In Part 3 of a series of articles on the GRC system, Rajiv Chaudhry reveals the reasons behind the GRC system, and also how the PAP has continued to amend the GRC system over the years to further strengthen its near-monopoly of Parliament. In Part 4, he calls for the Government to truly ensure proportional representation for minority races.


Part 4: Cutting The Wool

Proportional representation for minority races?

To go back to the first principles stated in the Parliamentary Elections Act, the main  purpose of GRCs is to ensure minority representation in Parliament. The assumption is that in a racially dispersed Singapore, minorities will find it difficult to get themselves elected without some form of affirmative action.

If the Government is serious about this objective and sincere in its motives, and GRCs are not merely an electoral ploy to skew the playing field in favour of the ruling party, it must take steps to clearly lay down the principles in the constitution so that they are institutionalised and enshrined in the electoral process. Racial percentages in Parliament should ideally reflect percentages of the minority races in the population at large.

The most effective way of achieving this is for the number of seats for each minority group in Parliament to be fixed and for the representatives to be elected directly by each minority group on a national basis ie Malays elect Malay MPs, Indians elect Indian MPs and so on.

Such direct elections should make up the difference, if any, between the numbers determined by the racial percentages and the actual numbers elected on normal party tickets. For example, if Malays have 15 seats in a 100 member house and only 5 are elected directly on party tickets, the remaining 10 seats should be filled from a slate to be put up by the community at large.

Since the minority races make up only 25% of the population, it is unlikely that such direct elections will either undo the benefits of years of homogenisation that PAP housing policies have brought about or overwhelm majority views in Parliament. The fear that such direct elections might re-introduce unhealthy race-based politics which have largely been stamped out over the years are overblown. Our constitution provides for equality before the law. Further, suitable safeguards and “OB markers” can be put in place to determine what is or is not allowed in the political process. If this can be successfully done, it could take Singapore politics to a new level of maturity. Such direct representation should result in each community’s interests being more faithfully represented in Parliament and for an overall more constructive engagement with the minority communities.

Lessons

MM Lee with Charlie Rose

When Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew was interviewed by Charlie Rose, the Emmy award winning TV journalist on PBS, an American channel, he was asked the question all foreign journalists love to ask him: “Mr Lee, you have a reputation for being an authoritarian person. What do you have to say to that?”

Without batting an eyelid, Mr Lee replied “Well, the people have elected me in free and fair elections, time and again, have they not?”

Well, Mr Lee and his government have certainly been elected time and again. But, in the light of the evidence presented here, have the elections been free and, more importantly, fair?

Free and fair?

There is little dispute that elections in Singapore are generally peaceful and free. The electorate is able to exercise its franchise freely, without coercion and in secret. Although ballot papers are numbered, there has never been any allegation of improper use of ballot paper serial numbers since elections began in Singapore in 1948.

Nevertheless, lingering doubts remain in voters’ minds regarding the anonymity of their vote. To remove these residual doubts, the process of physically checking voters in at the voting booth against their registration numbers and the issuing of numbered voting slips should be delinked. This can be easily done by allowing voters to draw the voting slips at random, after they have been admitted. This should assuage the concerns of both the government, for control and checks over the voting process, and voters who might harbour doubts about the traceability of the voting slips. This simple change will, in itself, go a long way towards removing the climate of fear under which so many Singaporeans dwell.

What about the issue of fairness? Here the evidence is much more skewed.

The first premise of a free and open democracy is that the people must be able to elect the representatives that they wish to elect. For this to happen, there should be no unfair barriers preventing those who wish to represent the people from standing for election.

The corollary to this is an independent press, unfettered by obligations to any political overlords or indeed, to any other masters (sometimes it is beholden to powerful business interests, which can be  almost as unhealthy).

Political parties must have ample opportunity to canvass votes.

And the representatives so elected must have empathy for and know their constituents and their needs intimately. (More information on this subject can be found here)

Seen in this light, the Prime Minister’s singular obsession with “strong” governments to the exclusion of other political virtues is both misplaced and indicative of a lack of confidence in the electorate. It is symptomatic of immaturity in the whole body politic resulting from years of overly strong, top-down government.

After a long period of sustained strong growth and spectacular economic success, it was to be hoped, indeed, expected that the political space would blossom into one of greater maturity and openness.

Instead, the Government has chosen to remain behind its barricades. The implication behind the Government’s pronouncements in 2009 on changes to the electoral system is that less “strong” governments will lead us down the slippery path to ruination. Our small size and lack of resources is cited as the reason for this caution.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

I would submit, without hesitation, that it is in the best long-term interests of the country for a plurality of responsible political views to emerge. These views need to be debated in the open market-place of ideas, both in and out of the legislature. A monopoly on ideas and political processes, like monopolies of any other kind is stifling, inefficient, atrophying and ultimately ruinous for the country.

