Choo Zheng Xi / Khairulanwar Zaini
In chess, a gambit is an opening move which sacrifices a minor piece for a stronger strategic position later in the game.
Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s recent changes seem to have answered the opposition and the public’s calls for more checks and balances in the electoral system, while not changing the calculus of power in the hallowed Halls of Parliament.
Increasing the number of Non-Constituency MPs to nine, and entrenching the NMP scheme, further undermines Parliament as a representative legislature elected by the people.
While pragmatists will welcome the mere fact that these developments will provide at least eighteen non-ruling party voices, the tweaking comes at little political cost to the PAP – entrenching its dominance while throwing a sop to those who wish for a stronger opposition presence.
It is also a move of remarkable cynicism, sacrificing the principles of electoral democracy on the altar of the People’s Action Party’s (PAP) ritual of longevity.
More opposition MPs – but less opposition?
This ritual has been performed before. The men in priestly white took the knife to electoral democracy by introducing unelected Non-Constituency Members of Parliament (NCMPs) in 1984 and Nominated Members of Parliament (NMPs) in 1990.
The argument from a position of democratic principle is this: the NCMP scheme creates a second tier of representatives that have more electoral authority than unelected NMPs but less electoral authority than full MPs. This dilutes the influence of Parliament.
Currently, both NCMPs and NMPs are barred from voting on matters pertaining to constitutional amendments, public funds, votes of confidence and presidential impeachment.
This makes a mockery of the purpose of Parliament. Constitutionally, legislative power is vested in Parliament, including the power to amend the Constitution. Parliament will now include 18 members with emasculated powers to influence legislative outcomes.
The sad conclusion is that the purpose of the increase in NCMPs is to provide the citizenry with the theatre of political jousting without the substance of actual influence.
More farcically, the expanded NCMP scheme would allow opposition MPs with paltry vote counts to enter Parliament. The NCMP scheme originally began as a “best loser” scheme, its rationale has now been stretched to accommodate the ninth next worse losers.
This runs the risk of stretching the credibility of both the NCMP scheme and Parliament too thin. If the changes were in place in 2001, Wong Hong Toy’s Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) team would be eligible to send an NCMP to Parliament with a paltry 20.26%, and Ling How Doong of the SDP would have a seat in Parliament with 21.48% of the vote.
Strategically, the biggest winner of the move will be the PAP. It can now offer the assurance of at least nine opposition MPs in Parliament, so people can be encouraged to vote for the PAP without fearing that alternative voices will not be heard in Parliament.
The enlarged NCMP scheme is a half-measure that deprives the opposition of its raison d’être of being a check on the government – one of their perennial campaign platforms.
Slanted political playing field unchanged
The political theatre the expanded NCMP scheme can potentially provide is a convenient palliative for other grossly slanted aspects of the electoral playing field.
Before we feel gratitude at Mr Lee’s promise to reduce the number of six person GRCs, we need to re-examine the dubious legitimacy of the whole scheme in the first place. Its original rationale of ensuring minority representation has slowly evolved into allowing PAP Town Councils to achieve economies of scale while diluting the democratic principle of one-man-one-vote.
Should we give thanks for a half-attempt to return our democratic rights?
From the proliferation of Group Representative Constituencies (GRCs) to unfair electioneering requirements, like a hefty election deposit, the opposition finds itself fighting on electoral ground favoring the incumbent.
Furthermore, there remain other impediments to the fledging opposition: a state media that is establishment-pliant and susceptible of reporting unfavorably (or not at all) of opposition developments, and online electioneering rules that curtail political parties’ ability to disseminate its platform on the Internet.
A fairer political and electoral framework means that the growth of the opposition occurs in tandem with the spirit of greater political liberalization, maturity and discourse – and not due to the arbitrary benevolence of the ruling party.
It is at best inconsistent that the government deems it fit to lower the bar of Parliamentary entry criteria for best opposition losers rather than evening out the electoral playing ground for strong opposition candidates to have a fair fight against the PAP.
If the government was concerned about increasing the quality of debate, it will be more prudent to ease its electoral shenanigans so that the discerning electorate can elect good opposition voices with the ability to articulate the views of the people.
Failing the fairness criteria
The mantra of more opposition presence is not an end in itself, but as a means to develop a robust system of check and balances and to create a more representative, inclusive and accessible political structure in Singapore. This should be the true end point of the process of political liberalization.
