The following is the parliamentary speech by NCMP and Workers’ Party Chairman, Ms Sylvia Lim.
Sir, I next move on to the changes of the composition of Parliament.
First, entrenching Nominated MPs in the system.
The Workers’ Party’s position on NMPs remain the same and I do not intend to repeat what we have said through the years. In summary, we do not support having MPs who do not participate in the electoral process. We have voted against all motions to have NMPs in the past and we will oppose their entrenchment.
I will focus the rest of my speech on the change to Non-Constituency MPs.
Sir, clause 3 amends Article 39 to increase the maximum number of NCMPs of Parliament from six to nine. The Workers Party will oppose the amendments on the fundamental principle that having NCMPs is not the way forward to make our political system more robust. This change is an attempt by the Prime Minister to make a bad situation better. Yes, it improves the current situation and will give some recognition to the desire of voters who supported opposition candidates in large numbers. However, the fundamental problem should be tackled at its root cause – the GRC system and gerrymandering.
Let me elaborate.
Last May, the Prime Minister told the House that the rationale for the increase in NCMPs was to encourage a wider range of views in Parliament, including opposition and non-government views. He said that it will generate more robust debate and improve policy formulation. The most important reason for the change, according to him, was to keep Parliament in sync with the concerns and aspirations of Singaporeans, and strengthen the role of Parliament as a key democratic institution where important national issues are deliberated and decided.
Sir, it is good that the Prime Minister has an open mind towards alternative views. However, his vision of Parliament now seems to be a sort of feedback unit or even as a talk-shop. Is that all that Parliament as an organ of state should be? What happened to Parliament being a collective mandate of representation where each MP who is there has a right to be there to make decisions for the people because the people have so elected?
Under the doctrine of separation of powers, Parliament has a critical role as a check on the executive government. Parliament can only be legitimately formed after the General Elections when the people decide who should be in Parliament to represent them. Even the PAP boasts that it faces the people every five years to get a mandate but instead of acting in the national interest the PAP government has over the years tinkered with the electoral system for its political ends.
Allow me to trace some history, in case some of us have forgotten.
Sir, the NCMP scheme was introduced in 1984. This was soon after the PAP lost just one elected seat in the 1981 Anson by-election, captured by the Workers’ Party secretary-general, the late Mr JB Jeyaretnam. However, the NCMP scheme did not stop the people from voting for the opposition. In the 1984 GE, Mr Jeyaretnam retained his Anson seat with a larger majority and in addition, Mr Chiam See Tong won convincingly in Potong Pasir with 60 per cent. Earlier DPM Wong in his Second Reading speech mentioned that the Workers’ Party had rejected the NCMP seat in 1994 but I think he was mistaken. It was actually in 1984.
Sir, at that time in 1984 there had emerged a trend of declining support for the PAP. The PAP then came up with a double-whammy to secure its political power – GRCs and gerrymandering.
The ruling party introduced GRCs in the 1988 GE. This was avowedly for the purpose of minority representation despite the fact that minority candidates were still defeating Chinese candidates at previous GEs. The GRCs started with three-member groupings at that GE, 1988. The Workers Party team at Eunos GRC, consisting of Dr Lee Siew Choh, Mr Francis Seow and Mr Khalid Babu, secured 49 per cent of the vote against the PAP team.
By the next GE, 1991, GRCs had been expanded to four-men teams. However, there were still 21 single-member seats. At that election, voters elected four opposition MPs into Parliament [from] SMCs, including the Workers’ Party’s Mr Low Thia Khiang. This was the largest number of opposition MPs elected since the Barisan Socialis’ walk-out in the 1960s.
Sir, in the following GE in 1997, GRCs were again expanded to even six-men GRCs. No longer was there an attempt to explain these mega-GRCs as securing minority representation. Instead the excuse of economy of scale for town councils and community development councils was used. Despite that, the Workers’ Party team in Cheng San GRC scored 45 per cent with its team including Mr Jeyaretnam and Mr Tang Liang Hong.
