18 Non-PAP seats at the Next GE - the ultimate Wayang Kulit?

[scroobal]

News: The Straits Times - 28 May 2009

Parliament to get more diverse voices
Non-PAP members will have at least 18 seats in House
By Clarissa Oon, Senior Political Correspondent

THE Government's move to change the political system to provide for more diverse voices will give non-People's Action Party (PAP) members a larger share of Parliament.
They will take up at least 18 seats, making up one-fifth of the House, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said yesterday.

His announcement of the proposed changes is prompted by society's changing needs, with Singaporeans wanting more debate and greater political participation.

Hence, changes are slated for three areas: the Non-Constituency MPs (NCMPs), Nominated MPs (NMPs) plus the Group Representation Constituency (GRC) and single-member ward schemes.

Besides the proposed political changes, Mr Lee also announced the formation of an Economic Strategies Committee to be headed by Finance Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam. It will come up with new and creative ways to further grow the Singapore economy.

To effect the political changes, the law will be changed to guarantee the opposition parties nine seats in the House. These seats will be filled by either elected MPs or NCMPs, who are the losing opposition candidates with the highest percentage of the votes.

At the same time, the Constitution will be amended to raise the maximum number of NCMPs from six to nine.

In the current Parliament, there is only one NCMP: Workers' Party chairman Sylvia Lim.

The NMP change will make the 20-year-old scheme permanent via an amendment to the Constitution, allowing Parliament to automatically have up to nine unelected representatives from different sectors of society.

Now, after every election, the Government has to seek Parliament's approval for the scheme.

The GRC scheme, to ensure multiracial representation, will be tweaked to reduce the number of giant-sized teams. But it will 'continue to remain the main basis of our electoral system', said Mr Lee.

Currently, GRCs can have as many as six members, and there are five of these GRCs. With the planned changes, there will be fewer of them.

On the other hand, the minimum number of single-seat wards will be increased from eight to 12.

These changes to the political system were signalled in President SR Nathan's Address to Parliament on May 18, when he called for Singapore politics to respond to a younger electorate's demands for change, while continuing to deliver good government.

In his response, PM Lee noted that the political system here, based on the British model of parliamentary democracy, has evolved steadily over five decades of self-government and nationhood.

The time is right for further retooling, he added, as a changing world means more complex policy choices. Also, Singaporeans want more debate and more avenues for political participation.

Having more alternative voices in Parliament would 'generate more robust debate, improve policy formulation, expose PAP MPs to the cut and thrust of the debate (and) demonstrate what the opposition can and cannot do', he said.

But he stressed that the intention was not to swing to the other extreme and create a weak government 'just to placate those desiring a stronger opposition in Parliament'.

For that reason, he had rejected the idea of introducing proportional representation. Under this system, the number of seats a party gets is tied to its share of the votes.

Instead Singapore's system, like the British one, is based on 'first past the post', in which a political party must win a constituency to garner a seat.

Proportional representation could create faultlines in a multi-racial, multi-religious society by encouraging parties 'to push stridently for narrow interests of their group at the expense of other groups', Mr Lee cautioned.

Even a hybrid system, with some seats allocated through proportional representation, could be bogged down by competing interests, he said, in response to NMP Siew Kum Hong's suggestion that a hybrid system could work here.

It is best to refine the existing system rather than introduce new, untried elements into the mix, as Singapore 'cannot afford a government that is ineffective, indecisive or paralysed by internal disagreements', he said.

Overall, the changes will give balance to the system, without entrenching one party or weakening the government, he added.

The debate in Parliament continues today.

 

[scroobal]

Background

2 events are known to have shaped PAP's move to tinker with the Westminister Model of democracy and both occurred at different times. First was in 1981 when JBJ won the Anson By-Elections. This led to changes that introduced the concept of Non-Constituency MP for the 1984 GE. Steve Chia and Sylvia did credit to the role but 2 vets did not.

For the 1988 GE, 2 NMP seats and the concect of GRC were introduced. Anson showed that dissenting voices were necessary and the 1988 changes showed that more of such voice were necessary. People were tired. There were also not enough Tan Cheng Bocks or Tan Soo Khoons in the PAP camp. The 1997 GE probably showed the desperation the PAP was in when they finally brought down SMC from 43 to 9 and increasing GRC from 4to 6 seats especially after the debacle of 1991.

The 2nd major event was the successful ambush of the PAP 5 months before the March 2001 GE by the Association of Muslim Professionals who were planning to introduce "collective leadership" and thereby disassociating themselves from 11 Malay PAP MPs during the their 2nd National Convention for 4th and 5th Nov 2000.

