This post is not about party lines. It is not about PAP or alternative parties. It’s not about who you voted for yesterday.
This post is about the fact that no matter how you vote, Singapore’s Parliament will never be able to represent all Singaporeans as long as we have the Group Representative Constituency (GRC) system. And that is something that all of us, no matter whether we are supporters of PAP or the opposition, can come together and agree on.
In a GRC system, we vote according to party slate for a team of 4, 5 or 6 people. Then, according to the “first past the post” system, the winner takes all. This means that not only are we getting a government that might not necessarily reflect the will of the electorate (like how a pretty significant number of the British were complaining about before they were unfortunately quashed by the “No” voters in the recent referendum), we are also getting a Parliament that does not reflect the will of the electorate. We are getting Members of Parliament who were possibly not legitimately elected by the people.
In the GE 2011, the PAP got about 60% of the votes, and yet 93% of the seats in Parliament. Does that sound right to you?
If you don’t see the problem with that, let me put it this way:
Goodbye George Yeo. Goodbye Chiam See Tong. Hello Tin Pei Ling, Janil Putucheary, Chan Chun Sing and Chia Shi-Lu (whose sudden appearance on Nomination Day makes a joke out of the PAP’s criticisms of the opposition sprouting “opportunistically” out of ground only once every 5 years).
I know we didn’t really have a choice about the last two, since Tanjong Pagar was a walkover, but they are nonetheless part of the GRC system. Does that sound right to you?
When the GRC system was first implemented in 1988, the government said that it was to ensure minority representation in Parliament, because the majority Chinese voters might have only voted for Chinese candidates, leaving minority groups unrepresented. Have been about -4 months old at that point (i.e. not yet born), I cannot speak from personal experience about whether people really voted according to race in those days. Perhaps they did. I don’t know.
But I do know this: we don’t vote according to race now. Among all the talk and discussion of candidates in the GE 2011 period, not once have I heard, “I’m not voting for him/her because he/she is *insert race here*.”
In an episode of Talking Point broadcast on Channel NewsAsia before the elections, Secretary-General Goh Meng Seng of NSP made a very good point:
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qXcpuGUZkBI]
Michael Palmer, a minority candidate, stood in the Punggol-East SMC, and won. As Mr Goh said, doesn’t this fly in the face of the official rationale behind the GRC system, which is that minority candidates need it so as to be able to get into Parliament. Mr Palmer is living proof that the Singaporean electorate judges the candidate by his or her own merit, and not his or her race.
So why do we still have the GRC system if we’ve outgrown it?
In June 2006, then SM Goh Chok Tong was quoted by the Straits Times as having said, ”Without some assurance of a good chance of winning at least their first election, many able and successful young Singaporeans may not risk their careers to join politics.”
This suggests that even in the last elections the GRC system was not about minority representation. It was about giving young and new candidates an easy ride into Parliament, so that more people would be willing to take that chance. But is that really the sort of leaders that we want? People who are joining politics because it seems to be largely “risk-free”, and because they can coast through at least their first elections on the backs of more experienced politicians, and then collect large pay packets?
Chia Shi-Lu, an overnight MP
Also, elections are about finding the people that the electorate want to represent them in the legislative process and the running of the country. Not about recruiting fresh young faces for any party’s renewal process. (It’s clear when SM Goh talking about the “assurance of a good chance of winning”, he is only talking about new candidates of the PAP, since new candidates of alternative parties will never have any assurance.) So why do we need to skew the system to guarantee a win for new, inexperienced and even unpopular candidates?
This is about free and fair elections. This is about democracy. This is about fair representation. This is about the voice of all Singaporeans, no matter which way they voted. This is about getting the best people in to Parliament, as chosen by Singaporeans.
How many people actually voted for her? Would she have won a seat in a SMC?
When the residents of Aljunied voted for the Workers’ Party, were they really trying to get rid of George Yeo? When the residents of Bishan-Toa Payoh voted for the PAP, did they really think that Chiam See Tong does not deserve to be in Parliament? When the residents of Marine Parade voted for the PAP, did they really want Tin Pei Ling?
If not for the GRC system, we might have the likes of Low Thia Khiang, Sylvia Lim, Chen Show Mao AND George Yeo in Parliament today. We might have SM Goh, without Tin Pei Ling. We might have Chiam See Tong.
As a Singaporean, I cannot help but feel that the GRC system has cheated me of the best people available to lead my country. That the unworthy have managed to slide in, while those who have served with dedication and distinction have been left out in this skewed game. And that is just not democratic.
In 2011, the GRC system has not ensured representation for all Singaporeans. In fact, it has ensured a misrepresentation of our people and our community. 60% of Singaporeans are being represented by 81 voices in Parliament, while 40% of Singaporeans are being represented by only 6.
Sure, the 6 seats we have this time ’round are better than the 2 we had the last time. But the fact remains that these 6 seats will not be able to stop the 81 seats from bulldozing policies through that will affect 100% of Singaporeans. Essentially, 60% of Singaporeans have given the mandate for the objections of 40% of Singaporeans to be bulldozed over.
