Announcement:
TOC is relaxing its moderation policy. As most of you can see, your comments are allowed to be posted immediately. However, we are still keeping an eye on the comments, and will not hesitate to remove those which are personal attacks, racist and inflammatory. So, please do keep this in mind. Read our stance on moderation of comments here. Thank you.
By Khairulanwar Zaini with contributions by Ravi Philemon and Andrew Loh
Sylvia Lim has welcomed the Trojan horse to enter Troy, and whatever good that can come out of this, it will be a Pyrrhic victory for the Workers’ Party.
Her speech was awkward and painful, not least for the inconsistencies of argument, but also the fact that the Workers’ Party – undeniably the best prospect among the multitude of opposition parties – sacrifices principles to swallow hook, line and sinker the PAP’s tactical masterstroke.
The NCMP scheme fulfills the exigent need of more opposition presence, but retards the overall growth of political liberalization and the concept of an elected representative legislature.
NCMP: So that we can “serve the people in Parliament”
The exercise in political expedience would have yielded an unprecedented seven parliamentary seats for the WP, a fact not lost on them in their endorsement of the scheme. Their justification for the ruling party’s benevolent largesse – “greater recognition to the desire of (opposition) voters” and “facilitate opposition parties serving the people in Parliament” are doublespeak for ruthless political opportunism to accrue Parliamentary presence for the opposition – democratic and electoral principles be damned.
To be fair, it was a hard argument to make – particularly when what follows is her rejection of the Nominated MP scheme. Despite both the NCMPs and NMPs being unelected, Lim argues that the latter does not deserve a Parliament seat because they did not “contest the election” – for she maintains that it is an “essential precondition to obtain some sort of mandate from the people.”
The legitimacy of electoral experience and “some sort of mandate”
It is already very difficult to justify a Parliament seat for any unelected representative, but the double act of justifying a seat for the NCMP cabal yet denying the NMP coterie is certainly much harder – resulting in the pathetic quibble of hustings experience to distinguish between the two.
A Parliament seat cannot be sufficiently attained only with “some sort of mandate” – that is a mockery of democratic elections, notwithstanding the drawbacks of the first-past-the-post system. The WP has capitulated to the opportunity for more seats without due consideration for the sanctity of Parliament as an elected House.
Parliament: representation without substance
The hallowed halls of Parliament may soon be an elected legislature only in nomenclature. Taking into perspective the total numbers of MPs returned by walkovers, NCMPs and NMPs, this yields a House alarmingly composed of a substantial number of non-elected representatives. If the changes were retroactively applied to 2006, there would have been a total of 54 unelected seats.
The greatest disappointment though is that the WP, in its selfish party-political considerations, displayed scant regard for the Parliamentary democratic system; a future Parliament may result in potentially more un-elected Members of Parliament, which will be a travesty of democracy.
Legislative changes which affect the community we live in the most, can only be effected by those in parliament; and for this reason alone, the representatives in Parliament must be elected by the people so that they would be truly representative of the people. This representation then could be trusted to bring about the change the people want.
And the changes which must reflect the will of the people must most importantly be reflected in the amendments to the Constitution, Budget and in initiating a motion of ‘no confidence’ in an incompetent government. It is these three key changes (if necessary), that both the NMP and NCMP scheme deprives the people of, and on these grounds alone, both schemes should be rejected.
It is disappointing that WP fell into the PAP’s conflation of the progressive ideal of a mature, inclusive and representative political democracy with the fact of more parliamentary presence for the opposition. The expanded NCMP scheme treats and panders the latter as the ultimate end while ignoring the spirit of the former.
The flattering imitation of future victory
The ruling party has orchestrated a well-played tactical coup this past week, and Chiam See Tong should be flattered. By introducing a disincentive to voters hoping for an opposition to check on the government, the expanded NCMP scheme is reminiscent of Chiam’s 1991 by-election strategy.
That brilliant maneuver returned a historic four opposition seats.
Not just WP but all opposition parties should see that the latest move by the PAP is a reverse tactical ploy which will help the PAP retain the upper hand in the next elections.
——
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
Interesting that in the Pre GRC days, we voted in Marshall and JB Jeyaratnam. And Vivian says he still feels uncomforable as a minority race.
And in America, Obama was voted in. What a shame for Vivian.