The PAP can afford to be bold and magnanimous with these gestures – because they stand to win the most with these increased stakes. By allowing the token nine opposition members, they accrue the benefits of depriving the opposition of a major campaign platform while staking a claim on the moral high ground of liberalization.
Right thinking members of the public should see this exercise as the farce that it really is. If anything has changed, it has changed for the worse.
Coming next on TOC: What the changes might mean for the opposition parties.
—–
In a game of chess, an opponent faced with a gambit, can choose to play along or not.
Therefore, the big decision the opposition need to make is to bite or spit:
1. take the gambit, play the risk.
Contest the next election as per normal, and if lose, enter the Parliament as NCMPs. Once in Parliament, they will be more visible in the public eye. This could make or break them; depending on their mettle, overcoming (negative?) MSM; giving good challenge to the PAP or failing miserably. And who knows, in the election after, they might received better support due to the exposure.
2. ignore the gambit, and declared at the onset of election, they would not be taking NCMP positions if they lose.
This will negate the supposed move of placating the fence-sitting voters (who were looking only for alternative voices in Parliament).
government advisers and scholars very intelligent that why can get so high pay.
Pragmatists are Prostitutes (PAP). Period.
PAP appealing to pragmatists. You want opposition we give you opposition, but we keep the Power.
What Singapore needs is a viable alternative Power, a Power that mutually neutralises themselves if they seek their own.
CZX so critical ar hw come he proposes nothing hahahahah
You can have another eatra 9, 10, 11 or even 12 (non-pap) NMPas long as those MIW still gets the majority seats, there will still be no change in paliament debate. The new ones can shout, curse or swear with all the questions raised, but still there will be no answer except for some stupid ones who still wanting to score points for their promotion. They will still proceed ahead with just anything they want, nothing will ever change.
Initially, I was taken aback by this baby step change of the ruling government to include more alternative voices heard in parliament albeit not according voting rights unto these representatives (NCMPs and NMPs). I too have the initial impulsive thoughts that this announcement of change has no credence. However, a much closer analyses of my own based the speech given by PM (not that I am a fan of his or neither am I a pro-PAP citizen), personally I think that is a right step taken by the government to acknowledge gradual change is needed for Singapore if we are to move forward with time and age.
Yes, I agree with most who said what is the point of NCMPs and NMPs where they cannot vote on policies or constitutions amendments (if any) that affects our livelihood? I see a different perspective from this expressed view. Regular visitors of this site and perhaps others would have read expressed views by many that Oppositions (or Alternative Parties) do not live up to expectations and that they are not given an opportunity to prove themselves because of “Rig Elections” and so on. I think at least now with this change coming, there is a possible chance for them to prove their worth even if they had lost in an election contest. It is also one of a way for neutral ground citizenry to take note and make assessments of the performance of these NCMPs (since this is only the rightful representations by voting) and perhaps formulate their decisions for future elections.
Yes, I too agree with most who oppose this idea that it is not a perfect solution and to a degree meaningless change proposition, nonetheless, a baby step to trial for change for more alternative voices to be heard in parliamentary meetings is better than the current condition where it will only serve to brew further frustrations from common citizenry like me because of the lack of representations of alternative voice in parliament.
All said, regardless of whether elected MPs, NCMPs or non-elected NMPs, to serve the people better, IMHO, you have got to get in touch with the ground constantly. Keep an open mind with your candid response when you are engaged the people albeit if views or suggestions through public meetings or discourses are not acceptable or not sound for implementation or acceptance, but please do give the people your reasons in all honesty. Tone down if not able to do away entirely with that perceived arrogant egotistical behavior, show a little more compassion to lesser talented citizenry who may not be as articulate and eloquent in their expression and I think you will gain better respect from common citizenry. Ignorance is your greatest enemy. Do not penalize citizenry who air their candid views or sentiments with scare tactics and intimidating regulating laws. Only concerned citizenry who cares for the betterment of this nation will help foster a better future forward for our younger generations to come. Show us that you are really for the people.
A grown person will stand up to their mistakes and take pride in their achievements. This kind of characteristics will gain and had more genuine respect from society. We are only humans and humans make mistakes all the time. The lesson to learn is to own up to your mistakes and learn from it to prevent a repeat. A simple rule yet we are so taken in by our pride that sometimes we just refuses to accept it.