It’s not the fault of the 60%. It’s the fault of the system. A system that is a huge obstacle in our path to becoming a more democratic country.
No matter whether you voted for the PAP or the opposition, I think we can all agree that we want Singapore to be a democratic country. So, no matter what party you support, let us come together to call for the abolishment of the GRC system.
Let us no longer be misrepresented.
bookjunkie
May 8, 2011
I would like a system where I get a chance to make a choice on all the available candidates based on their merits. Sad that I didn’t have a chance to vote for Mr Chiam See Tong, Vincent Wijeysingha or Nicole Seah….and many others. Out of the PAP candidates I have heard only good things about Amy Khor and Lily Neo. I confess all this from the internet as I hardly read the ST.
raist
May 8, 2011
”Without some assurance of a good chance of winning at least their first election, many able and successful young Singaporeans may not risk their careers to join politics.”
contrast this with what Vincent said in his (second, if i remember correctly) rally speech when he spoke about how the opposition candidates have everything to lose and little to gain. they are all well established in their careers but yet they risk it all in the spirit of public service.
it just makes me sick to my gut
Aloysius
May 8, 2011
In 2011, the GRC system has not ensured representation for all Singaporeans. In fact, it has ensured a misrepresentation of our people and our community. 60% of Singaporeans are being represented by 81 voices in Parliament, while 40% of Singaporeans are being represented by only 6.
Not really. It’s the first-past-the-post system (FPPS) which has allowed this to happen. GRCs aggravate the FPPS with each GRC likely to deviate little from the national average, such that it is difficult for an opposition party to win a GRC unless there is a nation-wide swing.
When the residents of Aljunied voted for the Workers’ Party, were they really trying to get rid of George Yeo? When the residents of Bishan-Toa Payoh voted for the PAP, did they really think that Chiam See Tong does not deserve to be in Parliament? When the residents of Marine Parade voted for the PAP, did they really want Tin Pei Ling?
This is not American Idol.
Sad
May 8, 2011
This GRC system created is supposed to deter opposition from contesting. But after more than 20 plus years, this system slaps right on the face of its beneficiary. Call it karma if it is your belief.
kirsten
May 9, 2011
I agree the FPPS is also a problem, and that the GRC aggravates it. However, I feel that FPPS without the GRC system causes misrepresentation in government (i.e. the Cabinet), whereas FPPS WITH the GRC system causes misrepresentation in Parliament AS WELL AS the government. Which is even worse.
I’m sorry, I didn’t understand your second point. What does American Idol have to do with it?
What I was trying to say there is that the GRC system forces people to vote for a team (which might even be mismatched) instead of for the best individual. For example, if there were no GRCs and everyone were standing for elections in SMCs, we could have voted in the likes of Sylvia Lim, Chen Show Mao and Low Thia Khiang as well as George Yeo (of course, this is providing that they do not try to face each other off in the same SMC). We could have kept SM Goh, but not Tin Pei Ling. We could have had Wong Kan Seng AND Chiam See Tong, if that was the will of the people.
However, the GRC system makes you take the whole bunch, and doesn’t allow you to weed out the unworthy… which means that they practically get a free ride to Parliament.
Gerry
May 9, 2011
Don’t forget gerrymandering, which GRC leverages upon to make it work effectively in PAP’s favour. You mentioned how lopsided the results are (60% votes for 81 seats, or 93% of parliament). It’s for this reason that PAP will not give up on GRC soon, at least not until when a tipping point is reached (some say it’s around 54% votes). Once that tipping point is reached, gerrymandering is hard to do, especially given that a margin of error has to be factored in. And when gerrymandering is ineffective, the GRC system becomes much less useful to them.
bookjunkie
May 9, 2011
I am already missing hearing Vincent’s rally speeches….so inspirational
Dead Poet
May 9, 2011
The only way is for the people to push for a national referendum on the GRC. The WP can lead this with the voices in Parliament.
The other way is for constant push and reminder of the failure of the GRC system . This must translate to a perceived threat from the people to retaliate against the PAP at the ballot box in the next election. The above 40% share by the opposition makes this a reality.
Aloysius
May 9, 2011
I feel that FPPS without the GRC system causes misrepresentation in government (i.e. the Cabinet),
How did you come up with that?
I’m sorry, I didn’t understand your second point.
I should apologise, I didn’t explain further. You seem to be suggesting S’poreans vote for individuals a la American Idol-style, when the audience votes for their favourite contestant. I think there are other considerations too, individuals matter to only some extent.
What I was trying to say there is that the GRC system forces people to vote for a team (which might even be mismatched) instead of for the best individual.
