2 major alternative commentary websites in Singapore’s blogosphere, TOC and Wayangparty.com, have come out with their guns blazing and heavily criticising the government’s proposed changes to Parliament.
Andrew Loh calls it a “A mockery of Parliament” because of the huge number of “loser MPs”, “nominated MPs”, and “walkover MPs.” He says,
“Parliament being filled with a majority of un-elected members is a joke. Pure and simple, no matter what rhetoric the prime minister uses in trying to convince one and all to accept these changes.”
Much as I have been a govt critic in the past, I think the changes announced by Lee Hsien Loong are actually a positive step forward for Singapore as a whole, and that TOC and Wayangparty have got it wrong this time. And much as I think I am going to receive major flak for my comments here, I feel it is necessary to make my case public.
1. I think it is absurd to blast the PAP for the massive presence of walkover MPs in parliament. The sad fact of the matter is that Singaporeans are the ones who are failing to stand up and run against the PAP for parliament seats. Singaporeans are the ones who are allowing the walkovers by the PAP. Singaporeans are the ones who are making a mockery of the democratic process by not participating in it.
And then they turn around and blast the PAP for there being no opposition, for not giving them the opportunity to vote? For goodness sake if you want the opportunity to vote, create it. Creating a credible opposition is not the responsibility of the PAP.
2. With regards to the “loser MP” scheme, I think bloggers’ criticisms do not stand up this time. Choo Zheng Xi has described the expanded NCMP scheme thus so:
“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.”
Sorry, Zheng Xi. Much as I like the work you’ve done with TOC, I think you are wrong this time. Much as it seems farcical for there to be loser MPs without legislative powers in parliament – i think this expanded NCMP scheme is actually good for the loser opposition.
It gives them a chance to speak up in parliament and demonstrate that they have the potential to be quality MPs, and gain valuable experience. It allows Singaporeans to evaluate these individuals and possibly give them more votes in future if they perform well. For the NCMPs who did not win the right to vote, the right to make themselves heard is a valuable consolation prize. The opposition should take this any day, compared to being shut out of parliament altogether. As a case in point – I think Singaporeans are much better off with Sylvia Lim in parliament as an NCMP, than without her at all.
The point is – without the NCMP scheme, the losers would not have a voice at all in parliament. They would be totally excluded from the parliamentary process. Indeed, the fact that they were losers means they should not be entitled to any voice at all.
For goodness sake, as much as you don’t like the PAP, they are the winners. I don’t want losers having the votes in parliament. The solution is not to blast the PAP for creating a “political theatre” - the solution is for the losers to buck up and become winners.
Earn your right to vote, damn it – and be gracious that the winners are giving you a voice at all.
If Singaporeans truly think that
“Prime Minister Lee’s latest move is a mere publicity gimmick to appease rising disgruntlement against the PAP’s monopoly on power from the ground and to win support from young educated voters by singing to their tune.”
Then for f*ck’s sake – don’t take the bait!! The loser MPs can choose to protest and stay out of parliament (which of course they won’t). Singaporeans can choose to actually vote real opposition into parliament (if they finally have the guts to do so)
The true absurdity of the recent political reforms is that Singaporeans are the ones who have made a mockery of the political process to the point that the PAP is able to create a “Wayang” and get away with it. Singaporeans have allowed their politics to get to the point where the dominant party has to allow the losers a voice in parliament before there is some semblance of opposition. Singaporeans are blasting the PAP for a “half-attempt to return our democratic rights” – instead of having the guts to claim their democratic rights themselves.
No. The true mockery that is happening here is the mockery that Singaporeans have made of the democratic process through their own behaviour. If Singaporeans want true change, they’ve got to fight for the changes – instead of blaming the incumbent for behaving like an incumbent.
The real joke is not the PAP’s behaviour. Singaporeans, the real joke is on you.
Entries (RSS)
while it is true that the PAP is not beholden to ensure greater opposition presence, there is a difference in winning elections on a tilted playing field and winning them fairly.
the NCMP scheme is ‘good’ in a sense if we define the endgame as being a Parliament with more opposition presence. but the true ideal that we should work for is an inclusive and representative elected Parliament (of which opposition MPs will be a substantive feature) – and that process is being short-circuited with this sop to assured opposition presence through the NCMP.
while the merits of the NCMP is evident for a ‘loser opposition’, it is still quite hard to fathom why the PAP would want to extend such an elaborate ‘political theatre’ when there are other electoral shenanigans that have been left unaddressed.
the NCMP scheme would have been truly a magnanimous gesture if the PAP won outright by playing fair in the elections – but it obviously doesn’t. they are now expanding this scheme to compensate for the fact that they do not want to play fair, and i think that there are lines of electoral propriety that should be adhered to even if the incumbent wants to ensure its rule in perpetuity.
the thrust of the TOC articles is that: play fair, and return to the basic principle of Parliament as an elected House. if that returns a huge electoral victory for the PAP still, then it is only a matter of principle that Singaporeans respect that mandate – even if there are no opposition.
heh and i believe this sound castigation of pap’s ‘brinkmanship’ indicates that there are singaporeans that ‘fight for the changes’, but i get what you mean that the real change can only come from the ballot box.
