Improve our system of GE

　　I have four suggestions to make and I hope that they will stimulate more ideas from others. We can contribute more to Singapore‘s political development by sharing our ideas. This will also help Singaporeans to be more politically conscious and active.

　　Firstly, ensure that every eligible voter gets a chance to vote.

　　There are many adult Singaporeans who have yet to cast their votes because they happen to live in constituencies uncontested by the opposition. This is no doubt a drawback to our democratic system.

　　I believe that every eligible voter should be able to exercise his or her right to vote, even in cases of walkovers.This will allow voters to know who their Members of Parliament are. On the other hand, MPs will also get a better understanding of the constituents they are serving and not become MPs simply because the wards are not contested by the opposition.

　　If the MP or MPs in the uncontested constituencies, whether they are Single-Member Constituency or Group Representation Constituency, obtained less than 50% of valid vote, by-elections should be held. This will make the valid votes won more representative on a national level.

　　Secondly, the Non-Constituency Member of Parliament system should replace the Nominated MP scheme.

　　The percentage of NCMPs should be raised to 10%, in other words, allow up to 8 or 10 NCMPs in Parliament. They can also include the best losers from the ruling party. With 10 opposition MPs in the House, ministers and MPs will have no lack of opportunities to hone their political skills. This will improve the quality of debates in Parliament and make them more substantive and meaningful.

　　True, Nominated MPs can and do speak up for the particular fields they represent. But other than making comments and suggestions, they have no voting powers. NMPs are also seen by some people as supporters of the government. I believe the ruling party will welcome the existence of a constructive opposition.

　　To me, the ruling party‘s so-called shadow Cabinet or other schemes, can neither replace a constructive opposition nor help the growth of democracy.

　　Thirdly, the ratio of GRCs and SMCs should be 3 to 1.

　　The current 8 to 1 ratio means that many candidates will become MPs without a fight and thus not be able to display their leadership qualities at the hustings. Even when every voter is able to vote as I have suggested earlier, some new candidates will still become MPs under the wings of experienced MPs or ministers in a GRC. They will never learn the invaluable experience which defeated PAP candidates Sitoh Yih Pin and Eric Low had.

　　It is hard to assess the performance of individual MPs in a GRC. Limiting the number of GRCs can thus help avoid a situation where “inferior candidates pass off as competent ones”。

　　Lastly, I think there should be a three-month period between the announcement of the new electoral boundaries by the Electoral Boundaries Review Committee and Nomination Day.

　　Due to factors such as demographic changes and the emergence of new housing estates, the re-drawing of electoral boundaries is understandable. But to avoid being misunderstood as “kiasu”, the ruling party should give people who are keen to join the political fray three months to study the changes and make preparations.

　　I am convinced that the People‘s Action Party welcomes good competition. The party has strong grassroots organisations and winning without a real contest is not something it hopes to see repeated in every General Election. In fact, many grassroots leaders are game for a contest to see how the grassroots bodies will measure up.

　　A nine-day election campaign is far too short. But if there was a three-month break for the parties to map out their strategies, then such a shorter campaigning period would be more acceptable.

　　If the government could consider these suggestions, I am hopeful that the next General Election would be different from all previous GEs. Then, every adult Singaporean would be able to exercise his right as a citizen to make an active contribution by casting a vote for the future of the country and for democracy.

　　（The writer is an insurance sales representative. Translated by Yap Gee Poh.）

　　给全国大选提些意见● 林金穆

　　大选已经尘埃落定,一切回归现实,可是将来还会有无数次的大选,我们应该为将来的无数次大选,建立一个更好更健全及比较公正平等的制度,为将来的更理想的民主社会铺路。

　　2001年新加坡大选计票在进行中。

　　在此提四点意见,希望能起抛砖引玉的作用,大家集思广益为更完美的未来新加坡政治发展贡献己见,多多少少协助提高新加坡人的政治意识,治一治许多人的政治冷感症。这四点意见如下：

　　一、真正的全民投票：

　　有些公民活了大半辈子,都还没有履行过公民的权力,因为其所居住的选区的候选人每一次都在无对手的情况下不战而胜。这是民主制度下的一个遗憾及弊病。

　　笔者认为应该让全民都有投票的机会,即使无对手也可以让公民投票,这样至少可以让选民知道他们的国会议员是谁,也使候选人有机会面对选民,不会变成不战而胜的议员。若该选区（提名日没有竞争对手的选区）的得票率少过50％就应该举行补选。这样一来,全国的平均得票率才比较有代表性。

　　二、非选区议员取代官委议员：

　　把非选区议员人数增加至10％,即允许国会有8至10位非选区议员,他们也可以包括执政党的高票落选的候选人。若有10位*议员在国会里,那么执政党的部长议员们就有更多磨练的机会,国会辩论将会更有水准,更精彩。

　　官委议员虽然可以代表某个领域的意见,可是他们只是提出意见,从来就没有投票权可言。况且官委议员在人们的印象中也是政府的支持者,我想执政党也是非常欢迎健康有建设性的*的存在的。

　　我认为,执政党的所谓影子内阁,或其他的制度,是无法取代有建设性*的存在的,也不能刺激民主的进程。

　　三、集选区与单选区议员比例应该限制在三比一：

　　如果集选区与单选区议员的比例是目前的八比一,将会有更多的不战而胜议员,这将无法让竞选者发挥领袖潜质。即使采取上述第一点所提到的全民投票方式,仍会有不少新议员是会在资深议员或部长的带领下顺利进入国会的,他们将永远无法得到像司徒宇斌、刘锡明的宝贵经验。

　　集选区的议员的表现无法直接被评估,若限制集选区议员所占的比例,将可避免“滥芋充数”的现象在国会中出现。

　　四、划分选区与提名日之间应至少相隔三个月：

　　每一届大选前,选区重新划分是无可厚非的,因为人口的流动、新组屋区的分布,重新划分是可以理解的。不过在重新划分选区之后,若有三个月时间让所有有意参与竞选的人有时间研究及准备,才不会被误解为“怕输”。

　　我认为行动党其实是欢迎有建设性的竞争的,长期的不战而胜并非有强大基层组织的执政党所希望看到的情况。其实,许多基层领袖也非常欢迎所属选区有机会举行选举,因为这样也可测试基层组织的工作表现。

　　竞选活动规定为九天也许太短了,但若选区划分之后有三个月的时间,让大家有时间布阵,竞选时间短一些也可以接受。

　　若政府能够考虑以上的几个小意见,我想下一届大选将能够真正见到一场前所未见的全国大选,全国选民将能同时行使公民的权力,为国家的前途、民主进程作出积极的贡献,投下神圣的一票。

　　（作者从事保险业）