The price of expanding the NCMP scheme will be paid with the little political capital Opposition Parties hold.

If this is a chess game, the opposition can’t do much to curb the gambit by PAP. The challenge now is to turn it around without being detected and detracted.

Then again, is it really a chess game that PAP is playing or one that they are preparing to play as the Grandmaster… when the right opponent comes by that is?

Unfortunately, the round robin is ongoing between the various opposition parties, the various civil societies, and the citizens through their faith/ethnic based organisation. Until the winner mereges with the Citizenship agenda, then the game with PAP will begin.

PAP has many times questioned the need for an institutionalized opposition in Singapore, and on the surface this move seems to be contrary to that long held view; after all, that is introducing more opposition members into parliament…

In my opinion, it may not be that “contrary” after all. As mentioned, the NCMP and NMP schemes allow for opposition voices to be heard in parliament, thus “satisfying” public desire for more alternative views. Alternative and creative views are definitely necessary as we face one of the most unpredictable global economic situation since the birth of this country.

Once effectively introduced, the PAP government would be able to demonstrate its point that, there isn’t a need for institutionalized oppositions since alternative views are effectively heard in parliament, thereby lowering the electorate’s desire to actively vote for opposition candidates in elections.

In the short run, to me it effectively changes nothing since the PAP will still hold 2/3 majority-with-extra-padding. 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.

I doubt it is truly a gambit since the PAP still has a overwhelming hold over parliament. This political-Chess game is after all not in its opening stage, but late into the match. 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.

Dear Mr Choo Zheng Xi and Khairulanwar Zaini,

As you have rightly pointed out, these changes are very bad.

The PAP slackers hiding in GRCs, the Opposition slacker taking up her place as an NCMP, the non-politicians pushing their personal agendas disguised as NMPs, and now mediocre Opposition losers gate-crashing in as non-voting NCMPs…. our much-respected Parliament has been cheapened.

Where do voters like us now fit into this new political landscape? We have been ignored and bypassed in the political process. Our political rights have been surreptitiously taken away. The disconnect between our votes and the wielding of political power is never greater.

How can we stop this nonsense? Can any lawyer here enlighten us?

shotgun, you explained that very well. thanks.

and i hope the gambit fail….

I honestly think it is hard to please everyone.

It is already a bold move to increase NCMP voices from the opposition i must say.

i believe PM justifies his stance on this policy highlighting in his full speech that we are evolving the political system.

One step at a time. So perhaps this is the first step, same as we had Hong Lim Park, there was the first step. I think that is absolutely important and applaudable as well.

Proportional representation is not what the present establishment believes in and likewise for our multi racial multi religious society it is not something i believe in as well. The tweaked model of British parliament has proved successful thus far. Why change something that is working absolutely fine?

Lets keep the faith guys that this is the FIRST STEP to many more positive changes!

“It is already a bold move to increase NCMP voices from the opposition i must say.”
Bold steps ? Is the gov’s interest here to serve nation or themselves ? This is long overdue and it is not surprising that they do it due to increasing unhappiness sentiment on the ground in bad times. Do you think just having voice without voting power is effective ?

“i believe PM justifies his stance on this policy highlighting in his full speech that we are evolving the political system.”
How is it that they are the one who evolve the system not the citizen ? As history to go by, do you think that they will care to evolve the system once the economy become good again ?

“One step at a time. So perhaps this is the first step, same as we had Hong Lim Park, there was the first step. I think that is absolutely important and applaudable as well.”
Have u ever ask yourself the event leading to Hong Lim Park and why it takes such a loong time ? What is it that the PAP gov is so reactive and not proactive ?

“Why change something that is working absolutely fine?”
Maybe you need to come back to Singapore and experience the ground sentiment.

“Lets keep the faith guys that this is the FIRST STEP to many more positive changes!”
Once bitten twice shy. We have experienced so many “one step forward and two steps backwards” of that first step. U can only can keep the faith if the system is change for impact but change to mollycoddle ?

Hi iliveinuk,

I don’t question PM’s statement that we’re an evolving political system. It’s a truism without substantive content to say that any political system is evolving.

The big question is what we’re evolving towards. The increasing layers of MPs with different sources of electoral authority and differing powers almost makes it look like we’re evolving into something of a bicameral system accomodated within a single house.

I don’t think this is necessarily the end point PM has in mind though. I’m not even sure that he has a particular end point in mind. Many of these electoral innovations (including the EP) are responses to the contextual survival instincts of the PAP at different points in Singapore’s recent political history.

