Isn't GRC system affirmative action?

May 3, 2010

I REFER to last Thursday's report, 'Foreign Ministry responds to UN expert's comments'. On the sensitive issue of race, Singapore's Ministry of Foreign Affairs noted that United Nations Special Rapporteur Githu Muigai appears to advocate some form of 'affirmative action' to help the Malays progress in the area of education.

This approach, according to the ministry, 'has been tried by many countries without notable success'.

Even the president of the Islamic Religious Council of Singapore (Muis) told Mr Muigai that the Malays in Singapore do not need any affirmative action policy because 'the Malay community had a deep sense of pride in its own ability to achieve steady progress under the national system of meritocracy'.

If affirmative action is frowned on by minorities themselves, why does the Government insist on keeping the group representation constituency (GRC) system in the political landscape? The GRC system, as propagated by the Government, ensures minority representation. Thus it is an affirmative action policy.

Does it make sense that the minorities in Singapore need affirmative action only to protect their political rights and everything else can be based on meritocracy?

[Because voters don't always vote on merit. They vote based on affinity and affiliation - i.e. race. Malaysia has tried living with race-based political parties, and the system is unravelling now. If your claim to representation is how ethnic you are, then you have to be more ethnic than your opponent and that just spirals down into extremism. When voting and elections are a meritocratic and transparent process, then yes, do away with the GRC. But voting is inherently confidential and in fact secret. And people are free to use any criteria, including race, to choose their candidates, and because politics is inherently local, and voters are generally selfish, the results will be domination by the ethnic majority.]

The minorities have spoken. They have the ability to achieve progress under the national system of meritocracy. The Government should recognise that and abolish the GRC system.

We are no longer living in the past. The tumultuous period of our early years can only serve as a lesson for all ethnic groups to maintain racial harmony at all costs. The past should not impede the desire of our multiracial populace to achieve the goal of becoming one nation, one people.

[Spoken like a true ideologue. What "desire of our multi-racial populace to achieve the goal of becoming one nation, one people?" Do you wake up each morning thinking about becoming one people with your Malay and Indian friends? Even now, new stress lines between Legacy Singaporeans and new Singaporeans and PRs are surfacing. What more existing ethnic lines? We don't need to live in the past to make the mistakes of the past. We can in fact make fresh mistakes. Low Thia Kiang speaks to the voters in the Teochew vernacular as part of his campaigning. Unless a minority candidate can do the same, they won't be able to even connect with some of these voters.]

The GRC system, as an affirmative action policy, can take our nation only one step forward in theory and three steps backward in nation-building.

[How?]

Png Eng Huat

[This is just a pretext to argue against the GRC, whether for political or racial reasons.]

NS in hospital or the police?

From Today, 4 May 2010

by Tang Li

AS A Singaporean who served National Service (NS) in a combat unit (23 SA, 1994-1997), I enjoyed Paul Gilfeather's commentary "A lesson from Singapore"(April 29). However, much as I appreciate his endorsement of our NS and my own experiences in it, I have to ask myself if NS - as we know it - is still as relevant to the current state of affairs.

Singapore established NS in March 1967 because there was a need to build a credible defence force and deterrent as quickly as possible with limited resources. Thanks to more than 40 years of NS, Singapore can mobilise nearly half a million soldiers if the need arises. Foreign military experts have described the Singapore Armed Forces as capable of defending Singapore effectively.

However, while Singapore's defence policy has thus far proved to be the right one, one has to ask if the institution of NS is suitably geared to the wars of tomorrow?

There are fewer and fewer conflicts between nation states. More often conflicts are between nation states and international terrorist groups. The United States talks about war with Al Qaeda and not with Afghanistan. Israel fights the Hezbollah and Hamas rather than Syria. In South-east Asia, we are more likely to see a scenario where we work with our neighbours to defeat groups like Abu Sayyaf or Jemaah Islamiah.

Armed forces are moving away from being about delivering massive firepower on the battlefield to being about delivering "smart" firepower on specific targets. Special forces like the British Special Air Service or the US Navy Seals are growing in prominence.

Yes, it's important to still have the capability to fight a conventional war. Yes, NS is a credible deterrent. And, yes, NS is still important to Singapore society.

However, is our ability to mobilise as many troops as we can a little outdated? Should we instead focus more on training a smaller force of more specialised troops?

[Rumsfeld thought he could win a quick war with some well-equipped troops to "shock and awe" their enemy combatants. The answer the writer's question is in his own preceding paragraph. There is still a need for capability to fight a conventional war. To do that the ability to mobilise and mass troops is still necessary.]

If the SAF were to become more specialised and require less manpower (bearing in mind that birth rates have fallen and cohorts are getting smaller), where could the remaining enlistees be sent to?

One possibility is the Ministry of Home Affairs: To work with the Immigration and Checkpoints Authority or the police.

Given the growing likelihood that the enemy of the future will be a terrorist group, it is important that our NS personnel be trained in investigation and working with civilians.

Another area where more NS personnel could be deployed is in the Ministry of Health, where they could learn first aid skills and also help to ease manpower shortages at hospitals. In the event of a terrorist attack, shouldn't the majority of our population be able to deal with the wounded?