If minorities are not voted in, well then – they should come in a NCMP. So please remove the GRC structure. Minorities can still be represented by NCMP scheme.
Until GRC is abolished ,everything else is just one big expensive wayang show.
The establishment is plainly and just afraid to take up the SMC challenges for all constituencies – that is all…… and as always they presume that citizens are born yesterday….
Always “uncomfortable”, but always comfortable with what that is given….
Enough said.
I guess it is in the opposition to state clearly – do they accept the token NCMP system?
Low Thia Khiang and Sylvia should make it clear – do they play by the game – or up the ante and reject this ‘token scheme’ of NMP / NCMP as mentioned by Low in Parliament yesterday?
I suggest they go for broke. Sylvia to resign now from NCMP.
I disagree with the point that WP fails to criticise PAP’s move. There are merits to the new policy, and I don’t see why it’s worse than the current system.
If the point is that the new electoral system still doesn’t allow one to topple the PAP, then I think the authors fail to put their personal agenda aside and fail to see the opportunity for more political growth.
hello 7) in the shadow
The NCMP scheme does offer ‘more political growth’ if it is strictly defined as only more opposition members in Parliament. However, that short-circuits the process of political liberalization – the scheme is an empty sop to dissuade legitimate votes for the opposition.
Trust me, I would like to see more opposition members in Parliament as well – but only if they were elected fairly and truly representative of the aspirations of the voters.
The scheme does render it worse than the current system because not only does it undermine a strategic campaign premise of the opposition and reduce the legitimacy of their representatives, the entire scheme draws Parliament further away from being a democratically elected House.
The point is: If you want to get into Parliament, get voted in through fair means by a battle on a level playing ground. This goes for both the PAP and the opposition.
I think we should give WP the benefit of doubts with their tact in neutralising their stand in this issue. They cannot be seen too strongly opposing and agreeing with the new system and having pap making a good laugh again that opposition party do no wish to see their members in parliament. And than, you have our msm putting a twist out of their words in favour of pap.
System can always change depending on who is in power now.
As for now, WP might be worried that despite public displeasure shown on pap, the next election result remain unpredictable given our historical record that pap always win, even by a narrow margin. Ideally, every alternative parties would wish to be given mandated and get voted into parliament. However, to them it is also quite foreseeable because people change their mnd easily with some sweet carrot dangling during election. If they ever lose again, they are at least guaranteed their voices heard in parliament which also serves to grill pap juniors out of their dumbasses and keep pap sleepy alert at all time. This is one advantage I can think off.
Nevertheless, we must always let our UNEDUCATED people know the difference between elected and non-elected MP where the former has the power to vote against any bill or policies not in favour of our citizens. Silvia speech was not drafted for them since they can’t understand the debate. As for savvy Singaporeans, we need to read Silvia speech between the line that at least WP sees themselves having such provision prpoposed if the citizens screw up again in the next election.
I agree with #8) khairulanwar and would like to further point out that representatives in Parliament are suppose to represent the people when making decisions that impacts the people.
With these changes, it is moving away from the need for MPs to be the people’s representatives, for eaxmple, how will the house vote if a motion is put across by a people-elected MP and opposed by an NMP or NCMP that represent no one in particular?.
Even though the NMPs and NCMPs have no voting powers, it can do enough to sway opinions to vote against the people-elected representatives on matters that might potentially affect the people’s welfare – simply because they are not answerable to anyone but themselves.
I don’t think the opposition parties have any say on the scheme. As far as I am concern, I believe WP has done an excellent job to date, in terms of countering the move by the current regime.
First – the scheme will push through whether another opposition parties agrees or not. 81 vs 3, anyone will thinks opposition party has a “choice” in this matter must be “out-of-their-mind”.
Second – in my opinion, the current regime has make a mistake – a small one perhaps, but a mistake nonetheless. Extra ‘Voices’ in parliment, though without power, has it psychological-effects. 81:3 compared to 90:8, though seems minute difference, but 1 extra man equates to extra support and possibilty for the opposition party to gain in influence and to establish their foothold in the future. More importantly, other than the few well-known faces such as Chiam, Low, Slyvia, Chee; there are little room for opposition to put new faces – a constant reminder to voters by the current regime that opposition got no better leaders (to be exact, proven leaders) other than those few mentioned. Additional 9 faces means the opposition can groom new opposition leader for future elections. Battles are never won in one day.
