This One's Funny: NMP Opposing NCMP

[jw5]

the 6 MPs for every 10 wards is based on the concept of entire proportional representation. I don't support entire PR because it break the link between the individual MP and the constituency.

The best system to me is Additional Member System ( Plurality + PR ) used by Japan/Taiwan/South Korea. There are many benefits of AMS compared to FPTP.

but yes, I accept that PAP under it's current leadership will not change the electoral system that gave them 95% of parliament
anyway if we change to a AMS system, PAP will still get 80-85% of parliament.

I support AMS system for it's advantages, not that it gave our oppositions more seats.

You have explained the pr systems in Taiwan and S Korea previously and I thank you for that. I think I was asking you what was a "bu fen qu li wei", wasn't I?
In the Taiwan system, the party "nominates" their representative based on their party votes. But the disadvantage is that this person has not stood for elections and has not received a single vote right?
In the Japan system, the party again "nominates" the representative who must have stood for elections. But what if they nominate someone (possibly an "elder" or "superstar") who received less votes than another one of their candidates?
I can see some disadvantages in the partial pr system as well.
But more importantly, you said that the pap "under current leadership" will not change. The key question is under any pap leadership, what is the advantage to them of changing?

 

[Sideswipe]

In the Taiwan system, the party "nominates" their representative based on their party votes. But the disadvantage is that this person has not stood for elections and has not received a single vote right?
In the Japan system, the party again "nominates" the representative who must have stood for elections. But what if they nominate someone (possibly an "elder" or "superstar") who received less votes than another one of their candidates?
I can see some disadvantages in the partial pr system as well.
But more importantly, you said that the pap "under current leadership" will not change. The key question is under any pap leadership, what is the advantage to them of changing?

well, you gave your votes to the party, the candidates are nominated by the party. That is those MP mandate.

Japan/Taiwan use close list PR
open list PR ( used by Netherlands ) enables voters to indicate their preference for a particular candidate on a party's list.
example
Party A got 20% of nationwide votes in party list voting which gave her 4 seats
The 4 seats will be won by the 4 out of 10 candidates in Party A list whom have received the highest vote by the electorate unlike in close list which is candidate number 1 to 4.

don't get your question on Japan system.

different peoples, different thinking. maybe the new generation of PAP leaders have different ideas for a fairer electoral system. We can only hope.

 

[jw5]

well, you gave your votes to the party, the candidates are nominated by the party. That is those MP mandate.

Japan/Taiwan use close list PR
open list PR ( used by Netherlands ) enables voters to indicate their preference for a particular candidate on a party's list.
example
Party A got 20% of nationwide votes in party list voting which gave her 4 seats
The 4 seats will be won by the 4 out of 10 candidates in Party A list whom have received the highest vote by the electorate unlike in close list which is candidate number 1 to 4.

don't get your question on Japan system.

different peoples, different thinking. maybe the new generation of PAP leaders have different ideas for a fairer electoral system. We can only hope.

Thanks for your reply again.
I'm just saying that there are disadvantages of the pr system, from the view that the MPs getting into parliament may not have the peoples' mandate, even if they have their party's mandate.
On my question on the Japan system, you told me that the MP nominated by the party must have stood for elections, unlike in the Taiwan system, where he need not have stood for elections.
What I saying is that if the Japan political party has 2 losing candidates who stood for elections, A got 45% of the valid votes, B got 40% of the valid votes, but because B is an elder statesman, he gets the party nomination to be an MP. Wouldn't that be unfair to A and possibly not in line with the wishes of the people?

On your last point, you really think so? Do you think there is hope?

 

[Chau Ve Nist]

Gotcha? Got jit kee lan lah, lan cheow bin !

Is that all you know? nursing pet hurts & digging up old innocent statements to prop up your childish insults .....

for a pompous arse, there's no end to your juvenile recap of 'runner insults', 'nobel prize insults' & 'bootlicker insults' !

The usual retreat when one question your flawed logic of comparing difference between 'interview' & 'tens of thousands of votes', you densely avoided your shortcoming & pull out some other inconsequential red-herring .... you have selective comprehension problems plus- you are simply a SORE LOSER !

Quite a good grasp of Hokkien that you have got there.

Anyway, this again, is what I stated:

"I hope SL realises that it is equally ironic that for someone who complains about PAP MPs riding on the coattails of PAP Ministers in order to be in Parliament, she is likewise, riding on the coattails of the PAP sponsored NCMP scheme to be in Parliament."​

Which part of it are you taking objection to? The fact that it is true?