The 11 Malay PAP MPs issued a warning that turned out to be feather lite in form and shape. The leader fo the 11 lost his Ministerial post and the rest began retiring. The PM had to pull up his sleeves and thus began hard negotiations. The word "crisis" would be an understatement when the PM of a country had to negotiate with a journalist, a SPH journalist at that (yes the brothel does have some decent folks who are not prostitutes).
A quid pro quo was agreed. But the PAP never forgot that ambush and thus scenario planning began. The end result is a 5th of Parliament will be non-PAP. The law however cannot and will not prevent proxies. It does however guarantee 9 seats NCMP seats if no opposition candidate crosses the bar first.

 

[tanwahtiu]

News: The Straits Times - 28 May 2009

Parliament to get more diverse voices
Non-PAP members will have at least 18 seats in House
By Clarissa Oon, Senior Political Correspondent

THE Government's move to change the political system to provide for more diverse voices will give non-People's Action Party (PAP) members a larger share of Parliament.
They will take up at least 18 seats, making up one-fifth of the House, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said yesterday.

His announcement of the proposed changes is prompted by society's changing needs, with Singaporeans wanting more debate and greater political participation.

Hence, changes are slated for three areas: the Non-Constituency MPs (NCMPs), Nominated MPs (NMPs) plus the Group Representation Constituency (GRC) and single-member ward schemes.

Besides the proposed political changes, Mr Lee also announced the formation of an Economic Strategies Committee to be headed by Finance Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam. It will come up with new and creative ways to further grow the Singapore economy.

To effect the political changes, the law will be changed to guarantee the opposition parties nine seats in the House. These seats will be filled by either elected MPs or NCMPs, who are the losing opposition candidates with the highest percentage of the votes.

At the same time, the Constitution will be amended to raise the maximum number of NCMPs from six to nine.

In the current Parliament, there is only one NCMP: Workers' Party chairman Sylvia Lim.

The NMP change will make the 20-year-old scheme permanent via an amendment to the Constitution, allowing Parliament to automatically have up to nine unelected representatives from different sectors of society.

Now, after every election, the Government has to seek Parliament's approval for the scheme.

The GRC scheme, to ensure multiracial representation, will be tweaked to reduce the number of giant-sized teams. But it will 'continue to remain the main basis of our electoral system', said Mr Lee.

Currently, GRCs can have as many as six members, and there are five of these GRCs. With the planned changes, there will be fewer of them.

On the other hand, the minimum number of single-seat wards will be increased from eight to 12.

These changes to the political system were signalled in President SR Nathan's Address to Parliament on May 18, when he called for Singapore politics to respond to a younger electorate's demands for change, while continuing to deliver good government.

In his response, PM Lee noted that the political system here, based on the British model of parliamentary democracy, has evolved steadily over five decades of self-government and nationhood.

The time is right for further retooling, he added, as a changing world means more complex policy choices. Also, Singaporeans want more debate and more avenues for political participation.

Having more alternative voices in Parliament would 'generate more robust debate, improve policy formulation, expose PAP MPs to the cut and thrust of the debate (and) demonstrate what the opposition can and cannot do', he said.

But he stressed that the intention was not to swing to the other extreme and create a weak government 'just to placate those desiring a stronger opposition in Parliament'.

For that reason, he had rejected the idea of introducing proportional representation. Under this system, the number of seats a party gets is tied to its share of the votes.

Instead Singapore's system, like the British one, is based on 'first past the post', in which a political party must win a constituency to garner a seat.

Proportional representation could create faultlines in a multi-racial, multi-religious society by encouraging parties 'to push stridently for narrow interests of their group at the expense of other groups', Mr Lee cautioned.

Even a hybrid system, with some seats allocated through proportional representation, could be bogged down by competing interests, he said, in response to NMP Siew Kum Hong's suggestion that a hybrid system could work here.

It is best to refine the existing system rather than introduce new, untried elements into the mix, as Singapore 'cannot afford a government that is ineffective, indecisive or paralysed by internal disagreements', he said.

Overall, the changes will give balance to the system, without entrenching one party or weakening the government, he added.

The debate in Parliament continues today.

Non-PAP seats? What lousy terminology to use? Sounded like Parliment is PAP and PAP is Parliment. Or PAP is insulting candidates who failed so badly in election that

- There are extra 18 PAP member (Free) seats available for grabs for Falures?