The evolving result might look rather grotesque because the tweaking of the electoral system then becomes a hotch-potch of innovations without reference to the first principle of any democratic system: maximizing the accountabilty of elected representatives. In fact, many of these innovations run completely contrary to this.

“One step at a time. So perhaps this is the first step, same as we had Hong Lim Park, there was the first step. I think that is absolutely important and applaudable as well.”

When these clowns gamble so much of Singapore asset and stake reserves without no accountability and responsibility, did they even think of “One step at a time” ? No, they gamble their stake all at once and lose it beyond word and now coverup here and there. We can’t have “one step at a time” if those “honest mistakes” of government don’t follow the rules of “one step at a time”.
You see the point ?

Oppss…
“When these clowns gamble so much of Singapore asset and stake reserves without no accountability and responsibility, ”
to
“When these clowns gamble so much of Singapore asset and stake reserves without accountability and responsibility, ”

It’s the tiredness. What to do, it happens.
Look like time for the bed…. Yawn,,,,

The time would come sooner for Singaporean to experience of voting in the opposition and found that they cannot do a reverse and only deam of the good old days of the PAP. Singaporean are lucky to have LKY to lay the foundation, just look at how UMNO rape Malaysia in the last 52 years and how the RM fall against our S$. Singaporean love to complaint & developed a culture of complaint, I predict in another generation most of the small businesses such as motor workshops, coffeeshops, restaurants will be operated by foreigner because if you look around no Singaporean want to work from the bottom and so the foreigners will learn the trade from A to Z and eventually take over all this establishment.

Singaporean will one day wake up and realise one of the biggest curplit is the like of CSJ and TOC is close next.

Whatever the voices from the Opposition camp or the ground, the PAP will move the changes through. They will prevail, as they always had. My sense is to take these changes in our stride, but not rest contented with them, so we should be asking for even more. Take whatever has been conceded, and still let us voters vote in more Opposition. As long as the PAP cannot change the fundamentals of the one-man-one-vote system, let the fight begin.

TOC

“Gambit” wrong usage.

Serious,y looks like everything govmin does, TOC and netizens (most) will criticise as not enough or got ulrerior motive. True that is often the case.

Hey here giving bunch of people (opposition parties) who have shown they want govmin handouts to win power something for nothing.

Remember when citizens lost money in minibonds, opposition parties did nothing. Took PAP man to do something. OK he resigned from PAP shortly. But where were WP, SDP etc?

what will happen is that no longer can the opposition run on a ‘get an alternative voice in parliament’ platform, because the PAP can say, you can vote PAP, and still get an alternative voice in parliament.

The thing about the NCMP and NMP scheme is that it’s very safe for the PAP – alternative voices may be heard in parliament, but because they have no ability to vote on supply, there will be no action.

Also, not allowing more than one representative from a losing GRC is a stroke of genius – the PAP is trying to tempt the stronger opposition parties into splitting its best team evenly amongst the seats they are contesting, so all of them can go to parliament, instead of trying challenge for a GRC – knowing that in some GRCs the race cut a bit too close for comfort.

It presents great challenge to the opposition.

Now they have to field 9 people to perform on the stage for the public to judge.
The public will not just judge them against PAP but also judge them against NMPs.

It provides a safe controlled stage for the public to preview the how democracy can turn into messy politics and debate.

The biggest question facing the opposition:

Will they be able to field 9 good people to impress and inspire the public to entrust them and their parties with more votes or discourage them from voting for opposition.

GRC is a stab to parliamentary democracy.

NMP Siew proposed to have some % of seat based on proportional votes is a good idea.

The government is a master of electotral game, whatever they do is to pacify the desire to have real representation of people’s voice, so to continue to entremch thir domination of power.

u hit the nail on the head…i urge all caring singaporeans to reject this half baked idea…shrouded with hidden agenda. Any bona fide candidate should and must be voted in by the people. Do not short change by accepting the token to make the number looks good…for them!

This move is to appease those who fear not voting PAP but inside want an Opposition. The PAP is trying to lull them into believing there’s going to be more more Opposition in Parliament but may not realise they are only there for show. Purely Illusionary… Dont fall for it and I hope the Opposition will highlight this to the voters.

The PAP had been preaching diversity when it introduced the GRC scheme, when it increased the number of seats in parliament to the current 84, when it introduced the NMP and NCMP schemes and when it brought in numerous young PAP MPs by the backdoors. These have all proven to have failed since there is still a dire need to, in PM Lee’s own words: “bring about more diverse views in Parliament“.

The people must not be taken in by this. We have to realise that true representation of our voice come in the form of a duly elected MP, who can speak up for us – with backing from us. An NMP and an NCMP cannot speak with the same authority as an MP who can do so with his residents’ backing.