Sincerely,
Observer (SG-HK)
I can see Clearly now
why the NMP scheme was developed.
Did the IPS have anything to do with it?
Am I right to say the fact remains
NMP has no power to veto any bill whatsoever but can give impression of pluralism of views?
Why NMPs do not run for election, if they feel so strongly to represent the people? that is my main question.
Imagine : 99 NMPs and 1 MP who can pass a bill.
Of course, this scenario is merely hypothetical for purpose of clarifying my point.
Pls feel free to correct me if any of my understanding is not correct.
The presence of NMP and NCMP is a big wayang. They have not made any changes to the lives of Singaporean. Their so-called voices in parliament are nothing more than a wimper.
With the proposed new schemes, the parliamantary system will be like our taxi fare system with all the complicated surcharges.
I think they should just keep it simple and do away with all these schemes and returns to all single constituencies, where your votes counts.
if we needed a voice look for 1 in S’pore Idol. lol…
the voice in Paliament is not just of a songbird, it has to have power to effect a positive change.
PAP think Paliament is singing competition? they sing the loudest & drown everyone else out & pro-claim champions?
local population not a bunch of bird brains lor…
For all LKY’s achievements and being the father of Singapore, he has failed to put in place a robust and politically mature country that can ensure its own perpetuity after he is gone.
He was more concern about himself and his will being Singapore when he is alive.
He could have retired from the PAP without becoming SM or MM and taken a back seat to put in place a self regulating political system without his presence. He could have been a non partisan elected President which is part of this self regulation.
Maybe he tried – there are things we do not know, of course – but maybe also he was so entangled, eg in GIC and Temasek, that it would be suicidal for him to stop being the de facto PM.
Now perhaps is the last gasp moment for him to try get it right one last time.
aiyoyo
not sure where this country is heading? which direction?
towards better/best? or towards worse/worst?
so luan…
aiyoyo
I do hope people are not taken in by his move.
One thing is for sure i am not conned.
I still hold to my stand that all GRCs should be remove!
Media must be freed from govt & ISD.
Parliament is the place for making laws which apply to everyone in the country. If democracy means “rule by the people”, then the members of Parliament must be REPRESENTATIVE of the people at large in order for them to act in the people’s interests.
Such representation is only legitimate through direct voting. If more and more MPs are NOT voted in by the people, then Parliament has failed in its basic function.
The crucial issue here is whether people here realize that this trend of the increasing quotas of NCMPs and NMPs is a gradual abandonment of the Social Contract between the Govt and the people.
The PAP thinks this is a Win-Win situation. Give the people the voice they are clamouring for while at the same time safeguard its own interest to continue to stay in power. They have forgotten that today’s Singaporeans, are thinking Singaporeans. The people win nothing from this arrangement.
Let me explain, by picking up from where Alan Wong & Lobo76 left off. The arrangement is such that total control is still in the hands of the PAP. It knows that the people cannot hope to have an Opposition in government at this moment and therefore power will continue to be theirs for a while yet. They also know that the level of discontent from the citizens are getting louder and louder as each day passes and it will only be a matter of time before the citizens do the unthinkable – in PAP’s context.
Considering these, it is quite a good arrangement and a very unexpected one and quite well thought out even – this I must hand it to them. Such a move comes with very little implications should it not work out for them. All these measures can easily be taken away should it be found later to work against them and they continue to lose their grip on the citizens. The key element has not changed – they still hold the trump card – the trump card that holds the electorate to ransom.
Citizens of Singapore must realise this and do something about it. For as long as our parliamentary representatives represent no one in particular, or do not have the mandate to represent anyone – they will continue to be the lame duck Mr Low Thia Kiang has spoken about. Our parliamentary representatives must be empowered by us. This is why the NMP and NCMP scheme must be thrown back where they belong – the longkang.
Some change is better than no change at all. Since when did the cocky government acknowledge the need for change. It is a concession – just take it a step at a time. More single seat constituency is good for the opposition, better chance of winning than competing in GRC. We have had some impressive NCMPs who contributed to good policies. So don’t rule them out completely.
This is another Hong Lim Park only difference it that this is in parliament. Let people make noise only for PAP to ignore it.