Our economy is moving away from labour-intensive manufacturing that competes on price to more-advanced, value-added services, where a premium is placed on brain power rather than manpower. To prepare Singaporeans to meet the needs of the economy, we are training our workers to work smart and be more productive.

Perhaps, NS should mirror the transformation in our economy - training Singaporeans who are prepared to "serve" smart.

[The purpose of the army must continue to be to provide deterrence. Yes, we will have to evolve measures and response to terrorist threats. Yes, response to terrorists is not the same as response to a massing enemy army at our borders. Yes, terrorism, incursions like the Mumbai attack, and other asymmetric attacks are more likely than conventional war, but if we only prepare for such asymmetric wars, guess what? We become vulnerable to conventional attacks. The invasion of Kuwait by the Iraqi forces was a conventional invasion. The Kuwaitis had no standing army. The moment we let down our guard against conventional invasion, the more likely it becomes. So no, it is not time to hang up our open mobilisation exercises.]

Are they well thought out?

May 1, 2010
ELECTION CHANGES

THE changes to the Non-Constituency MP and Nominated MP schemes, the average size of group representation constituencies and the number of single-seat wards appear too utilitarian in intent and approach.

["Too utilitarian"? So should be less useful? More idealistic? Needs more bells and whistles to dress up the drab utilitarianism?]

The Government must be commended for its courage to implement novel - though unconventional - means of providing Singaporeans with both a strong majority government and an alternative voice in Parliament.

Many trust the Government has the longer-term interest of Singaporeans at heart and that the changes are made for the overall good of Singapore.

It appears we can have our cake and eat it too.

However, the idea that the political process can be changed so easily according to the prevailing political climate discomforts me. Surely the ruling People's Action Party will be foolhardy to consider these changes if, some day in the future, the opposition gets to control close to half of Parliament.

[If there are more than 9 opposition members voted into parliament, there would be no NCMP. Just as currently, if there are more than 3 Opposition MP, there would be no NCMP. Under current rules as approved by the President, the total of Opposition + NCMP cannot be > 3 (The rules however, allow the President to approve up to 6). By the time opposition gains almost half the seats in parliament, NCMP would be irrelevant. Heck, by the time they win 9 seats, NCMP would be irrelevant.]

What if these adjustments to the political system prove 'too' successful for the incumbent's liking? What if more opposition candidates win seats in Parliament in future elections?

Will the PAP then feel its political survival is under threat? Will it then respond by reversing these changes?

[If the writer is referring to the other changes - increasing the number of SMCs and reducing the size/candidates per GRC, these changes would give the opposition a better chance of actually taking an SMC or GRC. And with the game stacked against the opposition, a little leveling of the playing field can only be good. If in spite of all the advantages the PAP candidates enjoy they are still unable to win the election, then they deserve to lose, as LKY has said of even Mah Bow Tan.

Maybe if the PAP deteriorates to the point where they lose the trust of the people, the competence to govern, and the integrity to bow to the will of the people, they may well try to reverse the changes to the GRC system. But that is another story in another situation.]

What will this say about our democratic process? Is it a national ideal we consciously strive to improve and uphold, or a lowly tool to achieve a higher good?

[To summarise this writer's argument: These changes are all well and good, but when things start to look bad for the PAP, what will they do then? They'll reverse the changes showing that they pay lip service to democratic process when it is convenient for them, but will cast it aside when it no longer suits them. The problem with this argument? Hasn't happened yet. Ascribes ill-intent to the PAP in the future. Don't know if it will ever happen.]

Han Tau Kwang

[Certainly the PAP has no role to play to help the opposition win seats in Parliament. Or does it? The PAP astutely understands that voters know all about tricks and strategies, and can see that the current set up skews the playing field in favour of the PAP. Sure the opposition can win SMCs but GRCs? They haven't won one yet.

The changes to the parliament and the GRC system is to address two issues.

Firstly, the voters want alternative voices in parliament. A pair of opposition MPs, 1 NCMP and 9 Nominated MPs provide alternative views, but just aren't enough, or valid enough. And part of the reason there aren't enough real opposition is because the system is stacked against them. And the PAP has stacked the deck. Only 9 SMCs, usually headed by PAP strongmen, 14 GRCs with up to 6 MPs in each, all anchored by a Minister, sometimes 2. The opposition has little chance with such a system.

Secondly, given the trends with new, younger voters who say, don't tell us what you did, tell us what you're going to do for us, the PAP cannot rely on historic gratitude or shared history anymore to bond with the voters and get their votes. The younger voters are more likely to say, I grew up with the PAP, I think I've outgrown them. I want change. Let's give the other side a chance. The PAP won Aljunied GRC with 56% of the votes. In the next election, it might well be lost to the opposition. With the loss will be two Ministers (George Yeo & Lim Hwee Hua). The shift of votes to the opposition may not be stoppable.

The reduction of the GRC may well be a "don't put so many eggs in one basket" strategy. We can't afford to lose two ministers. The corollary to that is, the opposition doesn't have that many "stars" anyway. A 5-man GRC may just mean 2 good opposition candidates and 3 duds. The third point is that PAP may well lose a GRC in the next election. If the opposition wins even with the bar set so high, it would be all the opposition's doing. But if they win while the bar is being lowered at the same time, the PAP can steal some of the opposition's thunder.]