 |
Straits Times Forum June 30 2006
IN THE report 'GRCs make it easier to find top talent: SM' (ST, June 28), the ease in letting PAP candidates win their first elections through the GRC system was not the original intention when the Constitution was amended to ensure minority representation.
By allowing easier access to Parliament through the GRCs, the PAP is implicitly 'appointing' new MPs as they have an easier route into Parliament by riding on the coat-tails of ministers who anchor the GRCs.
Most Singaporeans agree that the GRC system benefits the PAP because of the incumbency effect, and this will encourage more people to join the PAP.
If the intention was to attract potential ministers, doesn't providing them easier access to Parliament cast doubt on their ability to win an individual contest? A candidate of ministerial calibre should be able to convince voters to support him in a one-to-one contest, rather than entering Parliament without a contest.
It is uncertain candidates with ministerial calibre have to risk their careers by standing for election. Even if they lose, it should not be hard for the top talents to return to their previous posts or to seek a new job.
Do we want to attract Singaporeans, even if they are top talents, to stand for election because the path to Parliament is easier? Call me an idealist, but the passion to serve the public should be one of the major factors, if not the most important, in standing for election.
An example are the opposition candidates who are passionate enough to contest in the polls even when the odds are against them, especially in GRCs. Should we be concerned that the Government advocates an easier path into Parliament through the GRC system as a means to convince top talents to serve the public as an office holder? Are we attracting the right people to serve as potential ministers if the path was made easier for them?
A follow up article on the Straits Times by a friend:
July 7, 2006
Time to go back to three-member GRCs?
By Peh Shing Huei
SO, IT is true.
Group representation constituencies (GRCs) are really vehicles that help ensure a smoother ride for the People's Action Party's new candidates.
Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong confirmed it last week. This easier passage, he said, allows the PAP to 'recruit younger and capable candidates with the potential to become ministers'.
He added: '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.
'Why should they when they are on the way up in the civil service, the SAF, and in the professions or the corporate world?'
This is a departure from the justifications hitherto given for GRCs, that they are needed to guarantee minority representation in Parliament and maintain quality as they compel the opposition to attempt to produce a slate of better candidates.
Now, another equation has been suggested. GRCs plus new candidates equals easier electoral passage for PAP candidates, equals easier recruitment for the PAP.
The formula is troubling for two reasons.
# One, which has been raised in the Straits Times Forum pages, is the quality of leadership it is likely to throw up. What calibre of political leaders are we sifting for if they need such a big safety net before committing themselves to public service?
As a post-'65er, am I looking to a future generation of leaders who cannot measure up to those my parents and I grew up with?
I do not recall Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew needing an assurance of electoral victory before he plunged into politics, sacrificing a lucrative law practice for an uncertain political world where one's very life might have been threatened.
And didn't SM Goh risk a successful career in Neptune Orient Lines to take on a single-seat constituency when he made his debut in Singapore politics in 1976?
# Two, GRCs are state institutions which should not be confused with, and used for, party political needs.
The PAP's difficulty in recruiting talent remains, at the end of the day, a PAP problem. Sure, the PAP is the governing party and forms the Government. But a distinction must still be drawn.
As former senior civil servant Ngiam Tong Dow said in his new book, A Mandarin And The Making Of Public Policy: 'I think our leaders have to accept that Singapore is larger than the PAP.'
The implication of blurring the lines between state and party is that state instruments could be continually manipulated for a party's - any party's - agenda.
GRCs were introduced neither to assure candidates of victory nor aid party recruitment. They were also not meant to tie in better with the community development councils (CDCs), which was a reason given in 1996 for bumping up the size of GRCs from a maximum of four members to the current six.
The GRC was meant to ensure minority representation. Return it to its original intent.
Most Singaporeans are aware that GRCs do have the effect of aiding the PAP's electoral performance, but given that the PAP is still delivering the goods, I believe many view it as an acceptable trade-off, especially if it is also to protect the country's commitment to multiracialism.
But if the additional reason now offered is that it is to ensure easier victories and, by extension, easier recruitment for a particular party, then a relook of the GRC is timely. It is no longer the deal Singaporeans signed up for.
