back in the 80s will testify for those who know their history. Sikhs have their own customs, practices and religious holidays separate from Indians.

Like I keep saying, WP's understand[ing] of the Indian and Malay ground is woeful.


-


-

 

[Forvendet]

It's fine with me, like I said, you're entitled to your opinion, however personal it gets.

 

[yellow_people]

It's clear from your strings of past postings, you're only interested in attacking WP and LTK, whatever they do. Fine, it's your democratic right to be personal. I don't know what's your personal history of grudge and vendetta against them, not my business.

So its okay to bash PAP in this forum .. but legitimate questions about WP are not allowed? I have raised valid questions.. it is just that no one has the decency to address them and would rather question my race (like JW5 did) or assume its a grudge or vendatta like you are doing now.... my agenda is simple...


the quicker we get rid of pseudo opposition charlatans like LTK, the quicker we can go about building a democratic nation.


-

 

[Forvendet]

Excuse me, I said it's alright, all your democratic rights to bash anybody or any party.

 

[yellow_people]

Excuse me, I said it's alright, all your democratic rights to bash anybody or any party.

Thank you sir.. now please get back to boot-licking WP.

-

 

[Forvendet]

Thank you sir.. now please get back to boot-licking WP.

-

And you sir, do the same with SDP, if supporting a party can be called bootlicking. I didn't even volunteer for any WP election activity. In fact, I live in Bishan-Toa Payoh GRC and will be voting for CST. I know you don't like him too.

 

[Frankiestine]

The PAP says that the GRC system is to help minority candidates get into parliament. The argument being, that a minority candidate, no matter how good he/she is, will not beat a Chinese opposition candidate. (or at the very least, will struggle against the opposition candidate...)

It just another crap excuse by the men in white sheets to sneak in more of their people throught the back door. They knew down the road support for them will fall and if they will to fight on a SMC voting system, they will lose many more seats. What is the logic for a 5 or 6 man GRC, synergy or economic of scale? Well I don't see what is the problem for two 3 man GRC to combine together after winning the election to offer some economic of scales in running the town council. Again they say a 5 or 6 man GRC can run better but then again as in the recent case of the demise of the Bukit Batok MP, why then wasn't there a need to call for re-election to bring equilibrium back to the team?

 

[RoyMcFarland]

This is not what the PAP says. Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong's comment on 27 April, was the opposition parties would not make the effort to field good minority candidates if there wasn't a GRC requirement.

Take a look at the minority candidates in the WP 'A' team. 6 months ago no one had even heard of Pritam Singh and Abdul Manap.

If the minority requirement wasn't there, would LTK bother to field Malay or Indian candidates let alone make the effort to look for one?

-

I'm not referring to whatever the PM said now. I'm talking about what the then PM said in 1988. And it was 3 man GRCs in 1988. My question is why we need 4, 5, 6 man GRCs?

"Punjab is merely a territory, or a state within the Indian sub-continent. Even than the relationship has been difficult as China's is with Tibet as the Golden temple incident back in the 80s will testify for those who know their history. Sikhs have their own customs, practices and religious holidays separate from Indians."

Do you know who "Indians" are? They are anybody who hails from the Indian sub-continent. Punjabis, Gujuratis, Sindhis, Tamils, Malayalees, Telegus, Bengalis etc etc
Sikhs or Sikhism is a religion. Like Hindus, Muslims, Christians, Buddhists, Zorastrians, Jews etc etc. So, a Tamil who is a Catholic, a Punjabi who is a Sikh, a Punjabi who is a Muslim, a Punjabi who is a Hindu, a Malayalee who is a Syrian Christian, a Malayalee who is a Muslim, a Bengali who is a Buddhist etc etc are all "Indians"

End of lesson.