By this GE, 1997, the PAP’s expansion of the GRC saw only nine SMCs left, a drastic reduction from the 21 at the previous GE. Such was the PAP’s need to dominate. This tiny number of nine has been with us till today such that when the Prime Minister announces an increase of SMCs from nine to twelve, we hail this as progress.
Sir, over the years the PAP itself has admitted that the GRC serves its party purposes. In 2006, Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong noted that having GRCs helped to recruit PAP candidates since, quote: “Without some assurance of a good chance of winning at least the first election, many able and successful young Singaporeans may not risk their careers to join politics.” Unquote.
Minister Mentor had also commented then on the GRCs being useful training tools since the Health Minister, who had been with him in Tanjong Pagar GRC from the previous GE, quote, “should be ready to lead his own GRC team”, unquote, in the coming 2006 elections.
Sir, the other twin pillar of the double-whammy is gerrymandering. The entire electoral boundary re-drawing process is completely shrouded in secrecy, chaired by the secretary to the Cabinet. There are no public hearings, no minutes of meetings published. The revised boundaries are released weeks or even days before Nomination Day. The report makes no attempts to explain why certain single seats are retained, and others are dissolved, nor why new GRCs are created or old ones re-shaped. Voters have changed constituencies at successive elections without moving a single step. Adam Road is now Tanjong Pagar, Serangoon Central is Marine Parade. Coincidentally, constituencies which showed strong opposition support are broken up or merged with others. Today, we no longer have Eunos GRC or Cheng San GRC.
Sir, a few days ago the Prime Minister appeared in a television interview with American journalist, Charlie Rose, and spoke of the importance of the moral right to govern. How does abusing the GRC system and gerrymandering square with the moral right to govern?
Sir, in addition, there are serious limitations to NCMP seats and it is important to highlight to Singaporeans these limitations.
Besides not being able to vote on critical matters, we are considered as lacking in official capacity to represent the people. This was brought home in 1997 when Mr JB Jeyaretnam, who was then NCMP, filed a Parliamentary question asking whether any directive had been given to government departments not to reply to letters sent by him as NCMP. In the exchange which followed, the Home Affairs minister reiterated the fact that NCMPs do not represent any particular constituency and therefore the government departments would only respond to letters by elected MPs or grassroots advisers on behalf of residents in those areas.
I have my own experiences of this reality.
I have been doing house visits in Aljunied GRC for several years. The residents have raised certain concerns to me which I have highlighted in Parliament as issues, where appropriate. However, I have no official capacity to write letters on their behalf regarding their specific cases though I very much want to.
In addition, an NCMP has no physical base. Under the Town Councils Act, the incumbent MP will be in charge of the town council which controls the use of common space. As for the community clubs, these are in the hands of the People’s Association. It is next to impossible for an opposing candidate to be allowed to use a space to organize activities or dialogues. We have applied for permission to use spaces in PAP wards and received expected rejections.
On the other hand, ruling party hopefuls in opposition wards are appointed advisers to grassroots organizations, thereby apparently having status to liaise with HDB and other government departments on behalf of residents.
Sir, it may well be that the PAP wants complete dominance with non-PAP voices provided through the NMP and NCMP schemes. But what would happen if the PAP starts to falter or be corrupt? A good political system is one which can provide sustainable checks on the ruling party through the people having real bargaining power through the presence of elected opposition members. This will serve as a strong incentive for the ruling party to perform and pay heed to the people’s desires. Elected opposition members are a manifestation of a challenge to the ruling party not just in Parliament but on the ground.
It is not in the national interest to promote a system where the survival of the country become so intertwined with the fate of one political party that the people are left hostage.
Instead of worrying about the MPs’ debating skills, the Prime Minister should worry more about whether each of his MPs has the support of the people which an SMC system will automatically cure.
In conclusion, sir, let me summarise.
