Don’t Bullshit, GRC Is Not To Safeguard Minority Representation!

A response to the recent parliamentary session where PSP suggested for the GRC system to be abolished, but was rejected by the parliament.

By hdsouzaLet’s consider the argument put forth by this criminal regime with some hard facts.

When the GRC system was introduced by dead fart in 1988, every GRC was a 3-member team. In other words, suppose if there were 60 seats consisting of 3-member GRCs, you are guaranteed to have elected 20 minority candidates elected.

How then did this evolve into a situation where 5- and 6-member GRCs become the norm (esp pre-2011)? Assuming 60 seats consisting of (on average) 5-member GRCs, you are guaranteed to have only 12 elected minority candidates?

So, really, GRC is to safeguard minority representation?

Oddly enough, since 2011, both the number of seats contested as GRCs and the average size of GRCs have been decreasing in tandem with PAP’s slide in the popular vote (it must be yet another coincidence that GRC sizes and numbers are reduced just to reduce the number of seats they lose with each GRC lost).

It is also worth noting JBJ, an ethnic Indian, became the first opposition MP in independent SG when he won the Anson by-election in 1981 in what was a predominantly Chinese ward (this clearly dispels the notion that an ethnic minority cannot win a seat in a Chinese-dominant ward when independent SG’s first opposition MP was elected through such circumstances).

Coincidentally, it was only after Chiam See Tong won his seat at Potong Pasir in 1984 (coupled with JBJ defending Anson in 1984) that dead fart decided to introduce the GRC system in 1988. So, really, where was fart and PAP’s desire to safeguard minority representation when they held 100% of the seats between 1966-1981?

Only suckers would fall for such nonsensical diatribe – the only bigger irony is minorities buying such bollocks…