PM fed us a little 甜头 by allowing 9 opposition MPs next election...
This is just a sop thrown at us to make us think they are willing to listen to the people but when in actual fact, we know for ourselves whether they are really listening.
The truth is they still hold the majority of power and when people say "Mee Siam got hum" means got hum (DO NOT ARGUE WITH HIM)
If I read it correctly, the PM said "each Parliament will have at least nine opposition members and nine Nominated Members of Parliament (NMPs), so that there will be at least 18 members of Parliament (MPs) who are not from the ruling party."
interesting to how the opposition MP would be "selected" into the parliament if they do not have the votes of the people?
will this add to the current seats taken by the opposition so that there would be over 10 opposition members in the parliament?
what the opposition parties would do in the new playing field/rules?
Originally posted by sgdiehard:If I read it correctly, the PM said "each Parliament will have at least nine opposition members and nine Nominated Members of Parliament (NMPs), so that there will be at least 18 members of Parliament (MPs) who are not from the ruling party."
interesting to how the opposition MP would be "selected" into the parliament if they do not have the votes of the people?
will this add to the current seats taken by the opposition so that there would be over 10 opposition members in the parliament?
what the opposition parties would do in the new playing field/rules?
if the opposition and NMP are choosen by Ruling party, LPPL rules apply
Originally posted by sgdiehard:what the opposition parties would do in the new playing field/rules?
I can answer that.
Just sit in the house and LL (as usual).
Originally posted by angel7030:
if the opposition and NMP are choosen by Ruling party, LPPL rules apply
you very sober, alert and sharp, after a long night drinking...hahaha
PAP are smart, they are using the happy tactics to treat you peoples, by giving some sweets to you all people about 9 opposition MPs in the parliament, you all think for sure 9 ar??? Mai siao lah, be more clever, my Uncle Andrew taught me alots about PAP tricks.
By proclaiming 9 oppositon MPs, LHL knows that the ground is not happy about the lost of investment and the cost of living still high, therefore by saying something to cool down the mass will be very good, on the other hand, he knows that everyone of us will think that oppositions are coming in and therefore dun mind vote PAP, but in the end. PAP got most of the seat, and he will said, well, MP are voted in, I was thinking of about 9 opposition will be coming, but too bad the public still like PAP MPs.
Originally posted by sgdiehard:you very sober, alert and sharp, after a long night drinking...hahaha
U peoples better start to think out of the box, for the last quarter of century, you are being tricked and still wants to be tricked again for another quarter century ah???
better go eat century eggs with porridge
Originally posted by angel7030:PAP are smart, they are using the happy tactics to treat you peoples, by giving some sweets to you all people about 9 opposition MPs in the parliament, you all think for sure 9 ar??? Mai siao lah, be more clever, my Uncle Andrew taught me alots about PAP tricks.
By proclaiming 9 oppositon MPs, LHL knows that the ground is not happy about the lost of investment and the cost of living still high, therefore by saying something to cool down the mass will be very good, on the other hand, he knows that everyone of us will think that oppositions are coming in and therefore dun mind vote PAP, but in the end. PAP got most of the seat, and he will said, well, MP are voted in, I was thinking of about 9 opposition will be coming, but too bad the public still like PAP MPs.
So the question is, why potential MPs want to join PAP?
Why they dont join opposition parties to counter PAP?
Somebody should ask them why.
My reasoning is pointing to the fact they will do no wrong once they join PAP. 错的都能讲�对的.
Originally posted by angel7030:
U peoples better start to think out of the box, for the last quarter of century, you are being tricked and still wants to be tricked again for another quarter century ah???
better go eat century eggs with porridge
Most part of last quarter century I wan't allowed to vote, but I won't say that people were tricked.
The question is what you do when you see? Offer of 9 opposition MPs seats is hardly anything sweet to the common citizens, because ultimately the PAP still running the show the way they want it, pay themselves the way they see fit, you still won't get chance to vote when there is a walkover in your constituency.
