Why was this so?
A lot of people have been blaming the “GRC system” during this year’s elections, but such a reason is too simplistic. What do people mean when they say the “GRC system”? Do they mean the segregation of territory into different constituencies? Do they mean the electoral process?
I do not have too many issues with the policy of dividing Singapore up into different constituencies. The practicality of it overweights any idealistic reason for being against it. While it does follow the pattern of divide-and-rule, this is not necessarily a bad thing. Even though Singapore is a small country, it is also highly bureaucratic and it is difficult for the government to govern affairs directly. Thus certain responsibilities are delegated to Town Councils so that the top leaders can focus on broader state issues – whether with regards to trade, internal affairs, or international relations.
I think the reason votes do not directly translate into seats in Parliament is due to the voting system. Singapore’s system is first past the post, which can briefly be described as “winner takes all”. Regardless of the number of seats being contested and the number of candidates, there can only be one winner – whether the winner is an individual or a particular party. For example, if there are two groups contesting a 4-seat constituency, all it takes for one party to conclusively get all the seats in the constituency is for that party to win more than 50% of votes. So, if Party A gets 51% of votes and Party B gets 49% of votes, Party A will effectively be elected in that constituency. (I assume in all my examples that none of the votes are spoilt or forfeited, but you can understand how spoilt votes will factor in, I hope.)
That seems to be more unfair than the division of territory into GRCs and SMCs. First past the post contrasts with proportional representation voting, which as you might guess, accords seats according to the proportion of the votes. For example, if parties X and Y contest in a 4-seat constituency and Party X gets 75% of votes and Party Y gets 25% of votes, Party Y will still win one seat. If there are three parties are the results are: Party X 50%, Party Y, 25% and Party Z 25%, parties Y and Z will each win one seat and Party X will win 2 seats.
Back to Singapore. Perhaps candidates might pick among themselves who among those who contested will get the seat. Another practice for states practising first past the post voting (like Taiwan), is for candidates to contest against one another regardless of party affiliation. Hence, members of the same party could be contesting against each other for the same seats. In such a situation, people would be voting for individuals directly. This lends some measure of accountability which I think is lacking in our current electoral system. In a case where individuals are voted for directly, members of a party will not be able to depend on more senior members who are contesting in the same constituency for a seat. It would also reduce the dilemma of eligible voters who wish to vote a particular person into Parliament but have no confidence in the rest of the party members who are contesting the seats in the constituency.
That is why I am not against the “GRC system”, if it is defined to be the division of territory. I am, however, very much against FPP and would like it to be replaced with proportional representation.
PS: Perhaps a post further explaining why I am not particularly against divide and rule is required, but my haste in writing up such a post is dependent upon its demand.
RANG
May 11, 2011
Well-written article. You’ve given an objective overview to the GRC system in Singapore.
However, I thought you might want to comment on the “shifting of electorates” and “redrawing of GRC borders” during every election. Is it fair? Is it necessary? This is an important issue that has left people with mixed feelings towards this system.
On a final note, if we had proportional representation voting, we might still have George Yeo in Aljunied GRC, even though it has been taken by the Workers’ Party – which I feel is a really good thing, since George Yeo is a capable and credible MP. The PAP is biting the bullet for the system which they have implemented for themselves. Well, it doesn’t matter to Mr Yeo anyway. I think he’s earned enough and can retire happily.
Nia
May 12, 2011
One of my goals in writing the article was to get people to think through what they mean when they say they are “dissatisfied” with the “GRC system”. My main goal was to suggest proportional representation voting. I am not particularly interested in removing group constituencies, nor am I especially motivated to write on the shifting of boundaries. I think it’s obvious enough why such a thing happens and people know it; that’s why I will not write on it. (Briefly: control.)
I was not just concerned about Mr George Yeo not being voted into Parliament. Aljunied GRC was not the only GRC where voters felt torn. I can imagine that it was rather perplexing for people who felt torn between charismatic candidates like Ms Nicole Seah and reliable ministers like Mr Goh Chok Tong. Both of their parties contesting in the Marine Parade GRC had relatively weak members, and people have had to assess the group as a whole instead of the merit of the various individuals in the respective groups.
But thank you for the feedback. :)
nw.t.
May 15, 2011
Just playing devil’s advocate: How would you address the concern that proportional representation leads to deadlock? The evidence – Weimar Germany, the Israeli Knesset, to some extent current Italy – is that unfettered PR particularly in a polarised population – leads to unstable party coalitions?
The other issue of proportional representation in Singapore will be the racialist one – Singapore is still generations away from being minority-blind. Although looking at the voting patterns of the 2011 GE (ie. close margins in many seats), perhaps some kind of second-preference option or party list ala Australia might have mitigated that somewhat.
Nia
July 3, 2011
Yes, inconclusiveness and deadlocks in Parliament is one of the potential problem in a PR system. But PR in Singapore wouldn’t be especially unfettered. And the population is not that polarised. There isn’t a clear division. While there are strong PAP supporters and strong anti-PAP citizens, there are many who do not support PAP but think that the opposition is not good enough a competition.
I don’t suggest that Singapore be minority blind. It’s important also to ensure that minorities – especially in such a racialist society like Singapore where integration is not complete (another topic for discussion) – do not get left behind. But maybe that’s just putting a band-aid on a failing organ. Maybe the organ needs to be transplanted.
I do not like the racialist policies in Singapore – the emphasis on “remembering our culture”. The irony is that the “our” refers to different in-groups and not the whole Singapore nation. It’s a very exclusive mindset. But without that, what left is there of Singapore? There isn’t a shared history. Since the beginning, we’ve been divided into groups, whether the categories were class, race, or religion. It’s so ingrained that it’s quite frustrating for anyone who doesn’t like the system to try to introduce change.
I agree that Singapore has a long way to go to being minority-blind. I also think that this is because in the first place, fences have been put in place, to ensure division. And then there are celebrations that try to pretend such fences don’t exist, but in fact reinforce the fences. For example, “racial harmony day”. It just keeps ingraining the idea of ‘race’ and ‘other’ in people.
Lastly, second-preference option does not seem to me to be a democratic electoral system. So I would not support that.