Third – from an opposition point of view, WP has no room to reject the motion. This is because the current regime may lose some seats in this coming GE, but they will never lose the election and hence, will still form the government after this coming GE. The reasons have been discussed over and over again, namely, opposition lacks creditable/proven leaders, lack experience to run the country, etc. The current political climate is that the people wants alternative voice, not alternative government. Therefore, why would any opposition give up such “opportunity”? I believe the current regime will be more than happy to appoint all the 18 NCMP? Don’t you think it will be stupid to reject/boycott the extra headcount in the parliment when it comes to this? Will it further re-inforce the belief that the opposition lacks “brains” or “judgement”?
Fourth – in my opinion, this motion does not change the fundamental of the NMP systems. Can you say that Slyvia Lim, whom lost the last election, in principle, should not accept her current role in the parliment? From my understanding so far, she did a great job – albeit the constraint that she’s been put with. Moreover, given the constraints faced by opposition in a GE (search the web if you have no clue on what are the constraints are), I don’t think one should request the opposition to reject the “opportunity” to strengthen their foothold for future fights based on principle or fairness where they are tied one-hand behind their back during GE. If today, parties, are contesting on equal ground, then I would agree that the NMP system is no better than the GRC systems, all are backdoors – and they don’t represent the people. But the reality is the contest is not levelled.
Hence, I believe WP so far has read the situation correctly, and should capitalise on the “opportunity”.
Of course, they can over-emphasize on their advancement for fear of being view as “opportunist” by the people.
God bless Singapore and may we have better future.
Correction:
Of course, they cannot over-emphasize on their advancement for fear of being view as “opportunist” by the people
We should start a void your vote campaign in GE2009.
GRC – Noone can stop you from voting against the PAP. That’s not the real issue. The implication of the GRC is that it creates high barrier to entry in the “first past the post” system, but it does have the benefit of encouraging larger functional units. Bearing that the “proportional representation” system is not going to happen, it is immaterial to dwell over it. The relevant question you should ask yourself is whether the new electoral system is better than status quo.
I don’t think the new system is “moving away from democratic representation”. GRC is decreasing its size (although marginally), and more importantly remember that you are always free to exhaust all the quota for NCMPs. Cast your votes and accept the outcome. Respect the rules of election.
All the discourse here is based on the assumption that we are operating in a democratic environment…
…enough said…
“Respect the rules of election.”
Who set the rule ?
Perhaps we should respect the rule of Junta by not condemning them too because Junta also set the rules of election and bills too.
Doesn’t it feel good that we are told to respect the rules of elections in Singapore when you know it is the kangaroos that set them, but when it comes to burma, we condemn the Junta for whatever rules they set against their “democracy” ?
So convenient. Since we Singapore love to respect rule of the election , maybe we can ask the government to abolish election so that we will give up hope and not grow bitter and anger over election issue. Without anger and bitterness, Singaporeans will live a 100 years, and hence we can enjoy annuity . Sound good ?
Ladies and Gentlemen,
After All is Said and Done, WE KNOW we are not gonna CHANGE anything.
Why i say this?
Well, NMPs like SKH has no voting rights on new laws being passed. I suppose any and whatever new laws. They can only Voice Up, if they would choose to make the effort to do so.
Bloggers and forums all over the net can voice up all they want.
At the end of the Day, as even NMPs voice cannot stop any bill from being passed if the ruling party insists on passing a bill, and the ineffectiveness of the 2 votes of opposition party, we know that there is nothing we can do about it because the people have spoken. Bloggers cannot do anything about it. Opposition parties can do nothing about it.
We the People can only follow what is set for us.
viva la democracy. ya.
Hi #Dumb and Dumber,
That’s the spirit! Now we are talking. No matter how we feel aggrieved by the NMP and NCMP schemes, they are here to stay – at least for some time yet.
Allow me to therefore add that we should be working on what we can do rather than what we cannot do, and; in this instance – what the opposition can do is much more than what it has been able to do with the current scheme of things.
We know that this is just a PAP ploy to get voters to vote for them with full confidence and that there will always be an alternative voice in parliament. Even though they may think that we are stupid to the core for equating a voice with actual interest-representation, never mind, take this as a first step to better things to come for Singapore. Like most of PAP’s initiatives of late, they will backfire on them – and I am rubbing my hands in anxious anticipation.
