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.
—–
HELP keep the voice of TOC alive!
If you like this article, please consider a small donation to help theonlinecitizen.com stay alive. Please note that we can only accept donations from Singaporeans. Thank you for your assistance.Do you have a flair for writing? Volunteer with us. Email us your full name and contact details to theonlinecitizen@gmail.com
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.