<Facebook post by Andrew Loh>
How is it that when it comes to the presidency, they tell us that we need to ensure minority-race representation, but they do not have the same requirements for the prime ministership?
And while they created the GRC precisely to have minority-race representation, Chan Chun Sing now says there is no need to hold a by-election if a minority-race MP steps down from a GRC, leaving the GRC with an all-Chinese slate of MPs.
He explains that this is because Parliament already has 25 minority-race MPs, so one more or less doesn't really matter as the races are adequately represented.
These 25 were "more than what you'd expect proportionately from adding up the percentage of Malays, Indians and other minorities".
"Even if we have one less, that is 24 out of 89, which is 27 per cent of Parliament," Mr Chan said.
When did Singapore adopt a proportional representation system??
And where in our Constitution is this stated - that there is no need for a by-election if Parliament already has a certain number of minority-race MPs?
I mean, things have to have basis in law, right? Surely, you can't just make things up to suit your argument, right?
And this raises many questions such as: So a GRC can be made up of entirely Chinese MPs? Then what is the whole point of having GRCs?
And what is the minimum number of minority-race MPs in Parliament required before it is necessary to hold a by-election in vacant GRCs seats?
All this looks to me like the govt chops and chooses entirely arbitrarily, without any basis in the Constitution.
It's like suka suka chop here, change there, using race to its political advantage and in the event making a whole mockery of our presidential and parliamentary system.
Shouldn't someone ask some serious questions about this nonsense?