Original three-member GRCs have mushroomed into four-, five- and six-member constituencies, although these upsizings have not helped increase minority-race presence in Parliament.
WHAT has happened to the group representation constituency (GRC) system represents a deviation from its originally noble intention ('Cynicism will hurt GRC system', commentary by deputy editor Alan John; Wednesday).
If the original objective could be achieved with three members in a GRC, why has the number increased so drastically over the years?
In my view, the changes were prompted by the People's Action Party's (PAP) desire to make it increasingly difficult for opposition parties to capture a GRC, after surviving a narrow shave in a few GRC contests.
The PAP's argument that having large GRCs cuts both ways for the PAP and opposition parties in terms of risks and rewards is unconvincing.
Also, linking GRCs to town council management is an afterthought to justify the increase in GRC size.
There is nothing to prevent two- or three-member GRCs from banding together if there is a common interest in improving management and benefiting from economies of scale, if the MPs concerned agree.
What the PAP has done in upsizing GRCs is wrong, although it may be legal and constitutional.
So, I say, cynicism has already hurt the GRC system. The PAP should revert to three-member GRCs to restore credibility.
Khooky: Why not 2-member GRCs?