- Some free PAP seats available for disgruntled Singaporeans? Can kpkb only.

What new terminolgy should we suggest?

1. Anti-PAP Parlimentary seats for grab?

2. FADEC - Failure And Disgruntled Election Candidate PArlimentary seat for grab?

3. KPKB Parlimenatry seats for grab?

4. PPSFF - Pathetic Parlimentary Seat For Failures for grab?

5.... ???????
6 ....???????

 

[Perspective]

Background

2 events are known to have shaped PAP's move to tinker with the Westminister Model of democracy and both occurred at different times. First was in 1981 when JBJ won the Anson By-Elections. This led to changes that introduced the concept of Non-Constituency MP for the 1984 GE. Steve Chia and Sylvia did credit to the role but 2 vets did not.

For the 1988 GE, 2 NMP seats and the concect of GRC were introduced. Anson showed that dissenting voices were necessary and the 1988 changes showed that more of such voice were necessary. People were tired. There were also not enough Tan Cheng Bocks or Tan Soo Khoons in the PAP camp. The 1997 GE probably showed the desperation the PAP was in when they finally brought down SMC from 43 to 9 and increasing GRC from 4to 6 seats especially after the debacle of 1991.

The 2nd major event was the successful ambush of the PAP 5 months before the March 2001 GE by the Association of Muslim Professionals who were planning to introduce "collective leadership" and thereby disassociating themselves from 11 Malay PAP MPs during the their 2nd National Convention for 4th and 5th Nov 2000.

The 11 Malay PAP MPs issued a warning that turned out to be feather lite in form and shape. The leader fo the 11 lost his Ministerial post and the rest began retiring. The PM had to pull up his sleeves and thus began hard negotiations. The word "crisis" would be an understatement when the PM of a country had to negotiate with a journalist, a SPH journalist at that (yes the brothel does have some decent folks who are not prostitutes).
A quid pro quo was agreed. But the PAP never forgot that ambush and thus scenario planning began. The end result is a 5th of Parliament will be non-PAP. The law however cannot and will not prevent proxies. It does however guarantee 9 seats NCMP seats if no opposition candidate crosses the bar first.

Interesting to link the expanded NCMP/fixed NMP as a reason for the AMP affair. However I'm not able to see much connection there.

 

[scroobal]

Looks like you are an ardent SPH reader. If it is not there, then it is must not be important to you.

Interesting to link the expanded NCMP/fixed NMP as a reason for the AMP affair. However I'm not able to see much connection there.

 

[Perspective]

Looks like you are an ardent SPH reader. If it is not there, then it is must not be important to you.

I put forth this response so that I can hear more from you or linking up better. There is no need for such a jibe.

 

[kingrant]

What a clever caption: Non-PAP members will have at least 18 seats

In reality, if the Opp do not win any GRC, then the real number is only 9 at the most. This is because for the 9 NMPs the PAP can always field their proxies, so in the end, only up to 9 and not 18, certainly not at least, but maxed out at 18, which is uphill climb.

As usual, the SPH brothel spins the yarn to window-dress any clumsy showing of the petticoats.

 

[scroobal]

Sorry bro, I guess , I am still am an arsehole. Here is the significance.

The AMP issue is the single biggest political crisis in the history of PAP's 50 year rule except for when the left leaning broke off to create the Barisan Socialis in 1961.

1) In 2001, PAP were held to ransom over 11 out of 81 seats (13.5%)
2) More importantly a total rejection of the PAP by the 2nd largest racial group
3) The people who made the move were not hooligans but were the best and brightest of their community and they spent close to 10 years coming to this momentus occasion. Some were actually part of the establishment which made it even harder. They also had done a survey that showed that Mendaki which was launched in 1982 by no less a a tyrant as old man and despite a second reawakening called Mendaki II in 1989 had not closed the gap. The Malay community had progressed and so had the other communities and thus the gap had reamined. And it was not going to be a few chaps sitting around an oblong table and calling themselves "the roundtable". They were going to put the ehe issue of collective leadership to a vote at the National Convention with 550 of their cream showing every sign of saying yes.
4) Obviously PA and its grassroots had failed in a massive way in dealing with the community. Heads will eventually role.
5) When GCT raised his infamous Catherine Lim inspired OB marker doctrine of "playing politics after you register as a Political Party" mantra, AMP famously told him to negotiate immediately or fuck off. Guess what? - he negotiated. He never ever referred to the OB marker doctrine again. His poker days were over.