By this Bill, the Prime Minister is trying to make a bad situation better but increasing NCMPs is not the solution towards a more robust political system. The root causes of our current problems are the abuse of the GRC system and gerrymandering. These have curtailed the expression of the people’s desires at the elections and instead promoted the ruling party’s own agenda. The PAP has created the problem which it is trying to solve. But we should instead tackle the root causes for a more lasting and sustainable political future for Singapore.
Sir, for these reasons, the Workers’ Party opposes the Bill.
The member for Hougang will vote against the amendment as I cannot vote.
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
Very Well Spoken, Ms Sylvia Lim!
Rest assured you and the Worker’s Party have the TOTAL support of my family and myself.
We are residents of Aljunied GRC.\
Vote Opposition!!!
WKS asked WP if it is so against the NMP scheme, would Sylvia lim come back as NMP.
My suggestion:
If LKY who was dead set against gambling and had voted in gambling in spite of what he said earlier on, everything is possible.
WP will decide what to do after the elections. For all we know, we have Sylvia as an MP and the losing PAP members as nmp.
LKY said that he will not allow gambling to be legal in S’pore.
in the end, he did.
So everything is possible.
We will have to wait after the elections to see whether it is necessary for Sylvia to take up the nmp position.
for all we know it is the pigs who need to take up the position as sylvia lim is voted in.
When any job becomes too lucrative, nobody wants to leave.Hence they will try all ways and means to keep it–including continuously changing the rules to “fix” things.
Then can claim they are the “best” in the land for the job.
It works both ways. It will need more than one strong opposition member to win a GRC but a GRC could be held with just one strong opposition member.
When the opposition finally wins its first GRC and starts making it sticky to get back, that’s when the GRC concept will be changed.
Great speech which shed much insight into the powerlessness of NCMPs. Thanks for the vote against the amendments.
With 13 single wards now, the oppositions must put up strong and capable candidates to contest these wards. Given the current scenario (more and more frustrated Sporeans) and many young first voters, chances for the oppositions to win are very good. With the ‘wind of change blowing this way’ even winning one or two GRCs is possible. However, the oppositions must unite and avoid three corners contest. Will be great if the oppositions can contest in all the wards so that Sporeans will at least have a chance to cast their votes. Many of us have not voted even once.
lim 27 April 2010
When you are at the other end of the coast, of course it would nice to see the other people expend their energy by swimming to your side.
By the way, the concept of GRC can always be expanded to 6-to-7-to-8-to-9-to-10-to-…
Downright despicable. I dun see how anyone can win forever. Do you really think you can stand high on that ivory tower for the rest of your life? We, citizens had enough and it’s time we bulldozed your sick tower with all your yes-man(s) down to the ground.
Folks, do you know why there is a transport fare revision to change to distance based and remove the transfer payment? It was anticipated that as more lines are started ( Circle line etc…) less people will be doing transfer and less $$$… so they change the whole pricing system to increase $$$.. you think they really care about singapporean ?
lim,
If opposition wins a GRC, I think there is a high likelihood that that particular GRC will not survive the next election boundary adjustment…
The goal posts are often shifted so as to ensure guaranteed victory for them. They have been doing it just before every GE. Well, I guess such practices are common in politics. That is, to ensure they win at all cost.
well said Ms Lim. Even before your speech, the opposition already have my vote. I HATE the GRC system, only for those incompetent PAP mps back door entry only. None have the guts to stand against the opposition. In today’s climate, if we were to abolished the GRC, i reckon the opposition can win more than a third of the seats….
The ruling PAP since day once has the only motive, which is to preserve their power disguising as doing things for the good of Singapore, and as always to justify how good they are and keep telling us time again and again, they need to pay themselves high salaries as though only they can govern Singapore effectively without admitting the facts of their countless mistakes.
They adamantly refuse to admit the facts that they have driven soo many good people out of Singapore, but instead sarcastically labeled them as quitters.
