Me. Myself & i

I was doing my public law reading and the SDP manifesto debate just kept cropping up in my mind. My lecturer mentioned that Low Thia Khiang post a letter in the forum yesterday. Unable to find yesterday's paper, i picked up today's Home, hoping to find PAP's reply to it. Instead, i saw a report on what Chiam said and another reader's letter supporting the PAP.

I should be continuing with my reading now but wanted to air my views somewhat, if i don't wanna write to the papers, the least i can do is write on my own blog. Just as a disclaimer, i do not have anything against PAP. On the contrary, i believe they have done well thus far, in managing Singapore and i'm grateful for that.
The problem that i have, is probably the inherent unfairness in the system that we have and the inadequacy of the opposition parties.

PAP singled out 4 of 52 manifestos of SDP and described them as 'time bomb' and 'poison'. Of they 4, SDP proposed to scrap the president elections, Group Representative Constituency system, the grassroots organisations and to issue subsidies for needy/poor people. PAP gave a point counter point argument against these manifestos, giving their reasons for these system respectively. What i failed to find, was the SDP's reasons for proposing these changes in the papers. The importance will be discussed later. There can only be two possibilities for this: (1) SDP did not mention; (2) The newspaper censored it?
it is for all of us to guess.

The reader who wrote into Forum today, supported the PAP's rationale of the GRC system. He mentioned the importance of having minority representatives in the parliament. More importantly, the fragile nature of our multicultural social fabric. I have to say that i agree absolutely with the rationale. But what are the effects of the GRC system?

1) Unequal voting rights
In order to make it really easy to understand, we'll start with an e.g. Area X is GRC constituency. Area Y is Single member consituency. With one vote, people in area X can vote in 3-6 members of parliament. However, with the same one vote, people in area Y can only vote in 1 MP.
Is it because Area X is bigger than Y, therefore there is a need for more MPs, therefore justifying the unequal voting power?
Art 12 subsection(1) of constitution of Singapore provides "All persons are equal before the law and entitled to the equal protection of the law." Isn't this a clear, direct violation of our rights? So why is GRC in existence when the effect of it is unconstitutional?
May i challenge the readers, to look up which are the SMC and GRC with this unequal voting power in mind?

2) Coat Tailers
A GRC, becoming a town council later, has its implications too, moving away from the rationale of having GRC. As known, town council is in charge of the upkeep and maintenance of the estate, etc. Hence, people are advised to vote for a group, with a good leader, in case they get stuck in the lift and remain there. Because the leader of the Group they vote in, will head the town council. This give rise to the problem of Coat tailers.
Another senario to imagine: In the group of 6, X is a well-known character, with great leadership capacity, very good with people. Y has good relations with people. Z has been the representative of that area for pass 5 years. but there are three others whom no one has heard of. Compare this to another group, a,b,c,d,e,f are all rather unheard of, they have been campaigning hard, trying to win the people over.
But will you take the risk?
Or will you vote in the group with 3 promising rep, knowing they will do well? When the first group is elected, what happens to the other three in the group? They become MPs as well!

These are just to illustrate how important it is to tell the public why the opposition is proposing in their manifesto. Without knowing the effects of GRC system, i would support the rationale of having it as well.

due to time constraint and fear of being traced for writing this entry, i shall end my post.

But as a Singaporean, i think it is worrying when the majority party cannot differentiate themselves from the government institution anymore.
"This is the reality of politics. Every political party everywhere in the whold has a political programme fot the people. When they are in charge, they implement them. If they do their jobs well, they will be elected. If they bluff the people and cannot deliver on their promises, they will be out very fast, like the SDP MPs. They could not perform and they were out. This is the reality." - Mr Wong Kan Seng 1999 parliamentary debates.
- PAP's offer - upgrading for Cheng San constituent (which ceased to exist the following elections)
Offer was made by PM then, who's own constituent was a walk-over.
Food for thought, what would have happened if opposition won that time?

Risking it,
Wenrong