[...] TOC: A mockery of Parliament – appointed MPs, Loser MPs, Walkover MPs… – Under The Willow Tree: TOC, Wayangparty have got it wrong here – Sex sells, so does Politics: Jokes heard from the Parliament – Hard Hitting in the Lion City: [...]
” I think it is absurd to blast the PAP for the massive presence of walkover MPs in parliament. The sad fact of the matter is that Singaporeans are the ones who are failing to stand up and run against the PAP for parliament seats. Singaporeans are the ones who are allowing the walkovers by the PAP. Singaporeans are the ones who are making a mockery of the democratic process by not participating in it.”
Whatever it is , it is stupid to keep blaming Singaporeans for being naive , trusting and greedy of carrot. Yes, they vote with their eyes wide open and now many live to regret that decision of voting for PAP and now have to be taunted for that. Such blame as akin to those minibomb investors who invest in their eyes wide open because they are trusting of what FI says and promises to the point of believing what agent told them. But then it is obvious the unregulated financial system is to blame, other how else can HK, and rest of countries are now on way to successfully sue those FI with help from government. Only Singapore gov with conflict with interest is unique in not doing anything but only using Mouth service. So what not think that it is the political system here that is the cause of major culprit then ?
“The point is – without the NCMP scheme, the losers would not have a voice at all in parliament. They would be totally excluded from the parliamentary process. Indeed, the fact that they were losers means they should not be entitled to any voice at all.”
You are just subscribing to mentality of “better than nothing”. Everyone knows that whatever the government’s decision to political system is final, just like any bills like Job Credit Scheme, GST etc. Debate or listening is just wayang. Surely you aware too ? Zheng Xi knows that whatever he and TOC writes are not going to change anything. But what they bring is the unawareness and traps of such scheme by exposing them. If you visit TOC, you realize how many innocent souls actually get to understand the pitfalls through the post and comments. So that is the point for Zheng Xi and TOC.
“For goodness sake, as much as you don’t like the PAP, they are the winners. I don’t want losers having the votes in parliament. The solution is not to blast the PAP for creating a “political theatre” – the solution is for the losers to buck up and become winners.”
What a joke. Let’s think positively for a while. Assuming that NCMP is exceptional candidate to you, does that even change anything ? He can be debated like Siew, make convincingly argument that make the MPs really look like fart-up kangaroos. Question is still “does that change anything even if they prove themselves to winner” ? Of course, you might say that if they are winners, they might as well contest as MP.
Case in point, if NMP Siew is impressive to you, does that change anything at all now ? He been giving his views and issues, but totally none of that are taken up by government and bills still passed through. Aren’t you aware of that ? If so, what make you even think that NCMP can even help pick a winner and create effectual change if Siew’s example is anything to go by ?
PAP MPs enter parliament uncontested.
Opposition MPs enter parliament uncontested.
I disagree with you on the first point. The walkover MP situation exists because Singaporeans have been made to fear being associated or supporting the opposition, let alone standing up to be a leader under an opposition banner. This environment didn’t happen overnight and cannot be attributed to Singaporean’s naiveness or meekness alone. It has been hammered into them by the government over the years by suppressing opposition and monopolizing the press. I don’t think I need to spell out to you what happens to any opposition who voices his opinions too aggressively.
It is correct to say that it is obviously not the government’s job to create a credible opposition. However, is it therefore right for the government to obstruct/hinder/decimate/suppress the opposition with all of its massive might as it has traditionally been viewed as doing (through all sorts of means and tactics which may not be morally right, even if is entirely legal – after all they make all the rules through parliament in any way they want, don’t they)?
It is pathetic that we can condemn the junta government for been undemocratic and oppressive, yet when it happen in our own backyard, we comfort ourselves in act of convenience insisting that it is all citizen’s fault, not our PayAndPay gov.
” Singaporeans are the ones who are making a mockery of the democratic process by not participating in it.”