True that some change is better than no change. For this reason I am hopeful that the opposition can start strategising and see how they can take advantage of this concession.
For me, the best scenario would go something like this:
a. all past and present NMPs like Mr Siew Kum Hong and Eunice Olsen go stand in one of the SMCs. Even if they fail to win, we can be sure that they will still make the NCMP positions (even though I am against the scheme for its hollow effect, it is still good for publicity purpose).
b. oppositions parties to consolidate their big guns and contest the weaker GRCs.
c. avoid three-corner fights.
d. concentrate on quality candidates rather than quantity. The purpose is to show Singaporeans that the opposition candidates can hold themselves in Parliament to fight for the needs of the people. Bumbling candidates like Mr Cheo Chai Chen to sit the next election out for the sake of not putting the opposition in a bad light.
e. weaker opposition candidates to take on PAP’s stronghold GRCs so as to allow the electorate exercise their voting rights, as well as to allow the opposition to gauge the ground sentiments for future contests.
It might not be so bad after all. It will only be bad if Singaporeans do not take the opportunity to put in an alternative slate of parliamentary representatives who can truly place the PAP under check and balance. I really hope I can trust Singaporeans this time to do the right thing and deny the PAP two-thirds of the parliamentary seats up for grabs.
theoretically, just thinking aloud, can PAP amend the constitution and declare that SG is now a chinese communist state. No need to go for voting.
Holding hands at midnight
‘Neath a starry sky…
Nice work if you can get it
And you can get it — if you try.
Strolling with the one girl
Sighing sigh after sigh…
Nice work if you can get it
And you can get it — if you try
Who could ask for anything more?
no seriously. With a PAP majority, is this theoretically possible?
A better system would be:
84 seats,
25% of single member constituency = 21
75% of 3-member constituency = 63
Scrap off NCMP scheme
NMP to 7.
And one (only one) minister-calibre don’t have to go thru the election process to be appointed as official holder (highest post – full minister).
That is to say I’m not prefer Proportionate Representation.
Just my opinion.
I’m neutral.
This is likely to be just step one of the checkmate move.
If I read them correctly, their next step is to use their media mouthpieces to confuse the people by repeatedly highlighting confusing facts.
See how Ministry of Manpower keeps repeating the employment rate for ‘residents’ and not separate the employment figures for native Singaporeans vs the permanent residents?
Same trick here. Dont be surprised if they use the media to keep psychoing the citizens that we have too many opposition candidates in parliament. What the media is likely to leave out is that many of those in parliament via this proposed scheme CANT VOTE against any unjust or self-serving bills that are tabled.
So even if you have 10 opposition MPs with voting rights in parliament, expect the figures reported to be way higher (?19).
So those voters who are sitting on the fence in subsequent elections will be less likely to give the opposition their vote as they fear instability.
Looks to me this move is to prevent the opposition from even getting a beachhead to stop them from having the overwhelming say on all issues in Sg.
The greatest change is to do away with GRC representation. All constituencies
should be single ward. This will be the real evolution of the political system in Singapore.
Adding more non-elected MPs, without equal power as the elected MPs, is just a
wayang show.
To save the Government skin, with the great losses of Billions, PM Lee tries hard to sweeten the masses with his seemingly magnanimous gesture of political overture.
There is an underlying current of political liberalisation. PAP is up to nothing good.
66) gemami on May 28th, 2009 4.37 pm
“For me, the best scenario would go something like this:
a. all past and present NMPs like Mr Siew Kum Hong and Eunice Olsen”
Erm, Eunice Olsen? sorry, I did not have much impression of her.
What has she voiced up about, care to share?
All I heard was SKH’s numerous numerous people’s voices.
I Do Not support the NCMP scheme. I authorize this message.
But due to the severe shortage of voicing the alternative voice, it can be tolerated upto the next election only. As they say, Boh Her Hay Mah Hoh.
In singlish english, it means if no meesoto with hum , without hum also can do for now.
To #10 Sarek_home,
Question : I think judging by the performance of some MPs and the size of the Civil Serivice (headcounts) I think there are many more than capable or similarly capable.
The issue is there is shortage in the Opposition side of the Equation.
Are Civil Servants allowed to run for Election for Opposition? Any Clause?
