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 !

That makes three of us. I believe so too.

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 ?

i suspect those NMPs might have signed under the dotted line of not creating troubles and stay within stipulated guideline given.

who knows?

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.

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.

“…. 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.

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.

“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.

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.

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.

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?

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.