I see, glad you’ve clarified
kirsten
May 9, 2011
From what I understand (I may be wrong, and feel free to correct me if I am), the FPPS means that whichever party gets the most votes will form the government. This means that even if it is 55% – 45%, the party that got 55% forms the government (i.e. Cabinet Ministers are all from that party), even though 45% of the citizens did not want that party. This can already been seen as a misrepresentation of the people, which, I understand, is why there are a lot of people in Britain who are unhappy with the FPPS, and why the Lib-Dems wanted the system to be changed.
The way I see it, the FPPS in Singapore is then further aggravated by the GRC system, because then you have constituencies where people have to vote for teams (taking the good with the bad) instead of individual candidates, where people. Within the GRC itself there is a FPPS, where the party with the most votes in that GRC gets all the seats in Parliament. And then the party with the most overall votes forms the government.
That’s how I arrived at that impression, that the FPPS without the GRC might cause misrepresentation in Cabinet, and the FPPS with the GRC causes misrepresentation in both the Cabinet AND the Parliament.
In a FPPS without the GRC, the party with the most votes forms the government but at least each constituency ward gets to vote for their own MP.
In a FPPS with the GRC, the party with the most votes forms the government, and a group of wards vote for a team, which means that each ward might not actually get the person they voted for.
For example, maybe the people of MacPherson voted for the opposition because they didn’t want Tin Pei Ling. However, a lot of people in the other ward of Marine Parade GRC voted for the PAP because they wanted SM Goh. And you end up with a situation where the votes for SM Goh offsets the votes against TPL and she ends up getting into Parliament based on the popularity of SM Goh.
Hope this makes sense to you!
kirsten
May 9, 2011
I think after this elections the PAP should really consider taking another look at the GRC. After all, it has backfired so incredibly for them.
kirsten
May 9, 2011
I think the article in The Economist says this more concisely:
“This tacitly acknowledges that Singapore’s winner-take-all electoral system leaves the losers even less proportionally represented than do most first-past-the-post (FPTP) systems. Singapore has a sort of “FPTP-Plus”. In 1988 it introduced “Group Representation Constituencies” (GRCs), into which some single-member constituencies were merged. The enlarged areas that resulted are contested by slates of candidates. The justification is to ensure representation for ethnic minorities, from which the slates have to include candidates.”
http://www.economist.com/blogs/banyan/2011/05/singapores_election
Ignatius
May 11, 2011
In my opinion, SMCs are already flawed, and GRCs are even worse, where misrepresentation is multiplied by the number of seats due to a single win, coupled with the effects of reduction in the number of constituencies.
Actually, Alternative Vote is not any better in terms of representation. The only difference is that the uncertainty for the top candidates is greater. Predicting the winner is more difficult, but once you get past the election, you control that 100% of the constituency. The main problem with both Alternative Vote and First-Past-The-Post is that there is still only 1 seat in the constituency, and other parties cannot take up a fraction of that, which leaves whomever who did not vote for the winning candidate disenfranchised.
Other factors which aggravates this problem for these types of system are the number of parties in direct competition, and having too few constituencies. In a country which has 3 or more, the misrepresentation can potentially get worse, as there is a possibility the winning candidate is not favored by the majority, since they just need to get the most number of votes (minimum 33.4%). Fortunately, optimal strategies usually reduces the number of parties or coalitions two just 2.
The only alternatives to solve the problems of representation for both FPTP and AV are the various systems of Proportional Representation. The key difference is that only multi-seat constituencies are used, and you allow more than one party to take up the seats in the constituency. Certain systems allow you to select the best individuals from each party, thus allowing the possibility of voting both George Yeo and Low Thia Khiang in Aljuneid. Of course, this requires a fundamental mindset change I hardly see in Singaporean forums.
On a side note, one other thing I noticed while looking at the election results is that voters from GRCs, as a whole, have lower influence per vote, calculated as number of seats divided by the voting population, despite having more seats. This means changing the mind of one individual in a GRC is generally less profitable than changing the mind of one individual in a SMCs, thus it is not as viable if the candidates do not have access to mass media. Another interesting tidbit: Most powerful voters are from Potong Pasir, and have 1.5 times more power than average, due to low population of the constituency.
Chen J.Y.
May 22, 2011
Hello kirsten,
I have been reading your blog for quite a while, but I never feel that I should react to any post. First, i will admit that that the GRC system is imperfect. So:
1) When u called for the abolishment of the GRC system, can u pls give the details of an alternative system that u think will fit S’pore?
2) “whether people really voted according to race in those days” – Eh, u may not be sure about S’pore, but our next-door M’sia’s largest political party actually depends people voting according to race even now (2011), and indeed most of our neighbours in this region might actually prefer people voting according to race. In fact, race still feature (even if rather minor) in the United States presidential election of 2008. Pls, i hope that the details of your alternative system include details how to prevent people voting according to race, religions, e.t.c.
3) “we don’t vote according to race now” – Maybe, but again i hope that the details of your alternative system will prevent people voting according to race, religions, e.t.c. not just now, but also in the future.
I thank you in advance for your kind attention.