It is so sensitive as it cuts across racial lines, that even academia has not touched this with a barge pole. They could not even provide enough camoflage with high highflatin words and sentences. Only Prof Edwin Lee did that and I believe just before or after his retirement as Head of History Dept.

Obviously the custodians of Singapore's fourth estate were covering dragon boats and other significant issues of the day.

I put forth this response so that I can hear more from you or linking up better. There is no need for such a jibe.

 

[Perspective]

No worries bro. I gather you are saying that the changes to "open up" are to:

1) Convince people, esp the Malays minorities, that the PAP and Singapore are democratic (esp when it has to play catch-up with Malaysia)

2) Create a buffer against good Malays flocking to the opposition (and let them end up NCMPs rather than elected MP) or swarming the NMP applications

 

[scroobal]

The PAP after that incident decided that holding all seats or 95% of the seats does not serve them as in the past. The resentment and the disenfranchisement were pronounced. PA was no longer a solution for for the Malays, Indians and Eurasians but it seemed effective in handling the Chinese and the new FTs.

This is month makes it the 10th anniversary of the deal with AMP and the Malay leaders. The question is did it work for the Malays or did they end up painting themselves in a corner. Expect to see a thread titled - The Singapore Malay Dilemma - the Quid Pro Quo after 10 years.

No worries bro. I gather you are saying that the changes to "open up" are to:

1) Convince people, esp the Malays minorities, that the PAP and Singapore are democratic (esp when it has to play catch-up with Malaysia)

2) Create a buffer against good Malays flocking to the opposition (and let them end up NCMPs rather than elected MP) or swarming the NMP applications

 

[scroobal]

Yes, you saw thru that interesting caption. Somehow the maths did add up to 9 only. There has been very little chatter on the airwaves on the 18 including amongst the PAP because the details have yet to be firmed up. I understand that some establishment aligned figures have been sounded out to form political parties. NMP posts are easy to fill as every industry, some silly drama group and some save the whale bunch are keen to take up the NMP gig. Its the 9 other seats that they want filled by scholars, industry captains and "respectable people" who want an alternative voice. The laws are likely to be changed to provide some sort of cost recovery once a % of votes are garnered to attract these people. TOC has already been rolled out and seemed a success to fulfill this alternative space.

What a clever caption: Non-PAP members will have at least 18 seats

In reality, if the Opp do not win any GRC, then the real number is only 9 at the most. This is because for the 9 NMPs the PAP can always field their proxies, so in the end, only up to 9 and not 18, certainly not at least, but maxed out at 18, which is uphill climb.

As usual, the SPH brothel spins the yarn to window-dress any clumsy showing of the petticoats.

 

[Sideswipe]

NCMP is a smokescreen to underline the legitimately of a democratic elected opposition MP.

If the peasants and oppositions parties felt happy with 9 + 9 oppositions in Parliament. The real status quo ( 82 PAP MPs ) remain and that's what PAP want.

 

[Perspective]

Yes, you saw thru that interesting caption. Somehow the maths did add up to 9 only. There has been very little chatter on the airwaves on the 18 including amongst the PAP because the details have yet to be firmed up. I understand that some establishment aligned figures have been sounded out to form political parties. NMP posts are easy to fill as every industry, some silly drama group and some save the whale bunch are keen to take up the NMP gig. Its the 9 other seats that they want filled by scholars, industry captains and "respectable people" who want an alternative voice. The laws are likely to be changed to provide some sort of cost recovery once a % of votes are garnered to attract these people. TOC has already been rolled out and seemed a success to fulfill this alternative space.

I seem to get the impression that you're saying that because the NCMP seats have increased, it is safer for PAP to have people within the estab or even within the PAP to form parties and put up candidates with good credentials but sluggish campaigns so that they will not kick out PAP candidates yet edge out the current opp parties unaffiliated to PAP and yet not affecting PAP's monopoly. Because in the past, people within the estab who are not with the PAP would not be interested in a mere 3 NCMP seats. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Interesting. In a way, it's lilke creating a PAP "split" without PAP losing power. A "split" was an idea they toyed with.

I wonder if that is why the United People's Party or UPP was suddenly resurrected. Rightfully, it is not possible to revive a defunct party.

 

[Perspective]

NCMP is a smokescreen to underline the legitimately of a democratic elected opposition MP.

If the peasants and oppositions parties felt happy with 9 + 9 oppositions in Parliament. The real status quo ( 82 PAP MPs ) remain and that's what PAP want.

Correction. 9 NCMP + 9 NMP will mean 84 not 82 PAP seats.