Take Eunice Olsen as an example. In a recent interview, she said she was most gratified when her recommendation for TV News channel to carry subtitles for the benefit of the hearing-impaired was accepted and used. She might be overjoyed but to me, it sent shockwaves all over my body. In two terms, this is what she had achieved? All the other times when she spoke up in parliament on other issues amounted to nothing. No matter how articulated she might have been when giving her points of view, they all amounted to nothing, except this one instance. Is it worth the tax-payer’s money to have these NMPs in parliament?

Likewise Mr Siew. Has any of his views and recommendations been accepted? All the effort he puts in to prepare his cases have produced practically zero result. Awareness yes, but I am talking real concrete results. What have the other NMPs achieved in 20 years of the scheme? And here we are, talking about expansion when the result does not justify such an increase.

As for the changes to the GRC: It will be good to re-visit the reasons given by the PAP when it introduced the GRC scheme and their arguments on why there was a need for 6-member GRCs, and compare it against the reason now given that a smaller GRC helps residents identify better with their MPs.

gemami

“Is it worth the tax-payer’s money to have these NMPs in parliament?” — How much are they paid?

I suggest you find out.

this is nothing like chess. chess has a set of predetermined rules that cannot be changed at the whim of any 1 player. the PM game is more like Calvinball, where they make up the rules for their own benefit as they go along.

Why kind of allowance does an NMP get..

I thought that the media made light of how much they are paid just a few days ago. And if I remember what I read about the NMP and NCMP, their pay is a pale shadow of the $190,000 that the MPs are getting.

Which further proves the point, really. These people still continue to sit in the parliament and, yes despite their voice not being “heard” often, at least they are there. I don’t think they are there because they get a great pay cheque, but I think they are there hoping that they can make changes whenever they can, and getting their views aired.

aiyoyo

think commoners need to get back what they pay (on tax), at least.

do commoners get 物超所值 service with their tax paid?

(good economy, good+happy lifestyle, good jobs etc…)

aiyoyo

An effective alternative parties should not just provide views in the form of NMP or NCMP but be able to vote and check on the govt for corruptions. This alternative parties must be part of the key institutions and see how operations are being carried out in MOM, MOF, CDC, TC…etc. Only then, can we truly see that our alternative parties are representing the people not just in words but in power too.

“Take Eunice Olsen as an example. In a recent interview, she said she was most gratified when her recommendation for TV News channel to carry subtitles for the benefit of the hearing-impaired was accepted and used.”

Oy, Yes, we don’t need Eunice Olsen and if the government hold a beauty contest for the parliament, we can always call her back on the event by event basis. No need to spend unnecessary money in bad time, we ourselves look beautiful enough no matter how brutal the truth is.

“Remember when citizens lost money in minibonds, opposition parties did nothing. Took PAP man to do something. OK he resigned from PAP shortly. But where were WP, SDP etc?”
Why should opp party do something when the PAP government screwup in regulation and waiting to find scapegoat ? Seriously, are we so stupid not to recognize that ?

There is only one thing to say.

You can force people to go along with you but you can never get their heart.

From a functional perspective, it will work but it does not call out to the heart.

Remember reading an article in the ST written by an expat filippino. i’m sure we all know the “chaotic nature” of the Philippines politics, and yet, her country calls out to her in her heart.

Looking at Isreal, always fighting and now according to some people, they have a weak coalition gov. equally chaotic. I wonder does Isreal call out to the hearts of all jews?

I am not suggesting that SG politics must reduce to chaos…but i hope you get the point.

#20 Eunice Olsen…in it to elevate her status in the entertainment circle…her so called “true calling”…to be a music/acting star! And Mr. Siew? not hungry enuff to speak on real life issues…bread and butter for a start! As a commoner..ask yourself this question… can you connect with anyone of this people? As for me..i can only remember their names. Talk is cheap!

radlife66

You gave Israel as example of chaotic and weak govmin.

Israel beats the crap out its bigger neighbours with less chaotic govmins. And it vv entrepreneurial, innovative society that PAP wants here.

And Taiwan, S Korea got chaotic govmins. But they are more entreprenurial and innovative.

If you want “no chaos”, try N Korea.

The pap government is cheating again. All these sideshows are to confuse and mislead Singaporeans. If the pap government is genuine about real change then they should go back to all single constituency, relinquish their control over the media, establish an independent electorial commission and stop all the harassments of anti-pap but patriotic Singaporeans.

In a game of chess, both sides started on a level playing field. Do we have this in the first place?