 

[Chau Ve Nist]

What first started as seemingly valid and objective viewpoints has now denigrated to full blown and emotionally driven insults, comments based on false or no premises and circuitous arguments.

Like this (see below) you mean?

Originally Posted by elephanto
"Gotcha? Got jit kee lan lah, lan cheow bin !"​

You may want to take control of your mob. This starry eyed hero-worshipping by the 5-7 miniscule GMS fan base has gone out of control when posters in this forum are expected to declare their support for this GMS chap lest they are subjected to "abrasive" responses.

Such "abrasive"(your own word) responses from you and your mob may intimidate new posters but surely you would know it is worth zilch to more experienced posters. No?

 

[scroobal]

I don't know what happened in WP more than 10 years back but it certainly has cut deep where you are concerned. Instead of focusing on the shenanigans of the PAP Govt, your obsession with WP is counterproductive.

The fact that you have chosen to take on a new persona makes no difference.

As I have said many times before. It makes no difference what you and I think, its the voters that decide. The fact that you clowns can't get this basic thing right is no fault of WP, GMS or any other oppositions. Spend your time addressing the voters rather than making smart alec comments in this forum.

Really sad that a little lady has got more political acumen than all you guys put together.

Such "abrasive"(your own word) responses from you and your mob may intimidate new posters but surely you would know it is worth zilch to more experienced posters. No?

 

[scroobal]

Don't waste your time with this clown. This is a long running feud with WP. Its personal and clearly an obsession. This is the same bunch that paid membership to delphi and then got people banned under various excuses. No much integrity.

You can talk about politics, opposition, GMS but it will eventually home in on WP. When Sylvia made the disparaging comments at the legal conference, these guys went apeshit.

It all started with one clown who wrote an article with another clown and got fucked real bad since.

Here is a tip. You want to see this guy going apeshit, don't talk about GMS, talk about WP. Then watch the fun.

The usual retreat when one question your flawed logic of comparing difference between 'interview' & 'tens of thousands of votes', you densely avoided your shortcoming & pull out some other inconsequential red-herring .... you have selective comprehension problems plus- you are simply a SORE LOSER !

 

[Sideswipe]

On my question on the Japan system, you told me that the MP nominated by the party must have stood for elections, unlike in the Taiwan system, where he need not have stood for elections.
What I saying is that if the Japan political party has 2 losing candidates who stood for elections, A got 45% of the valid votes, B got 40% of the valid votes, but because B is an elder statesman, he gets the party nomination to be an MP. Wouldn't that be unfair to A and possibly not in line with the wishes of the people?

On your last point, you really think so? Do you think there is hope?

Japan candidates can contest in both elections, not must contest constituency then can be in party list.

Their party list nominations is more flexible unlike Taiwan which is straightforward - 5 seats won mean candidates 1 to 5.
http://psephos.adam-carr.net/countries/j/japan/
http://www.mutantfrog.com/2009/08/2...presentation-voting-system-works-from-nikkei/

Seats are given according to descending order in party list. If losing candidate A and B are in joint position then priority will be given to who has higher votes according to party rules.

LKY bro Chiang Ching-kuo loosen political control of Taiwan in his last few years to give himself a good legacy for all Chinese to remember. I don't understand why LKY don't do that for his legacy after death, think Lee is more Chiang Kai Shek.

 

[kingrant]

Good tip! I'll try to remember how to get some free entertainment whenever I have some idle time to spare.

Don't waste your time with this clown.


Here is a tip. You want to see this guy going apeshit, don't talk about GMS, talk about WP. Then watch the fun.

 

[elephanto]

Don't waste your time with this clown. This is a long running feud with WP. Its personal and clearly an obsession. This is the same bunch that paid membership to delphi and then got people banned under various excuses. No much integrity.

I find this Chauvenist's orgin a bit intriguing but like I said before, I find him offensive, narcissistic, and dishonest. Like to pretend he has facts on his side, but even if common sense drops on him like a ton of bricks, he will still be clueless or in denial. This type of pseudo-intellectual, my response is : kiam kan, kiam pah, lan cheow bin :oIo:

He likes to persist in asking people to point out why he is deemed wrong - but he is merely an attention whore thinking he is the lord of it all.

I have witnessed how lockeliberal so naively gave him the undue regard & in the end being led meaninglessly round the bush quibbling over definitions, journals & what have you.

So, no need to engage him. fuck him in hokkien is what he deserves.