Let me return to one emotional incident – what was the setback or inadequacy of their enforcements efforts that resulted in 2 HG lives lost through fires recently?? Lets look at it perspectively – what has happened now to their reactive legislation of painting yellow boxes outside shops, in the aftermath, and do we still see the open blatant flouting of the enforcement efforts and where are the lessons learned? Who has learned them?
Obviously those PAP Mps are paying lipservices. Singaporeans are very very shortchanged !!!
“Adam Road is now Tanjong Pagar, Serangoon Central is Marine Parade”
That’s weird!
PAP = Pay And Pay (polite version)
PAP = Pathetic And Pathetic (rude version)
PAP = Pissed And Pissed (angry version)
PAP = Phui And Phui (disgusted version. Cantonese for spitting not once but twice in TOTAL DISGUST)
Wise words Sylvia! You are always well prepared and sensible in your stances. Kudos to WP!!
//Lau KK 27 April 2010
That’s weird!//
Nothing weird. Just that it takes more time for some to see through the desperate extent of what they are up to.
Can i take that PAP, by implementing this ruling, is starting to feel the fear – the fear of losing. IF that’s the case, it means that we, citizens, are doing the right thing right now. By showing our displeasure and dissatisfaction towards the ruling party, we have voted for CHANGE. Everybody, keep up the excellent work and let’s send them packing home, so that we won’t have to put up with their shit anymore. :)
Well written piece and well put across. Time for overdue change now, we must take the next step and cast our votes wisely!
is this a website to vent anger? or it really helps us? the view rate never hits more then 10000. sad….
Sarah Palin’s hockey mums, pit bull terriers and lipstick pigs bitching around the “doggie style entry ” politics still vote in favour of the motion. One must wonder how much conviction is there in those hot air farts? Or maybe dessicated coconuts do NOT have dessicated copra inside but stones instead?
Welcome to democracy PAP style, Sylvia. So , I suggest you and your party stop playing the part of the PAP’s oppostion and start acting the role of the citizens’ opposition. You need no further role model thank you previous leader Mr JBJ who we all held in high regard.
I think this is the type of questioning Singaporeans expect their (supposedly) MPs to hammer across in parliament. One cannot help but notice the difference in how the 2 sides present their arguments; Ms SL = rather objective for the benefit of majority Singaporeans … WKS = convincingly unconvincing (as were his attempts to explain adequate amendments for MKS escape). Though a snapshot, instances like these really highlight if some of those in parliament are as “meritocratic” as we are led to believe in our system. On this instance, I say to Ms SL — Yea, go Girl!
The bill was then passed 74-to-1. But does this makes sense? 34% (magnified to 66% because of walkovers) of voters’ representatives speaks for 98.7% of the population? This is really absurd logic! You mean 98.7% of the population don’t mind not having a chance to vote during each election? Gosh, I really didn’t think the ground support was that strong for our current political system. I must be part of the silly 1.3% that fear our MPs are just safe-guarding the mechanism (ie. GRC) that got the bulk of them into parliament.
I would like to add to what legal eagle said about GRC advantage to the PAP.
Example
PAP GRC team: LKY, Newbie1 , Newbie2
Opposition GRC team : Newbie3, Newbie4, newbie5.
Without GRC, it would be like
LKY vs Newbie3
Newbie1 vs Newbie4
Newbie2 vs Newbie5
In the above case, newbies 4 &5 would stand a better chance to beat their opponants.
With GRC, it would like
LKY vs Newbie3
LKY vs Newbie4
LKY vs Newbie5
What’s the chance of the opposition Newbies winning?
Good analytical skill and with depth too! This is the kind of article and attitude I’m looking for from an opposition party; my personal opinion: Confrontational approach will not work in Singapore and this article should be past on to each and every Singaporean. As check and balance are what we need urgently in Singapore, as too many issues (e.g. CPF, TH and GIC etc) need to be addressed in PAP’s governance! We need to bring in as many oppositions as possible, let’s vote for change.
Keep up the good work, Sylvia.