I agree that century eggs go well with porridge, sweets are only for kids.
Originally posted by jgho83:So the question is, why potential MPs want to join PAP?
Why they dont join opposition parties to counter PAP?
Somebody should ask them why.
My reasoning is pointing to the fact they will do no wrong once they join PAP. 错的都能讲�对的.
I am more interested to know how many people here actually take up a position and join an opposition party!
Originally posted by sgdiehard:
Most part of last quarter century I wan't allowed to vote, but I won't say that people were tricked.The question is what you do when you see? Offer of 9 opposition MPs seats is hardly anything sweet to the common citizens, because ultimately the PAP still running the show the way they want it, pay themselves the way they see fit, you still won't get chance to vote when there is a walkover in your constituency.
I agree that century eggs go well with porridge, sweets are only for kids.
Pay and Pay treated us like kids?
Things aint as bad as some paint here.
The purpose of Parliament is for legislative debate and formulation of laws, that best suit our society. Regardless of the power to vote or not on a policy, the critical issue is the authority to debate legally and openly without fear or favour on such issues in the highest council of the land.
It is only thru debate that more be aware of issues. NMPs are not subjected to a ruling party's whip. They can voice issues out so long as diplomatically and with reason and logic. It is thus necessary that NMPs not only have a sincere and honest desire to serve, but to have passionate oratory skills that can show a better way around a policy or solution presented.
And NMPs are opposition figures who garner the next highest votes in an election. It may even be the ruling party's MPs who had lost to an opposition in a ward.
Utimately, it bodes well for our society if issues can be debated within the hallowed halls of Parliament than in the open air auditoriums hindering our working lives, obstructing our economic daily struggles and with a potential for demagogery that inflames masses for chaos.
Furthermore, even though NMPs may not be allowed to vote, their voices can be heard in the State media, if denied, on internet media, which will create more awareness to the masses. Of which, being the PEOPLE, should such awareness requires our actions, then it would justify our calls upon our incumbent MPs for further resolution or the necessary consideration of them in the next election as our representatives .
If I were a politician, I would never have allowed such liberties if I have the upper hand. Nothing is fair espacially in politics. Which is why flawed people like me can never be allowed to be politicians, and best let those whose leadership, while may not be perfect, at least have an open heart and an ear for the people.
Originally posted by jgho83:Pay and Pay treated us like kids?
There is nothing wrong in giving sweets. M&M....but do you expect something in return?
I take the sweets, whenever it is given, happily, like a little kid, hehehe, then I decide based on what is good for me and my family, have to think like adult.
We will be treated like kids, if we behave like ones.
Originally posted by sgdiehard:
There is nothing wrong in giving sweets. M&M....but do you expect something in return?I take the sweets, whenever it is given, happily, like a little kid, hehehe, then I decide based on what is good for me and my family, have to think like adult.
We will be treated like kids, if we behave like ones.
I fully agree with you. Our PM is a 3rd generation leader, therefore we must behave as 3rd generation educated adults, with abilities to reason and rationalized, and not behave as our hardworking but emotional forefathers were, though not their fault as they had been kept stupid by our colonnial masters, denied education or have to pay hefty charges that only the rich could afford.
Failing which, a first generation leader may feel that we may not be matured enough yet to handle 'freedom' and its responsibilites to our society, and feels that it may be necessary to roll back civil liberties that many had sought and fought hard for, as well as the conscience and maturity of our own MPs and leaders to seek elevation and evolution of our political scene.
Just to digress, at least 9, NOT CONFIRM 9 and furthermore, NCMP may be "invited to resign" if they misbehave...
please read between the lines carefully...
NMPs are vet by the ruling and maybe 1 sitting opposition member[currently Mr Low, correct me if i am wrong]
So even if Mr Low opposes, majority rules
My 2c worth
I always feel that based on the FACT that at least 33% voted for Opposition,
the current level of Representation does not make sense or is not logical.