To bob #9, while it can be seen as a stroke of genius, it can also be seen as a move with calculated risk. The opposition might not take the bait. If from their ground work, they find that this GRC has a chance of winning, there is nothing stopping them to field the strongest team to test the PAP incumbants. Imagine if they succeeded, it will be 4-5 MPs from the opposition into the parliament. That, in my opinion, is worth a shot. The opposition has nothing to lose really.

Sorry, I made reference to post #15 from bob, not #9

#30…North Korea also chaos…create chaos for her neighbours..lol

I suppose PAP has realised it has no other choice. Otherwise the possibility of PAP losing a few key seats or even a heavyweight like LHL losing out to an unknown opposition candidate or the worse case scenario, PAP suffered heavy losses & a humiliating defeat at the next elections, cannot all be ruled out.

But with these imminent changes are a show put up as a safety valve for the rising dissenting public to release their pent up frustrations against the ruling PAP party. PAP is not known for being kind towards the opposition unless they must have realised that the public cannot not be duped again.

If they are really sincere about the citizens’ rights, fairness and the Rule of Law, the first steps that they should really dismantle is this ridiculuous permit approval to assemble peacefully, the defamation suits against dissenting voices & the draconian ISA which our leaders are not ashamed to abuse against fellow Singaporeans. It really make a mockery of our democratic rights as guaranteed by out Constitution.

If PAP is really sincere about fairness, then they should really have a level playing field for everyone to play their part. Otherwise, it is just another farce put up by political hypocrites.

A Tan #30.

You get the point.

I would like to see the PAP qualify the merits of GRC. The PAP says that the GRC places a premium on opposition to not only provide viable candidates but a party that has the ability to form governments.

That’s a load of bulls to me. PAP is the opposition father and while I don’t speak for Singaporeans, I do not need to opposition in my ward to be large enough to form a government.

I need my MP to be some that I CHOOSE AND VOTE, not usher in. I need my MP to be voice my concerns and stand for my rights because he is accountable to me for my votes. If my MP’s party needs to form a government, I actually like the party to form a coalition with more checks and balances; and not a single party government like the PAP.

If the PAP is really as good as so many of the PAP ministers proclaims to be when they shot down LTK’s argument.. let them all stand as individual candidates.

These PAP turns me off with their arrogance.

It is a good move nevertheless.

1 after another , news related to the election steadily appears in the MSM.
If its not coming, I no no what is.
oh, it could still be 2011. kekekeke

I shall shave bald if no change.

Their Strategy is very clear indication of the mood on the ground which I suppose they have numerous people collecting info about the electorate – singapore so small, you have so many grassroots related people , I am sure they could provide a lot of feedback. small place + numerous listening = change of strategy.

But historical evidence says that the result will be the same due to mentality.
just my 1.01 cents.

sincerely,
The higher the Fall

radlife66:

It’s good that you raised the point of Israel, because that would’ve been the example i would raise:

1. multiethnic, multicultural immigrant society: ok, most of them are Jews, but you forget the sheer variety, in terms of ethnic origin, language, background (rich American jews, Ethiopian refugrees, literally former Soviet peasants), political beliefs (from far left to far right), religious belief (orthodox, reform, agnostic/atheist – all stripes). Plus the 20% Arab and Druze

2. Awful neighbourhood

Lee Kuan Yew likes to say that if we have one bad govt we go to the dogs. But actually the risk is far higher for Israel. But proportional representation works for them, despite their complicated social faultlines. The Middle East is economically less developed than SEA and probably more politically problematic.

Now, what Israeli elections don’t produce is dominant parties. 20% of the vote is a fantastic achievement for any one party. The PAP warns that proportional representation will lead to people championing extreme views. But lets look at it this way. Extreme views will always exist – but just because we find them extreme, doesn’t mean that they don’t have the right to hold them. If say, 5% of people believe that we shoudl stop all immigration, I don’t agree, but I have no qualms about them having 5% of parliament. The thing is, proportional representation means that you have more shades of opinion represented, but at the same time, to form a government, you have to carry the broad majority. You have to find consensus, make compromises. The tendency is actually towards a moderate government, rather than an extremist government. On the other hand, with first past the post, given that Singapore is basically a city and one giant constituency, it’s take it or leave it. Nuances in opinion don’t get represented. And theoretically, 50.1% of the vote can win you 100% of the seats. It fails to safeguard minority views, even though that minority can be a very significant one.