This emphasis on strong governments has enfeebled the body politic in Singapore. In the event of a “freak election” in which the government is voted out, the country is poorly positioned with frail and inadequately prepared opposition parties. These parties have neither the experience of running a government nor do they have the depth of membership to be able to put up a full slate of ministers. Such are the consequences of the “banyan tree” political system that Singapore has been under these past 45 years of independence.

Rajiv Chaudhry is a member of the Reform Party and a contributor to TOC. The views expressed are his own. The articles were written in 2009 before he joined the Reform Party.

Subscribe
Notify of
0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
You May Also Like

Dirty Little Tactics by SMRT

~ By Ethan Wong ~ The following is Ethan's letter to Minister…

地跌站偷拍裙底照被追捕 被逮男子猝死现场

“我没有杀他啊!”,参与制伏46岁偷拍男嫌犯的五名公众之一,如是指出。他们是在小印度地铁站目睹嫌犯偷拍女子裙底风光后,将对方制伏时,对方却突然呕吐后身亡,令他们感到措手不及。 受询及此事时,新加坡警察部队证实于上周五(11月1日)中午12时45分,接获人民投报。惟,当他们赶抵现场时,嫌犯已躺在地上无声无息了,警员在医务人员抵达前,为男子进行心脏复苏术(CPR),但是医务人员随后检查,宣布嫌犯当场死亡。 警方将此案列为非自然死亡案件处理。 追捕者曾尝试救人 据悉,嫌犯为46岁的何志明(译音),他被人目睹在小印度地铁站偷拍女子裙底照,因此被“追捕”到尼文路(Niven Road)后遭五人压制在地上。但是嫌犯却开始不断呕吐,令制伏他的五人都吓了一跳。 他们在嫌犯出现异状后就松手了,有者想为他进行心脏复苏术,甚至从家中拿出急救箱想帮助嫌犯,但是嫌犯已经一动不动了。 据《新明日报》周日刊出的报导,其中一名追捕者表示,嫌犯的体型比他还大一些,而且在追捕行动时,他被推倒在一旁,甚至扭伤了脚踝。但是嫌犯突然死去也令他感到非常大的心理压力,甚至失眠了两个晚上。 《晚报》也指出,另一名追捕者在接受警方录供时,几乎崩溃了。 据一名不愿具名的受访者指出,身穿橙色T恤和黄色百慕达短裤的嫌犯,被五人逮住时,仅被压制在地上,手被反扣在身后,也没人像叠罗汉般压在他身上,因此相信并非该五人导致其死亡。 另一名22岁的女目击者指出,嫌犯当时脸色青白,且大张着眼睛,死状非常恐怖。 警方在抵达现场后,展开了将近3小时的调查,随后在下午4时许才解除现场的封锁。…

Teacher at PAP Community Foundation Sparkletots centre confirmed with COVID-19

On Monday (23 March), 54 new COVID-19 cases were reported, and 48…

已故纳吉亲信婆媳争遗产 揭生前拥7亿新元身家

根据马国《当今大马》报导,该国已故前部长丹斯里贾玛鲁丁母亲,向伊斯兰高庭入禀申索儿子遗产,媒体才从而得知,其子财产价值超过21亿令吉(约七亿新元)。 贾玛鲁丁生前任科学工艺部长,也是彭亨云冰区国会议员,不幸在2015年在直升机坠毁事故中丧生。他也被视为前首相纳吉的亲信。 其84岁母亲阿米娜是在今年3月2日,根据1993年伊斯兰行政法律(联邦直辖区)第46(ix)条文下,入禀有关申请。 阿米娜代表律师卡玛埃尼亚指出,贾玛鲁丁也是马国驻美大使,在马来西亚、美国和麦加拥有20个房产和公司。 其中有20亿令吉乃是15家公司股权、其余则包括22项房地产、21个共存有1千500万令吉的银行账户。 根据诉状,贾玛鲁丁在美国拥有一间公寓,在麦加则有一间价值约132万新元的公寓。其余国内资产,则分布在马国彭亨州、霹雳、吉隆坡、薛澜儿、布城和柔佛,其中两项房产个别价值都超过661万新元。 他在纳吉选区北根(Pekan)拥有九栋房屋,在其生前选区云冰则坐拥四栋房屋以及在彭亨关丹的两间房屋。 阿米娜是与贾玛鲁丁遗孀潘斯里卡尔森和四名子女分配遗产。他要求法庭将波士顿的公寓和部分麦加皇家钟楼费尔蒙大厦(Fairmont Makkah)房产下判给他。 根据伊斯兰法,如果死者没立遗嘱,他的母亲可得死者遗产六分之一,而遗孀获得八分之一,子女则获其余遗产。阿米娜则向法庭申请继承五分之一遗产。 贾玛鲁丁生前自1990年开始就担任云冰国会议员,他是在2015年4月4日,在北根出席了纳吉女儿婚宴后,乘搭直升机返回雪兰莪时,不幸遭遇空难,与纳吉机要秘书阿兹林等五名乘客全部罹难。 马国《星报》有关贾玛鲁丁遭遇空难的新闻视频。…