I think the WP has been reacting in a positive manner and instead of tearing their heads off, they are keeping them intact and pondering their moves very carefully. Kudos to them so far.
We cannot deny that the PAP is brilliant. They get their way with the support of the WP. But who knows, WP may be setting a trap for the PAP when election comes.
gemami,
Look like Singaporean has to continue to eat bitter pills and bitter wayang.
By the way, I am totally appalled at the amount of the nonsense in mainstream media trumpeting how radical is those wayang change. I doubt majority of those who read those Shi-T knows that NMP and NCMP have no voting power because the press conveniently downplay those part and, in some , leave it off entirely so Readers are reading with their eyes wide open again. All present in newspaper is purely one sided, very optimistic, very positive, very constructive (as long it fits the government’s agenda). If reader is ignorant, the stand for these Shi=TTY papers is “No one ask them to be so ignorant” and “no one ask them to read those sh-it”.
Guess what the heading of those Shi-T ?
“Increaing number of Opp party MP” see how convenient of them not to specify it as NMP or NCMP in case people question what is the difference.
I wonder how many of those in Singapore stop eating bitter pills and end up eating suicide pill
The current regime is so entrenched that it would take many elections to unseat them.
This NMPand NCMP schemes are here to stay. Nothing we say is this forum is going to change it. Such is the situation under the MIW.
I gather from the postings in this forum and other website, there is definitely no shortage of capable and articulate people in SG. People who can think on their feet and give the Pappies a dose of what a debate should be.
I sincerely hope that more people would come forward….NMP, NCMP…..
hello 10) Dumb and Dumber
just to briefly address your salient points:
1) true – the scheme will be implemented. but it does not mean that the workers’ party cannot protest at the perpetuation of such a tilted electoral framework that undermines the notion of political democracy.
it is a fait accompli as far as parliamentary votes are concerned, but that would remain when there are 9 opposition mps as well – they are supposed to provide an alternative voice, and this was a good opportunity to provide alternative proposals (we know how many electoral rules that need to be changed for a semblance of fair election, so it is a tad disappointing that the WP have glossed over this to accept the NCMP scheme instead.)
2) sure, there will be greater recognition of opposition faces – but is that really tangible? i understand the gradual process, but it is moving at a glacial pace because their exposure is still at the mercy of the mainstream media. steve chia did an effective job as an NCMP from 2001 to 2006, but he still lost.
the problem is that this NCMP scheme is very narrow and limited in the sense that it only addresses the clamour for more opposition MPs. but it does not address the fundamental imbalance in the political framework, and the WP could have at least protested louder – since anyway there is negotiating room of sorts, even if their ideas will be rejected.
3) the WP has room to reject the motion. there is something more important than having an opposition; and that is having an opposition voted into parliament fairly by an outright victory.
and it is very sad when a political party is unsure whether its candidate can win in an election – so much for LTK gunning for a GRC a year back. be confident of yourselves and the people.
and opportunity at the expense of principle brings WP to the same level of PAP – which implies that the WP is a party similar to PAP but merely without power. the opposition can afford certain basic key operating principles, and believing in fairly elected parliamentary representatives is one of them.
4) i believe you mean NCMP scheme. Sylvia Lim (it must have been hard to write this argument) tangles herself up by accepting the NCMP scheme but rejecting the NMP scheme.
it does not alter the fundamental of the NCMP scheme, but the expansion has severe ramifications on the concept of elected representative democracy, Parliament as an elected legislature and the opposition at large.
you address that the critical fact that parties are fighting with one hand tied at their back – and that is where the WP should have taken aims at. remember the context of the speech – the changes are meant to be debated about, and Sylvia limply accede to the NCMP scheme.
i think we have to ask ourselves what the people want, not what balance of parliament the political parties wish to configure. and that should be expressed in the ballot box conducted in a fair setting: and if it so happens that the PAP sweeps all the seat and the opposition is left lacking, it is the will of the people. democracy may hurt minority opinion true, but democracy does not entail a guarantee that there should be an opposition at all times.
to the pragmatists who will say that the changes the PAP is already cast in stone and there is little to be gained in fighting this, you do realize that 9 ncmps is a pretty insignificant parliamentary bloc as well – and that the only influence that they possess is their voice in dissent.
the WP sacrificed that voice yesterday for the assurance that they can get more representatives into Parliament.