The idea that a pluralist system will cause chaos is completely false. The PAP has pulled a fast one here. It has confused social chaos, like in Thailand, with ordered political change. The average middle eastern leader lasts 15 years but you don’t call that region politically stable, because rule is subject to an arbitrary despot. Instead, plural democracies are considered stable despite regular turnover of political leaders, for the reason that that change is ordered, according to a clearly defined set of rules, that have legitimacy, and serve as a check on the leadership. Stable government is government by rule of law, not by an ill-defined ‘trust’.

LHL himself said it ” PLEASE DON’t VOTE THE PAP IN, if you don’t want it’….
I think Singaporeans must seriously do some soul searching….

I do understand what this article is trying to say….but eventually the choice is the best losing candidate to make……

I for one, would not accept this position, because of principles. Why…
why sit around when you don’t have actual powers….if the people are not SO keen to put you there, why be there….

It would make the PAP govt look like Goliath….
It would make Singaporeans want real opposition MP’s sitting with full powers….

So the next time around(election) Singaporeans would want to vote an opposition and give then enomours backing…..
Just don’t accept this post….

Please remember…this NMP post must be reserved for PAP MP’s themself . In case, some of the minsters or PAP MP’s lose.
This 2nd class argument must never be entertained in the 1st place.
The only way to go about this is by not filling the NMP seat.

and NCMP seat

what’s the use of ncmp or nmp bringing in diverse opionions if these are not taken up?

it’s akin to setting up the reach protal to “listen” in the voices from the ground. all show, no action.

the test is in the pudding. only mps, duly elected, have the powers to DO anything.

vote wisely! or you may never get to vote again.

The NMP post is a waste of taxpayers money.The GRCs are a waste of taxpayers money. What minority representation are we talking about. I dont even know or see my minority MP, or for that matter,any of the other MPs in my area.Lets cut the crap and stick to single seat constituences.And if the PAP is afraid of competition, have a few GRCs for the backdoor entrants.

dear smallvoice,

the answers to your qn can easily be found. Just disagree with everything the PAP says, and there… are your answers.

Till today , I still wake up each day , shocked and incomprehensible
the fact that the People of singapore did not help form a robust democratic political system comprised of equally strong Opposition to perform the Check and Balance and represent the 33% or more population. If utilized productively, Opposition will boost performance all round. In the end, its the People , responsible for the country in their own ways , who WILL benefit in more ways than 1.

Everyone should know they are responsible. If not they shall learn in time to come.

YES, PLEASE BOYCOTT THOSE NCMP SCHEME THAT SERVE TO PRESERVE THE POWER OF PAP. VOICE WITHOUT VOTING POWER IS USELESS. WE HAVE ALREADY HAVE “VOICE” HERE, WE DON’T NEED ANOTHER INEFFECTIVE VOICE. WHAT WE WANT IS EFFECTIVE VOICE THAT IS ONLY POSSIBLE WITH VOTING POWER, OTHERWISE ANYTHING THAT TALK ABOUT “POLITICAL” FAIRNESS TO CITIZENS AND OPP PARTY IS ENTIRELY HOGWASH.

I think the main goal is to prevent the PAP from achieving enough seats to “mend” constitution as they like. They had been abusing their rights of amending the constitution to bring in political weapons of mass destruction (GRC).

35) Alan Wong on May 28th, 2009 10.50 am

you mentioned ’safety valve’ for people to release their frustration… I see it as a safety valve for losing some electoral seats.

For example, in the next election, Sylvia wins instead. What do you think her margin of victory will be? I don’t expect it to be very big. So when a PAP loses his/her seat in the election, s/he will STILL be in the Parliament via the biggest loser route. So in the end, we end up with the same overwhelming PAP majority, just that some PAP member change from MP to NCMP.

NCMP at least got people’s mandate while NMP is really useless having people like a beauty queen as a NMP. So far the only “effective” NMP is Mr Botak Siew, but no bite as he speaks to “air” in parliament regarding issues with the latest being the Public Order Act.

The catch is raising the nos of NMP and NCMP which are both toothless in parliament. The best solution is to vote for opposition parties during the next GE.

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.

[...] Alot is being said and written about these “changes”. To mention a few, see here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here. [...]

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.

[...] Parliament is turning into more and more into a drama scripted by the PAP. They now say, oh, the people want more opposition voices in parliament so let us increase the number of NCMP to 9, so that the opposition can speak up and the people can know that dissent in parliament is encouraged. However, lest we forget, NCMPs cannot vote. So what if they can speak up in parliament or pound their shoes on the tables for attention, their speeches are useless anyway apart from the wayang factor. The PAP have always said that politics is serious business and it should not be trivialised into comedy or entertainment. However, that is what the NCMP system is turning into. A slapstick comedy of caged, castrated dissent. [...]

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 !