Great speech by Sylvia Lim.
Another one of those opposition members that I would vote for in a jiffy.
Yup, vote for change.
Silvia Lim’s and all Singaporans wishes will be granted. Let us all vote in alternative parties without any further question, a one-party-state is a total failure. It is provened historically and we must not let it happened in our country. Our future generations deserve a better life than now, a life when our rights are fully respected and arrogant party is no longer a trusted party.
Hi Sylvia Lim
My family 4 votes r with u – Worker Party since 1988
May the Force be with U and your WP, this time, truly elected AP in Aljunied GRC.
Alvin low,
how can WP win aljunied??
george yeo and all the heavy weight PAP ppl are there…
not a good GRC to fight over..
well spoken.
It was smart to highlight what the NCMP cannot do.
and WKS gets it wrong again…1984 and not 94.
To GCT, no need to get better people off their jobs to be MPs….leave them, we had enough. They don’t do much anyway.
Sylvia Lim did the opposition voice well.
She should be elected into pariliament legitimately during the last elections. WP won about 44% at the Aljunied GRC helmed by her.
I am surprised time and again SIngapore did not voted in more opposition voices and this went to show how entrenched the ruling party is in their own power base.
Hopefully, for the next elections, there will be at least a 5-7% voting swing so that more opposition candidates will be voted into parliament. This represents around 15,000 to 20,000 actual vote swing.
5-7% swing,this time round, is achievable.the latest jack neo’s boo-boo will costs mr. george yeo and team some votes.so much for trying to use star power.slyvia is very formidable and would be a real threat.they-the pap, to avoid a losing clash with slyvia, will cook up something. lets wait and see. my support to sylvia.
piso,
heavyweights? I remind you that LHL himself barely won his AMK GRC.
Exactly to the point, Ms Sylvia Lim. Well said!!!
NMP = NOT Member of Parliament as CANNOT vote!
NCMP = NOT Contested Member Parliament as selected by incumbent government!
GRC = GerrymEandering ‘Rape’ of Constituencies as clearly presented by Ms SL!
WOW… I AM IMPRESSED!!!
She should be paid a minister’s salary!
You forgot: And the minister paid her her NMP pay which is only 15% of the ministers’. I bet too it’ll be the lowest of them paid ministers!
Why old fox & young fox don’t pay NMPs according to percentage of votes they received at the polls? Fair & just PAP they claimed for self eh! Truly truly ‘fair’ with just a ‘trinket’ is ‘truly trulyyyyy’ fair? Speaks for itself eh!
WELL DONE! WELL DONE! WELL SAID! Sylvia Lim….
YOU HAD INDEED SPELL OUT THE ‘DESRIES’ OF US, NATIVE SINGAPOREANS, WHOM SOME ARE DEPRIVED OF A VOTE DUE TO THE GRC SYSTEM + WALKOVERS.
KUDOS TO WORKER’S PARTY. This is what i call an Alternative Voice in Parliament…
Regardless of how PAP tried to justifies themselves now against GRC system and gerrymandering, my Decision are still FINAL & SET.
Unless i see GRC system & errymandering be scraped in the coming GE which is IMPOSSIBLE.
GRC systems -> backdoor MPs easy paths –> Good/Bad Policies are passed within the PAP themselves with majority votes —> failure to be long-sighted – Overly imported FTs/Foreigners, HDB Price-Hikings, CPF drained thus encouraged to work at longer age but part of our such savings maybe channeled to GIC/TLC’s investments which sees mostly RED(losses-NO ACCOUNTABILITY to we PEOPLE)—-> Tweak more policies to accommodate the grumpy Voters now as GE looming BUT are ALL SHORT-SIGHTED(IMO) —->>>>>> Ineffective COE & ERP implementations ———>>>> ……………….
I can help you Ms Sylvia Lim as my MP if you are contesting in my ward (pending to the GRC final boundary). I Promise!