18) teo soh lung on May 29th, 2009 4.00 pm
“We cannot deny that the PAP is brilliant. They get their way with the support of the WP.”
I feel that any party given such power and dominance can achieve the same. Now, who sets the rules of the game?
When it comes to rule based, its a matter of how ‘well’ you set the rules when all follow the rules to ‘play’ the ‘game’.
Seriously, another 50 years dominance is very easily achievable unless the rule setter fails to set it ‘right’. Then they only have themselves to blame if …..
As the years go on, Opposition party drift further and further from the ruling party in terms of experience. In fact, its almost an impossible catchup game with them having 50 years of lead time and experience ahead of opposition.
Why not we just concede the fact that the people have made this choice and there is no way out of this situation?
I am packing my bags. Why sacrifice and waste my time? I have learnt a solid lesson about the psychology of humans and the power of rice bowl and the human spirit and the Soul.
I feel that the current ruling party members can expect a good retirement and peace of mind in the sense that there will be no opposition party threat big enough to be worried about for the next 50 years.
But this is merely me think.
It’s a win-win situation: PAP to stay in power, WP to gain more seats in Parliament. What’s there (for Sylvia) not to like?
“It’s a win-win situation: PAP to stay in power, WP to gain more seats in Parliament. What’s there (for Sylvia) not to like?”
just change the sentence structure a little bit since it’s a win-win : WP to stay in power, XXX to have more seats in Parliaments. What’s there (for ????) not to like ? No wonder one past species of the cuckoo by the name Akikonomu went extinct.
Mark my words here today – Lau Lee & Lau Goh had in the past umpteen years tried all means (threats, carrots, smiles, middle fingers, chiku, abalone porridges etc) to get rid of Chiam & Low but to no avail. They are humiliated, deeply. Now, come next election, Hougang & Potong Pasir electorates will be told – vote for PAP, get your swimming pools, HDB upgrades, and still Low & Chiam are sure to remain in Parliament as Nominated MPs, “win-win-win” situation for all.
hello 25) Akikonomu
fair enough it does benefit WP alot – but principles can certainly be afforded in politics, and treating it as though the only thing that matters is the number of opposition seats is disappointing.
there is a fine line between pragmatism and opportunism, and the WP’s weak capitulation suggests the latter.
Let’s go back to what PM Lee Hsien Loong said on 3 May 2006:
“Right now we have Low Thia Khiang, Chiam See Tong, Steve Chia. We can deal with them. Suppose you had 10, 15, 20 opposition members in Parliament. Instead of spending my time thinking what is the right policy for Singapore, I’m going to spend all my time thinking what’s the right way to fix them, to buy my supporters votes, how can I solve this week’s problem and forget about next year’s challenges?”
It appears the most number of opposition MPs the PAP can tolerate is 9, which is why the proposal for the increase in NCMP is capped at 9. Well, 9 opposition MPs in Parliament is NOT ENOUGH. We need 10 to 20 opposition MPs in order for them to effectively perform their role.
Looks like LHL thought really long and hard since the last General Elections on how to “fix” the opposition.
vivian is not obama.
Vivian is far far behind.
Judging by their performance, in accordance to his comments, pap should be voted out long long time ago.
For PM Lee to convince me he sincerely means well for the future of S’pore politics, he has to first abolish the GRCs for the next GE.
It should not be lost on PM Lee that his PAP has betrayed their supporters and the general public when majority of his MPs failed to speak up for ordinary citizens and more importantly restricted from voting freely on issues affecting them.
Put the PAP house in order first before coming up with this NCMP/NMP scheme which is essentially to shore up waning public support.
“We need 10 to 20 opposition MPs in order for them to effectively perform their role.”
It matters if they’re NCMPs or elected MPs. I think Minilee won’t feel threatened at all with 10-20 NCMP opposition MPs in Parliament.
“there is a fine line between pragmatism and opportunism, and the WP’s weak capitulation suggests the latter.”
khairulanwar: Its capitulation may mean an acknowledgement of either
1. the limits to its growth or speed of growth as a party, or
2. its internal estimates of when it will be ready to win 1/3 of elected seats (i.e. not in the short term),
in which case it is a smart, effective, and tactically sound move for Sylvia and the WP to support MInilee’s reform plan.