Take this last case, he thinks he is being smart by saying SL is similar to Calvin Cheng, both are in Parliament at the behest of PAP - when I pointed out, to every reasonable man, there is a WORLD of difference, where one got in through an interview, & one has got substantial ( in the 10s of 1000s) of votes backing her, CVN patently cannot get the point. Some more shamelessly return & persist in asking for clarification ? Hiong Kan lah, understand, bird brain ?

Prior to recent weeks, Scroo's post was rare. In manner of comparison as rare as ..... and is it not common knowledge LKY has rarely spoken in Parliament these days? Comparing the 2 rarity is not comparing Scroo to Old Man. Only a diseased mind can equate that with sycophancy.

Enough of it, without having any need to know his sorry & sordid past, I can surmise enough of this moron's character & calibre - beneath my contempt to engage him - free fuck him & pour scorn on his ego when time & mirth permits...

 

[scroobal]

This guy's entertainment value is good. Though most people are quite jaded by Low's slow moving sense of politics, this guy hates them with a passion and much more than old man and the PAP.

Even if you disagree with WP, just compliment them in this forum and this guy will lose his bundle.

Good tip! I'll try to remember how to get some free entertainment whenever I have some idle time to spare.

 

[scroobal]

You hit the nail on its head - pretending to have facts on his side. Thats the most accurate description.

He was famous for posting press cuttings from the past but did so selectively so that the wrong impression would be given. When he paints himself into a corner, his favourite escape tactic is to call you dishonest. When he plays dirty, he expects you to play clean.

One thing I could not fathom is when the imbecile Yaw Shin Leong from WP was roundly criticised for his support for PAP during the last electons, this guy was absolutely quiet. My sense is that its Low and Sylvia that he has issues with. Imagine spending time in this forum, constructing prose and postings with one ultimate aim in mind - WP, Low and Sylvia.

Now that I raised this, he will move to his secondary obsession - Chiam.

I find this Chauvenist's orgin a bit intriguing but like I said before, I find him offensive, narcissistic, and dishonest. Like to pretend he has facts on his side, but even if common sense drops on him like a ton of bricks, he will still be clueless or in denial. ..

 

[Thick Face Black Heart]

GASP!

Bin Hee Heng!

Omg has he been found here? I am thrilled!

You hit the nail on its head - pretending to have facts on his side. Thats the most accurate description.

He was famous for posting press cuttings from the past but did so selectively so that the wrong impression would be given. When he paints himself into a corner, his favourite escape tactic is to call you dishonest. When he plays dirty, he expects you to play clean.

One thing I could not fathom is when the imbecile Yaw Shin Leong from WP was roundly criticised for his support for PAP during the last electons, this guy was absolutely quiet. My sense is that its Low and Sylvia that he has issues with. Imagine spending time in this forum, constructing prose and postings with one ultimate aim in mind - WP, Low and Sylvia.

Now that I raised this, he will move to his secondary obsession - Chiam.

 

[Sideswipe]

[/U]Take this last case, he thinks he is being smart by saying SL is similar to Calvin Cheng, both are in Parliament at the behest of PAP - when I pointed out, to every reasonable man, there is a WORLD of difference, where one got in through an interview, & one has got substantial ( in the 10s of 1000s) of votes backing her, CVN patently cannot get the point. Some more shamelessly return & persist in asking for clarification ?

repeated my opinion on this many times already.

WP Aljunied team take part in a plurality elections where there is only one winner, PAP won, it mean Aljunied voters have rejected WP team and DON'T WANT WP to represent them in Parliament. That is a rejected mandate. Even if WP got 49.9% of votes, they are still rejected by the majority of Aljunied voters who don't want them in Parliament.

To allow NCMP into Parliament is a insult to democratic elections and the majority of peoples who have voted against them.
WP got 45% of vote last GE at Aljunied doesn't mean anything. This is a plurality election, not proportional representation.

There are no world of difference in Parliament legitimately between NCMP and NMP. Both are there at the behest of PAP.

 

[elephanto]

- WP, Low and Sylvia.
Now that I raised this, he will move to his secondary obsession - Chiam.

No lah, his latest attempt to smudge his obsession is to smugly use his favourite term PEP Politicians to denigrade the elected Opposition MPs & Sylvia in Parliament. Funny, but any peasant can see, these people hardly praise, echo or parrot PAP in the recent House Sitting .... again Chau Ve Nist trying to be a smart arse....

 

[elephanto]

repeated my opinion on this many times already.