The answer may be obvious.
In summary, me think, there is more than 9 who more than qualify. could be as many as 90. But the reality is many could not or would not step forward. Opposition people are a different breed.
In short, a painful lessons such as lost of seats is needed to wake them up…plus let this gambit fail to show that things won’t go as smoothly as they hoped
Shotgun #3,
“…. In the long run, it may alter the dynamics of parliamentary debates as PM Lee aims; more creative debates and more views. The PAP can then take these alternative views and implement them into parts of their policies and improve governance and popularity.”
“…. The “sacrificial” piece could be a move to bring an end to the match instead, once and for all, sealing the debate over the necessity for an opposition in Singapore”
I doubt the PAP’s move would have such a comprehensive effect. Still, yours is a very astute analysis.
Many PAP MPs have been congratulating themselves that they are so good, so strong candidates and have good support from the constituents, etc, etc and that the opposition candidates are weak, etc , etc and therefore they do not have the support of the constituents and so cannot get themselves elected into parliament. If they are really so good, then the next logical thing to do is to campaign in the single member constituency and put their money/faith where their mouth is. It is no point hiding under the GRC scheme to get themselves elected or just walk-over in an election.
Therefore the next election should have at least 50% single seat member constituency.
Post-to-view
Hi Dawn of a New Era,
Effect-wise, I share the same sentiments that Eunice (and practically all the other NMPS – past and present) have not had much impact on parliament even with those who have tried to contribute as much as they did. However, I am not faulting them for not trying. We must see beyond the effect they can hope to have as an NMP.
Should they come out and stand for election to be a full-fledged MP, this scenario would be drastically different. The primary difference, as I had mentioned, would be the clear mandate from the voters that this is their elected representative and therefore is speaking and acting on the voters behalf.
This is what they are not getting as NMPs and this is why the NMP and the NCMP schemes must go back to where they belong – obscurity. This I totally agree with you. Unfortunately, we are going to live aith them for some time yet, and instead of fighting it, why not use it? One way of using it is for the opposition to gain exposure to parliamentary debates. This cannot be a bad thing surely, unless one bumbles around like Cheo Chai Chen.
I think its more like whether capable singaporeans dare to step forward as opposition party member to run for election rather than whether there are enough talents.
what happens if all talents work in a particular service? can they step forward without quiting their jobs?
singapore voters are in their own ways responsible for this situation. 50 years.
gemami ,
i suspect those NMPs might have signed under the dotted line of not creating troubles and stay within stipulated guideline given.
who knows?
PM and some ruling party MP tried to portrait the new scheme is a way to allow oppositiin MP come in “from back-door” while they “die-die” keep the GRC
If they ever dare to reduce GRC to all 4 seats, it may just take two GE to see they lose 1/3 of the seats
So, who is the one who can’t stand on own feet ?
mike @81
Thats precisely what I had in mind as well. This aside, there is the threat to be sued for damages even through implication. Perhaps thats why nobody speaks about Temasek in Parliament?
Mike & Angelina,
That makes three of us. I believe so too.
we have nevers een any ruling party in the world really help the opposition paries, don’t beleive in that.
This is a master stroke of game play
The initial 3 or 4 members GRC is an unique features and it started with a “good intention”, but alas, once tasted the the sweetness, the ruling parties expanded it to 5, 6 and 7 GRC.
If USA does the same, you would find Texas is in the same GRC super state with Minnesota, or, if Malaysia did the same, you would find Johor is in same GRC with Kelatan !
So long as a sizable number of MP walked into Parliament without having to get a vote, he/she has absolutely no mandate.
If the argument of having unopposed means mandate, then, North Korea ruling party is the most popular “elected mandate” in the world.
We have seen many revision to the electoral system, the GRC introduced in 1984 gave the ruling part 25 years of dominance , though their popular vote consistently declined ( except when PM GOH revived it a little in 2001 GE )
Any changes shoulkd repreasenbt people’s voice and decisions in any parliamentary votes, the NMP and NCMP are toothless tigers, a joke !
The new scheme will help the ruling oarty another 25 years, sad days ahead
Gone are the days leaders gained their mandate by free and fair play, sincere listening and bold vision, in the past 30 years, we see that the status quo helps some to reap handsomely from the nation while the poverty and income gap tripled !