The crux of the problem now lies with its size.
Mr Goh's comments suggest the current system, where GRCs are five- and six-member wards, assures new PAP candidates a good chance of winning. In other words, such jumbo GRCs risk making the ruling party too comfortable in the bid for seats.
And with the one-minority-per-GRC rule still unchanged, larger GRCs also mean that the constitutional safeguard for minority MPs has been diluted compared to when GRCs had just three members.
All things being equal, the Constitution now ensures minority representation need only be one-sixth per GRC, down from one-third in the past.
Why not go back to the original size of three-member GRCs?
It will guarantee minority representation at the level originally intended and shrink the giant coat-tails of the anchors and veterans, giving new PAP candidates a better chance to prove themselves as leaders.
What about the assurance of victory?
Well, that was never the aim of the GRC. But if there is any consolation, a three-man GRC still operates as a team, ensuring that rookies are not left on their own.
If that's still not good enough, then perhaps those candidates wary of contest should just stay in their current careers. Politics may not be their cup of tea.
June 27, 2006
GRCs make it easier to find top talent: SM
Without good chance of winning at polls, they might not be willing to risk careers for politics
By Li Xueying
SENIOR Minister Goh Chok Tong yesterday gave a new take on the role of Group Representation Constituencies (GRCs) in Singapore politics.
Their role is not just to ensure minorities are adequately represented in Parliament, he said. They also contribute to Singapore's political stability, by 'helping us to recruit younger and capable candidates with the potential to become ministers'.
'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,' Mr Goh said at an event marking the appointment of members to the South East Community Development Council (CDC).
'Why should they when they are on the way up in the civil service, the SAF, and in the professions or the corporate world?'
But he was quick to add that GRCs themselves do not guarantee victory.
'A minister wins only because he has won the people's trust and the Government has delivered good results for the people. If a minister performed poorly, it could result in his losing the GRC to an opposing team with a strong leader,' he said, in what appears to be an oblique reference to comments made against GRCs in the general election held this May.
Since GRCs were introduced in 1988, critics and the opposition have attacked them, saying they allow rookie People's Action Party (PAP) candidates to get into Parliament on the coat tails of heavyweight candidates in their team.
Also, they do not lend themselves to a level playing field, they add, as the opposition struggles to find the specified minority-race candidates.
Mr Goh carried four new faces into Parliament in the six-man Marine Parade GRC team, which was unchallenged at the 2006 polls.
Altogether, the PAP had 24 new faces. One was Mr Teo Ser Luck, former general manager of courier company DHL and now Parliamentary Secretary (Community Development, Youth and Sports).
He acknowledges that for a rookie politician, being part of a team ensures that 'you have a bigger chance of winning'.
'If you're fighting individually, you go through a steep learning curve and you may not have enough time,' he added.
East Coast GRC MP Lee Yi Shyan, who left his job as chief executive officer of IE Singapore and is today Minister of State (Trade and Industry), concurred: 'If the system can remove as many impediments as possible, then the political system will be able to get more people to join.'
But both told The Straits Times they would have entered politics even if they had been fielded in a single-seat ward. Said Mr Lee with a laugh: 'You could say that I'm more confident of myself!'
In his speech, Mr Goh also stressed that the PAP's ability to attract capable individuals and its practice of political self-renewal were key to Singapore's success.
Turning to the CDCs' role, Mr Goh highlighted their important position as a bridge between 'rules-bound' government departments and grassroots organisations.
CDCs are agile, flexible, and give personal attention to residents, he said. 'They are therefore better placed to devise local solutions to tackle local issues.'
Mr Goh, who in 1996 mooted the CDC idea, lauded their achievements, highlighting their role in community bonding, as well as finding jobs for retrenched workers and helping the needy. He now wants them to undertake yet another task: helping to reverse the declining birth rate.
He has suggested to Mayor Matthias Yao that his South East CDC draw up an accredited list of service providers to help parents, who can pay for them with their baby bonus.
'Such accreditation can help ensure the quality of services or lower costs through economies of scale,' he said.
xueying@sph.com.sg