Just aquestion to everyone does NMP and NCMP get paid? If so won’t it mean that we would be incurring more cost to run the government at a time like this
commo…friends…dun believe wat LHL said. Just let them lose one or more GRCs in this coming election then they will give up GRC system and work from the ground and get intact with the ground, intact with ppl like you and me. NCMP & NMP is just nosense, they can only voice up in parliament but with PAP control media nobody will know, just like wat happened now. i THINK MOST Singaporean have a impression that both our LOw And Chiam nv “work” in parliament…cost the media only publish the bad things about them and publish gd things about PAP.
Wake up Singapore! It our vote that can change our life!
“It matters if they’re NCMPs or elected MPs. I think Minilee won’t feel threatened at all with 10-20 NCMP opposition MPs in Parliament.”
How can he be threatened when the main objective of these NCMP and NMP scheme is just to show vibrancy and diversity of view to the world, and nothing more ? Guess what will the MPs says in the Meet The People session when citizen want more opposition party ? Will it be “we already have more opp party MPs now” exactly just like the Shi-tty Times tell you.
hello 32) Akikonomu
the decision can be proved to be sound by the political calculation, but is it worth the cold pragmatism that abandons the principle of fairly elected representatives?
and taking note that at the same time, they rejected the NMP scheme. yes, the NCMP scheme may be good for the party, but is it good for the nation?
#29 Ahtong
” Well, 9 opposition MPs in Parliament is NOT ENOUGH. We need 10 to 20 opposition MPs in order for them to effectively perform their role. ”
ya lor, assuming 33% vote for Opposition Parties,
its only fair that 33% MPs belong to Opposition Parties.
This is correct Representation.
Please don’t compare Dr Vivian with Obama.
Its like comparing cow dung with chocolates.
Thanks.
This is one TOC article that I can say honestly: I absolutely, wholeheartedly agree with.
E-Jay
khairulanwar,
I agree with your principled approach, but disagree with your overall argument.
You said: “If you want to get into Parliament, get voted in through fair means by a battle on a level playing ground.”
I agree. But with the GRC system and partial media, the playing ground is not level. So you cannot expect the WP to reject this with nothing better return. This is at least a bird in hand.
In any case, if the opposition wins 9 or more seats in the next election (a slight possibility), then we won’t have any NCMPs.
You cannot equate NCMPs to NMPs. The former have the support of tens of thousands of voters, the latter have absolutely zero mandate from the people. In fact I would argue that NCMPs have more legitimacy than walkover MPs.
No need all these 9, 10 or whatever not NCMPs or NMPs rubbish. Just revert back to 1 man 1 vote like the old days and the whole truth will be out, no need to argue so much, no need to explain why this why that. The country belongs to the people and the people will decide who they want to appoint as their leader. Simple but scary for those MIW now, too bad, they live by their mighty sword and now they have face their destiny.
I do not agree with the article that Sylvia was necessarily contradictory. An NCMP went through the gauntlet of an election in a specific constituency but lost with a narrow margin, whereas the NMP did not. The NCMP could not collect the trophy because it is a first past the post system. The NMP on the other hand was nominated into Parliament at the patronage and benevolence of the govt, without any form of popular endorsement , so he/she has much lesser, if no claim to the people’s voice. Perhaps this was what she had in mind when she argued this point, although in the end, neither NCMP nor NMP has the power to vote. There again, in a House dominated 82-2, what good is an argument based on the power to vote? The only remedy is for the Opposition to concentrate their forces strategically and tactically in every election from now with these concessions and for the people to see through the sham and shenanigans of the ruling Party and vote for the Opposition to victory. In that way can the balance be tipped in Parliament and leverage can be applied to exert real enough pressure on the govt to amend their arrogant and elitist attitude and to make sure that critical changes cannot be made further to the Constitution of Singapore to deny the govt from completing its path to a full-blown dictatorship!
Gerald,
“You cannot equate NCMPs to NMPs. The former have the support of tens of thousands of voters, the latter have absolutely zero mandate from the people. In fact I would argue that NCMPs have more legitimacy than walkover MPs.”
NMPs have no mandate.