These 33% have voted and only 3 Alternative leaders have won seats. NMP has less power. I suppose no power to veto? How does this affect the 33% when bills are passed?
Why is the situation so? We may have our own interpretations.
If singaporeans, the voters , are not responsible in some ways, I wonder who is responsible ultimately? Should things be auto-pilot? Should the system be comprised of more appointed rather than elected leaders ? How will the new generation be affected if things continue in this direction?
These 3 leaders have proven they are good for singapore. They have shown their values. More can only be good at least for the next 5 years or so. Just my 2.01 cents.
edited: syntax corrections.
How about the Government reviewing some of Singapore's draconian laws, if they are really that interested in political change rather than some pre-election gimmick.
All these just feels like some fucked up political charade by PAP regime.
If they are sincere about change, why not allow more media freedom?
Why not abolish GRCs?
Don't take us for fools Lee Hsien Loong and Lee Kuan Yew.
Think I three year old kid, come and talk political rubbish to me.
Fuck you.
Minimum nine opposition MPs from now on
by Yawning Bread
There will be a minimum of nine opposition members of parliament from the next general election on, announced Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, 27 May 2009. Why nine?
There will be twelve Single-Member Constituencies (SMC), up from the current nine. Why twelve? Why not thirteen? Why not twenty?
There will be fewer six-member Group Representation Constituencies (GRCs), he said. Why "fewer"? How many exactly? Why not none?
On the whole, the proposed changes to Singapore's electoral system moves in the right direction, towards more non-government voices in the legislature and a slightly lower hurdle for opposition parties, but the thing that struck me was how arbitrary the changes were.
One should always disapprove of arbitrariness. When something is not grounded in clear principle, it is very easy to change it tomorrow when it does not work to the ruling People's Action Party's (PAP's) advantage.
Specifically, the changes announced were:
1. The Constitution and the Parliamentary Elections Act will be amended to permit a maximum of nine Non-Constituency MPs (NCMPs) the exact number in each Parliament to be equal to the difference between the number of opposition MPs elected and nine. No more than two NCMPs may come from the same GRC ward.
2. Nominated Members of Parliament (NMPs) will be a permanent feature of Parliament from now on, with the number fixed at nine.
3. There will be fewer six-member GRCs and a few more smaller ones, such that the average GRC will not have more than 5 members.
4. There will be 12 SMCs. He did not say whether the additional three (up from the present nine) will be carved out of existing GRCs, or if they will be newly created constituencies. Lee's reference to "voters numbers increase" seems to suggest that they will be new constituencies.
As I said, the announced changes move in the right direction. But many unsavoury features remain.
Why are some voters lumped into GRCs, while others get to be in SMCs? On what basis? Now, adding to that, why some voters in gigantic GRCs and some other voters in slimmed-down GRCs? On what basis?
It will be up to the Electoral Boundaries Review Committee, said Lee. This body is appointed by the Prime Minister and reports to the Prime Minister. It has never publicly justified why some precincts are GRC'd and others SMC'd. Or for that matter, why the geographical shape of some constituencies look like elongated salamanders.
The system for selecting NMPs is also opaque. A committee of mostly-PAP parliamentarians invites certain civic groups to submit names (why those groups and not other groups?) and then makes a decision behind closed doors.
A more principled structure needed
True reform would require a more principled structure for elections and Parliament. There should be clear formulae for the minimum number of opposition voices instead of an arbitrary nine. He should have reduced all GRCs to no more than three members, if not abolished them altogether.
The Prime Minister should have announced plans for an independent Electoral Boundaries body and an independent Elections Commission.
He should have stipulated a minimum of six months between any announcement of boundary changes and the calling of elections.
The election period should also be longer than the present nine days, which is too short for voters to connect with and know their candidates.