WP Aljunied team take part in a plurality elections where there is only one winner, PAP won, it mean Aljunied voters have rejected WP team and DON'T WANT WP to represent them in Parliament. That is a rejected mandate. Even if WP got 49.9% of votes, they are still rejected by the majority of Aljunied voters who don't want them in Parliament.

There are no world of difference in Parliament legitimately between NCMP and NMP. Both are there at the behest of PAP.

By the First-Past-the-Post system, 49.999999999% also considered lost. fine.

But you can't deny there are 49.9999999% REAL votes backing the Opposition Candidate. Surely, despite your opinion of 'no world of difference', you cannot ignore that real voters have casted real votes to a candidate. THAT is so so so different to someone winning an appointment as NMP through an interview.

Maybe it is still no difference to you, caught in legalese & technicalities but of course, you are entitled to a counter-common-sensical opinion.

By your logic, it is of course technically correct that everybody & everything in Singapore is at the behest of the government since we have returned it constitutionally at every GE.

 

[kingrant]

Dear Sideswipe,

An NCMP seat is given to the best loser who did not command a majority enough to win in the FPTP system. Fact is, he had tens of thousands - no mean feat - voting for him.

An NMP is granted via an interview by a very pro-estab system.

This is a world of difference.

But your basis of equality is that both are at the behest of PAP. By the same logic, that is as good as saying that LTK and CST are 'equal to' SL and others as they are also at the PAP's behest because of the PAP's magnanimity in still upholding democracy by holding parliamentary elections and not rule by dictat by a Lee elite mafia.

There are no world of difference in Parliament legitimately between NCMP and NMP. Both are there at the behest of PAP.

 

[Ramseth]

Objectively, NCMP is not a scheme borne out of PAP benevolence or behest. These are schemes forced out of PAP won by the efforts and voices of people with alternative views and parties with alternative politics. Would and indeed did PAP consider conceding NCMP scheme in the 70s when they happily controlled 100% of Parliament with >70% popular votes? These are concessions won, not gifted. They were pressured into making a concession like these to save their 2/3 majority.

I'm not in favour of outright boycotting. These are fringes that were hard won. Opposition should work on the inches in order to get a yard, at least that's a well deserved foothold to begin with. Boycott and back to square one every election?

 

[Perspective]

repeated my opinion on this many times already.

WP Aljunied team take part in a plurality elections where there is only one winner, PAP won, it mean Aljunied voters have rejected WP team and DON'T WANT WP to represent them in Parliament. That is a rejected mandate. Even if WP got 49.9% of votes, they are still rejected by the majority of Aljunied voters who don't want them in Parliament.

To allow NCMP into Parliament is a insult to democratic elections and the majority of peoples who have voted against them.
WP got 45% of vote last GE at Aljunied doesn't mean anything. This is a plurality election, not proportional representation.

There are no world of difference in Parliament legitimately between NCMP and NMP. Both are there at the behest of PAP.

Actually a study of PPR and Singapore's NCMP schemes show very little difference. The only 2 main differences are:

1. The PPR portion always exist unlike the NCMP portion which is activated only if the non-PPR/NCMP side is dominated by one party and this party will not have a share in the NCMP section.

2. The powers of PPR MPs and NCMPs compared non-PPR/NCMP is wider for NCMP.

How you want to call it is another thing. In some competitions, the runner up is called a silver medallist. In other competitions, the runner up is called a loser. Just because PAP called them a loser doesn't mean you have to. Else you become like PAP.

 

[jw5]

Japan candidates can contest in both elections, not must contest constituency then can be in party list.

Their party list nominations is more flexible unlike Taiwan which is straightforward - 5 seats won mean candidates 1 to 5.
http://psephos.adam-carr.net/countries/j/japan/
http://www.mutantfrog.com/2009/08/2...presentation-voting-system-works-from-nikkei/

Seats are given according to descending order in party list. If losing candidate A and B are in joint position then priority will be given to who has higher votes according to party rules.

LKY bro Chiang Ching-kuo loosen political control of Taiwan in his last few years to give himself a good legacy for all Chinese to remember. I don't understand why LKY don't do that for his legacy after death, think Lee is more Chiang Kai Shek.

In that case, I think Japan's pr system is better than Taiwan's.
At least there is still input from the voters for the individual mp who gets into parliament via the party vote.
As for LKY, maybe he hasn't done it yet because he thinks he will live for another 50 years. Maybe he plans to relax things in the year 2058.