Oh yeah, the monks and citizens participate in Junta uprising and overthrow but they fail, and therefore the junta not to blame, it is those monks and citizens that incompetent to blame
Its the playing field.
Even in mollycoddled PAP it is already so hard to get someone with the stomach for politics, how much more harder then if you must be prepared to be bankrupted, to go to jail, and to be character-assassinated in the media and public eye, to be under constant unrelenting surveillance – every word you say, typed, whispered being heard – and all your dependencies to suffer.
In some sense Chee Soon Juan has crossed a threshold of no return, and he can take all the shit that can be thrown at him.
It is one thing for a political party to promote its opposition, but it is another matter altogether when the entire state and its civil apparatus are used to deter, suppress, and destroy ungraciously and heartlessly any potential genuine opposition. (The clowns don’t matter. Just hang one or two to demonstrate the powers that be. And let them be the opposition, and say to the people, Choose.)
Thus the true complain is the party have subverted the state – and that is corruption in itself – to create an oppressive, genuinely hostile, and politically unsound environment that may endanger the very existence of the state itself.
I will vote a donkey this time.
Once upon a time, there was an island.
There is a football field on this island.
There is periodic match on this island for which the winner gets to rule the island until the next match.
There is a committee that officiates and regulates this match and maintains the football field.
One day a team dressed in white won the match.
What they did next, to the shock of everyone, was to replace the committee that regulates the match.
It did this by first changing the laws of the island to allow it to kick the committee out legally. It then replaced it with its own team members.
Next the white team redraw the playing field their way.
One side has as bigger goal mouth than the other, a larger penalty box, and the half way line is more like three quarters way, nearer the larger goal mouth.
And the white team plays with 15 players. The other side has to play with 9 players as its side of the field was smaller, so says the amended rule book. And they don’t change halves at half time. Sometimes there is no half time.
In the next match it told the island people to send a team to play with them.
Of course no one wants to play.
And so the white team went out and grab some people, beat them up, and force them to play. (This however could not be verified, and you will get sued till you are bankrupt if you dare suggest such a thing happened.)
Of course the white team trashes the beat-p team, everytime, sometimes 20-0, sometimes 32-0, and the record was 66-6.
The islanders complained and complained. What else could they do?
Then the complainers got beaten up, by thugs in the night – it could not be ascertained if they were in white as it was dark – and the islanders whispered their complains instead.
The white team then said, “Look, I never break the law. The law says whoever wins this match gets to rule the island. And each time we won. You have the right to sent a team to challenge us. And you indeed sent a team each time. And each time you lost. So why do you complain? If you have to complain, complain about the quality of the team you sent to play against us. They are ones letting you down. Not us. We are also fair, legal, always sit on our moral high ground, and we dressed in white.”
Boboshooter, Nobrainer and some others, and especially Storyteller.
Very well-argued comments posted here. Perhaps this site is not so main-stream as TOC and Wayang Party and so less of the “Fxxk the PAP!” kind of remarks.
I am persuaded to read more.
The story above should be posted in more places. It pretty much sums up our situation in a manner the man-on-the-street can easily understand.
Please keep up the insightful comments.
Personally I agree with you that this is indeed a step forward to allow more dissentious voices. However I am greatly disquieted by the fact that the PAP may well tout these NCMP and NMP roles as safe valves to release dissentious opinions without these opinions making significant difference.
Also if voters do not realise that NCMPs and NMPs are not allowed to vote, the seemign presence of opposition in parliament will only lull them to simply vote for the PAP.
Amusingly if this plan works out better than expected and NCMPship entrenches itself as a testing ground for opposition candidates, maybe someday PAP will have less than 56 seats in the Parliament :O
Thanks so much for the insights.
[...] A mockery of Parliament – appointed MPs, Loser MPs, Walkover MPs… [R?] – Under The Willow Tree: TOC, Wayangparty have got it wrong here – Sex sells, so does Politics: Jokes heard from the Parliament – Hard Hitting in the Lion City: [...]
Does Singaporeans have democratic rights? Storyteller has told a very interesting story… and we all probably know what is being get across.
“Earn your right to vote, damn it – and be gracious that the winners are giving you a voice at all.”
Yeah.. if this is all possible…
“No. The true mockery that is happening here is the mockery that Singaporeans have made of the democratic process through their own behaviour. If Singaporeans want true change, they’ve got to fight for the changes – instead of blaming the incumbent for behaving like an incumbent.
The real joke is not the PAP’s behaviour. Singaporeans, the real joke is on you.”
Singaporeans cannot even do a one-man protest now? “behaving like an incumbent”.. more like a thug in the the story.
Again… same storyline like the PAP… blame it on the people.