Media liberalisation is also essential for the true spirit of democracy to flourish. In this regard, the recent changes to the Films Act, tightening it under the guise of "liberalisation" is a sick joke.
And as for the NMP scheme, I've always disliked it. The selection method is unfixable.
If Lee likes the "magic number" of 18 non-PAP voices in Parliament, he should have instead provided for up to 18 NCMPs. If he is really sincere about a future where there is a healthy, responsible opposition with the ability to be a government-in-waiting, then allowing opposition parties more parliamentary experience through greater numbers is better than restricting them and filling up the seats with NMPs.
But why?
The really interesting question is: Why did Lee make these concessions at all?
To be honest, there was no groundswell of pressure to change the system. The PAP's grip on Singapore is as tight as ever. He didn't need to make these changes.
One possibility is that Lee is sincere in wanting to give Singaporeans more space to "learn democracy". His approach is still as paternalistic as ever in the way he doses out his step-by-step learning modules to children, but he is trying to prepare for the day when the PAP may really cock up, anti-government feeling surges up, and instead of the electoral system absorbing and channelling the demands for change, the system proves so rigid and therefore brittle, it collapses altogether.
Another possibility is that his PAP's ears on the ground have indeed detected a rising disaffection with the ruling party, and he is gambling that it is better to provide the safety valve of more NCMP seats than risk losing a GRC or two to the opposition altogether.
He may hope that a typical fence-sitting voter's calculation goes like this: Since it is likely that in my GRC, opposition support is high enough for opposition candidates to get one or two NCMP positions, it's good enough to meet my desire for a check on the PAP, so I can guiltlessly throw my vote to the PAP now.
The third possibility is the most interesting of all. Perhaps he is concerned that there is a rising sympathy for those who denounce the system as beyond saving, and who would use civil disobedience. Perhaps out of frustration that alternative opinions and parties will never get a fair shake under the electoral system, the politics of the street may be gaining traction. This cannot good for Singapore's future stability.
Lee's hand is forced. He has to allow more opposing voices into Parliament before the street becomes more attractive than elections and the stuffy chamber.
If you take a step back and look at these electoral changes in the context of the new Public Order Act that clamps down even harder on street protests as well as the recent amendments to the Films Act outlawing filming of unlicensed street activity, you begin to think that Possibility Number Three is, by a whisker, the most plausible. All these changes tie in together as a carrot-and-stick scheme: A big stick for those protesting in public; sweet carrots for those who would play by the rules.
If so, to whom should we credit these small steps to greater liberalisation?
Some one must come and tell the golden boy that mee siam has no hum.
gut feel tells me nothing will change.
there is a guy who is drawing 3million salary whose main job is to travel around ans shake hands.
Originally posted by mistyblue:Some one must come and tell the golden boy that mee siam has no hum.
If you earn millions a year, you can even accuse one of being Jack the Reaper even if the guy wasn't born in that time. If he says there is hum, there is hum.
Originally posted by deepak.c:
lionnoisy's party manifesto.
"War with Australia"
Then poor Kevin Ruud (hope i spelt his name correctly) will be dragged in.
Originally posted by Atobe:
Only in autocratic countries can the politics of a nation be "fixed" and the outcome pre-determined.
Is it not surprising that a small First World nation such as Singapore - can have her PM pre-determine that only 9 members from the Alternative Parties shall be Members in the future Parliament ?
That is what I have been thinking when I read the article.
Strange that a PM should dictate on such an issue.
I suppose if there aren't sufficient oppositions to fill in his required number, may be he will provide his own people to fill the seats.
Originally posted by jgho83:PM fed us a little 甜头 by allowing 9 opposition MPs next election...
This is just a sop thrown at us to make us think they are willing to listen to the people but when in actual fact, we know for ourselves whether they are really listening.
The truth is they still hold the majority of power and when people say "Mee Siam got hum" means got hum (DO NOT ARGUE WITH HIM)
This is called cho hee, drama drama, wayang wayang!