 

[lockeliberal]

Dear Scroo

I will put up another reason for the Gov latest political moves and frankly it plays on the weakest link in the Opposition. The lack of Inter Party Opposition Unity and the lack of Intra Opposition party loyalty.

Frankly with second and 3rd prizes up for grabs I do wonder whether the discipline to avoid three cornered fights will still be there.

Secondly with this action the PAP has acknowledged that there will be an opposition force in some form in the political Singapore of the next 20 years. The question is whether it will be united and be able to form a force do challenge the PAP for power or will be fragment always in opposition to the PAP but never being able to challenge it seriously

In that regards the SDP splitting up after winning the most seats and disintegrating under new leadership stands as a clear example, and the tendency of opposition characters to move ard in search of newer roots and easier political advancement also comes to mind. Wong Hong Toy for once has shifted loyalties within the Opposition candidate at my last count three times and Ling as well. The Second and Third Prize will bring all these pressures to the forefront



Locke

 

[IR123]

In at least some ways, this action by the PAP Government is a good thing.

Political unity is a fantasy and thus not worth the pursuit.

The growth in SMC seats is good because it allows for the politically ambitious to stand for election without the need of belonging to a political party.

This creates opportunity for independents who feel that they have a cause to pursue to stand up for their beliefs and in a way, make Singapore a better place to live in

They should also stand in Hougang and Potong Pasir since the political parties are more appropriate for GRCs. After all, it is the people who decide if they want you, not whether the incumbent MP want you to stand.

Leaving aside historical reasons, this action by the PAP Government is a positive statement given the appalling failure of the oppositions to create a base. At least now, it provides alternative voices.

These alternative voices should stand in SMCs to secure legitamacy.

In time to come, an opposition leader with vision and leadership may emerge.

 

[eatshitndie]

brilliant! this encourages enlightened and qualified talents who wish to serve the public yet resist joining the pap or one of those fly-by-night alternative parties perpetually in triangular love affair and/or family feud mode.

 

[scroobal]

NCMP is the closest thing to a proportional representational scheme that you find in some democratic countries like OZ. You first have to stand, you then have to garner votes and you would have come within top 9 amongst opposition candidates if none had secured a seat.

I better way is to follow the OZ system where the winner does not take all and sizeable chunk of the country which did not go with the winning teams are still represented.

JBJ did not realise, did not do his sums or was emotionally affected when he turned down the seat for MPD Nair.

The NMP scheme however has no basis or standing in a democratic system. They have no business in parliament and must recognise that. They maybe sweet and decent people but they failed to understand the concept of elected representative or the damage it does to democracy. Tan Cheng Bock despite being with the PAP made it very clear where he stood even when he retired.

I am even more incensed that WP is part of the process of selecting an NMP.

NCMP is a smokescreen to underline the legitimately of a democratic elected opposition MP.

If the peasants and oppositions parties felt happy with 9 + 9 oppositions in Parliament. The real status quo ( 82 PAP MPs ) remain and that's what PAP want.

 

[scroobal]

I think you have hit the nail on its head. Its meeting the needs of segments of the population and of individuals.

brilliant! this encourages enlightened and qualified talents who wish to serve the public yet resist joining the pap or one of those fly-by-night alternative parties perpetually in triangular love affair and/or family feud mode.

 

[Sideswipe]

NCMP is the closest thing to a proportional representational scheme that you find in some democratic countries like OZ. You first have to stand, you then have to garner votes and you would have come within top 9 amongst opposition candidates if none had secured a seat.

The NMP scheme however has no basis or standing in a democratic system. They have no business in parliament and must recognise that. They maybe sweet and decent people but they failed to understand the concept of elected representative or the damage it does to democracy. Tan Cheng Bock despite being with the PAP made it very clear where he stood even when he retired.

NCMP are specially designed for oppositions. It make the peasants "satisfied" seeing that oppositions don't have to win elections to enter parliament and provide checks on PAP.
With NCMP seats increased to 9. The Opposition candidates mentality would change, they would target 40% votes to be among the best losers and be a NCMP not 50.1% votes to win. In a proportional representational scheme, those nationwide MPs have equal voting rights, NCMP don't. That's PAP way of telling us, NCMP are not "real" lawmakers

absolutely agree about NMP scheme.

NCMP fought elections and lost, at least they tried to win the peasants votes. NMP have no desire to enter elections and are looking for a backdoor to parliament.

Do NCMP and NMP have the same voting rights?