NCMPs too have no mandate. It can be argued that NCMPs are worst than NMPs because NCMPs have actually been REJECTED by the people.
The sad thing here is that perhaps the opposition will start to think of these crumbs as worthy prizes, forgetting that what they should be fighting for is a level playing field right from the get-go.
This is the danger – the opposition playing right into the hands of the PAP without even knowing it, analysing and rationalising the legitimacy of these schemes while at the same time saying they are no good.
It looks to me that the opposition itself is a confused lot without much principles or passion for what constitutes real democracy. At the very least, they seem to not even understand what democracy means.
That is the saddest thing about this whole debate.
I would hope that all the 9 seats are elected oppostion members. 9 NCMPs…. Well, not a very idea. The real stuff is better. 9 elected opposition MPs against 75, politically still very stable, go for it.
hello 40) Gerald Giam
i understand your view. when i said “fair means by a battle on a level playing ground”, it referred to both the PAP and opposition candidates.
the context of this issue is important: this is an opportune discussion about electoral changes, and not asking whether opposition parties should accommodate to the unfair electoral rules that PAP has implemented.
the workers’ party didn’t have to reject this, but neither did they have to accept wholesale by saying its “overall supportable” – since the ideas have only been recently floated by the PM, and the WP could have at least said “yes, it is an improvement, but look we can do much better than this.”
(and to preempt the argument who says that there is no point of proposing an alternative since the PAP will just utilize its majority to ram in the changes, then there is no point of having NCMPs either since they would still constitute a paltry minority.)
i respectfully disagree with your last point. i think legitimacy is not gained so much the numbers of votes that you accrue, but whether you won outright against an opponent – you can’t expect to say you deserve a Parliament seat because you have “some sort of mandate”. for walkover MPs, I wouldn’t deny that there is a problem with that as well – which can be addressed by lowering the institutional obstacles in place, which the WP could be more strident in this issue.
to sum it up, the PAP is exhorted to play fair. but to avoid that and retain its unfair advantage, the PAP changes the rules and allows the opposition some unfair concessions to get into Parliament – thereby distorting the entire parliamentary process.
42) white raven on May 30th, 2009 12.49 am
The only remedy is for the Opposition to concentrate their forces strategically and tactically in every election from now with these concessions and for the people to see through the sham and shenanigans of the ruling Party and vote for the Opposition to victory.
You think this will work? not unless they scrap those ISA and their famous defamation suits against any opp members when comes election time. Those MIW already made history here in Singapore. What esle do you think they dare not do next? scrap the GE for good! possible? yes, of course!
An important change that the ruling Party can make is to allow secret votes in Parliament on important Bills such as the one on POA and Section 377A. This will free PAP MPs to vote with their hearts and conscience without suffering the wrath of their own Party discipline. After all, aren’t the MPs supposed to represent the constituents’ interests first when such votes do not threaten the govt’s survival? It just means that the people does not want such rules even though the govt thinks so. Isn’t Parliament all about making govt accountable and responsible?
The PM is getting more absurd by the day. Can somebody advise what kind of new political system is this? Can we actually say our Govt is a democratically elected one? Can we or not?
As the saying goes, if it is too good to be true, then it most likely is!
43) ST Observer on May 30th, 2009 12.52 am Gerald,
“NCMPs too have no mandate. It can be argued that NCMPs are worst than NMPs because NCMPs have actually been REJECTED by the people.”
So, a person who did not get 1st place , bu say 2nd, is a FAILURE?
NCMP is best of the losers. It can mean just 1 position below the last that won a seat.
What you said is half truth.
The Full Truth is :
1. NCMP who has substantial votes from the people but lost by a bit is given partial “mandate”. A walkover MP has no votes to show in their favor. zero votes were cast for them. Of course there is no such thing as partial mandate. That was for the purpose of explanation.
2. NCMP who has very insignificant number or proportion of votes won can mean, to some, that the people has REJECTED them.
The key is the proportion of votes won by NCMP and not by the ranking.
over to you.
Putting all these arguments aside, Singaporeans must understand that our utlmate goal is to vote for the oppositions regardless of any schemes the govt has. We are also aware, by now, PAP has already lost majority of the confidence of Singaporeans and the tide is in favour of alternative parties. Thus, we urge all alternative parties not to be complacence, take the opportunity or lose it, there is no other way now.