Just my happiness & Opinions. :)
Oh where has that little dog gone? Oh where oh where can he be? With his tail so waggly, his head held so high. Oh where oh where can heeeeeeee beeeeee????????????????????????????????
a favourite kids song.
If the PAP is serious about having voices of opposition in the parliament, why are they bringing in back door MPs through the GRC system and introducing NMPs and NCMPs into the house ?
Seems very stupid right ?
Just stick to single member wards and get more featherweights like the hypocrite Sin Boon Ann to run in giveaway constituencies lah !
At least we have more accountability and still the same amount of people in the house.
I expect PAP in this coming election would lost 1-2 GRC. Hmm…that translate into at least 10 MPs being knocked down the process ???
There is no doubt about it – Sylvia Lim has delivered yet another superlative performance. Kudos to you, Sylvia.
People like Sylvia can only do as much, the rest is up to the electorate.
Vote for Sylvia and vote also for all opposition parties who stand against the papies.
Don’t miss out on the golden opportunity that comes with the coming general election, to tell the papies that they cannot continue to do what they like to Singapore or to Singaporeans.
The “PAP eunuchs” are only good at subterfuge; pulling wools over our eyes and deceiving us as they continues to do with the devious systems of GRCs and gerrymandering. And disguising their plots with introduction of NCMP and NMP.
They are insulting the dignity of citizens without a blink of an eye. Disgusting, outrageous and damn you PAP!
It would be fun to watch a live debate between Sylvia Lim against all 3 PAP bigwigs in LHL, GCT and Teo CH. For Wong KS the people could be represented by a choice from the coffee shop association.
Put your voices in the ballot box. This is the best chance with so many social issues on fire and the built-up of PAP arrogance. If only all citizens would with their hearts donate their Growth dividence to the opposition cause particularly the WP’s.
This is an excellently written article and Sylvia Lim brought up some great points. I am looking forward to this year’s election. Hopefully there will be some waves.
PAP and the “Art of Dissimulation”
The stirling performances by Sylvia Lim, WP, would serve to remind the MPs from the opposite side of the isle in the “haloed chamber” what honest representation is. Addressing issues on ministerial salary, national security, social plights and even the recent Budget bill in very sagacious light, she must have by now earned the ire of the incumbent members.
I have yet to see or hear about any other MPs from the incumbent side representing the disaffected and hapless citizens in the manner as Sylvis have.
PAP club’s member are supposedly selected through an ardous porocess. However, judging from their contributions in the House, it would seem that this ardous recruitment process is a search for potentially acquiescent member that can be “narcotozed”,and trained to explain policies to ordinary folks in logic-circle so to protect the machination infinitely.
Questions filed by the Opposition and particularly Sylvia in the “haloed chamber, as far as I have seen, have mostly been dealt with by the incumbent in every nebulous and arbitrary manner…patronisingly…and she had always kept her dignity, but such inimical acts have permeated to the public square and the people are weary.
On the other hand, we have older cadres in the party who are fast sinking into the befuddlement of senility and whose mentorship is transcient at most.
Persons who treat political office as a career are not meant to have empathy with the “small people”. A remuneration of $millions can only attract acquiescent mercenaries. Benevolent men come into the political fray to serve and fulfill the aspirations of the citizens and to enhance their standard of living. Unfortunately, many office holders today are bathe inn their own glory and “treating the devils to the hindpost”.
People, our freedom rests precariously on this coming election… for those with more than pious hope that our future or more precisely our happiness is secure with bunch of acqueiscent “chamber-maids” I ask you to reconsider. Secure your happiness in the ballot boxes. The time is right..”its now or never”.
A minister can earn $4,000.00 a day why can’t a menial worker be paid $80.00 if they truly have the peoples’ interests at heart? Don,t deceive ourselves anymore.. policies on housing, medical, foreign worker etc… will take us to Hell if we do not habe more Sylvias and Low Thia Kiang to look-out for us. May the intrepids come aboard and be counted.