Legitimising NMPs for the wrong reasons?

[scroobal]

I wonder with the latest list of NMPs, if the scheme has failed. One of the reasons cited for having such a scheme is attract those that can provide alternative political views and test the system without fear and favour while not attempting to scale an everest like election systemt that favours the incumbent.

I would have thought that Siew Kum Hong fitted the role well. Issues that he engaged was well researched, well presented and well argued albeit he was very open and clear about his positions on a numbers of issues without pretending to sit on the fence.

I am also interested to know the position of Low Thia Kiang and WP after this selection.

I am raising this post as I more less can tell you what the latest list of NMPs will do in the House. The most vocal will Viswa and Paulin, followed by Mildred and Audrey. Viswa failed in his final hurdle to be an PAP MP despite being posted to PAP MP Nursery - SPH Research Dept. He then went on to become Feedback Chairman. Paulin will be all air, followed closely by Audrey.

There is a ray of hope with Mildred but like Ee will be altruistic yet compliant.

Then we have Jocelyn. Maybe she would like to ask the house why the Police charged the HDB Ah Lian gang for rioting while her rich gang was not charged. Something the Journalist Ravi Velu asked in his article but never received an answer.

 

[ahleebabasingaporethief]

I though t Mr. Low of WP is totally against the concept of NMPs like most S'poreans are.

Why is he then on the NMP select committee?

Can Mr. Low please answer? Or have you also sold your SOUL?

 

[scroobal]

When the NMP scheme was first mooted, some believed that it may throw out those who did not want to go thru the rigours of the election process but still contribute and the ruling government are prepared for alternative views. Thats probably why Low agreed to be in the selection committee. But this has changed since the new lot was announced.

With the failure to appoint Siew, it now becoming evident that they are prepared not too accept strong differing views from NMPs.

Maybe Mr Low or members of the selection panel can reveal if Siew had done something that went against the grain of the scheme or that he had a character defect that ruled him out as an NMP. I am sure Mr Siew will agree for such a disclosure to made. I fail to see how any of the new lot can be better than Siew combined or individually.

I though t Mr. Low of WP is totally against the concept of NMPs like most S'poreans are.

Why is he then on the NMP select committee?

Can Mr. Low please answer? Or have you also sold your SOUL?

 

[littlefish]

Maybe Mr Low or members of the selection panel can reveal if Siew had done something that went against the grain of the scheme or that he had a character defect that ruled him out as an NMP.

Just want to point out that any character defect issue would be a red herring. There is no one in this world without a character defect. Who has been honest 100% of the time? Who has never done something out of selfishness? It is important to look beyond character (as only close friends would know about a person's character and friends may become enemies) and judge based on the words and actions of the person. If a person is totally unknown, then that person needs to do more to become known first (being a scholar CEO of some GLC mouthing off words of wisdom does not cut it).

 

[jim007jimmyboy]

old man is a cunning fox....by getting WP Low on select committee is like saying Opposition support NMP.

We all know NMP is a farce....and it is a bit too late to save PAP :oIo:

 

[Watchman]

The whole franchise should be replaced with cheaper FTs !

 

[Perspective]

I wonder with the latest list of NMPs, if the scheme has failed. One of the reasons cited for having such a scheme is attract those that can provide alternative political views and test the system without fear and favour while not attempting to scale an everest like election systemt that favours the incumbent.

I would have thought that Siew Kum Hong fitted the role well. Issues that he engaged was well researched, well presented and well argued albeit he was very open and clear about his positions on a numbers of issues without pretending to sit on the fence.

I am also interested to know the position of Low Thia Kiang and WP after this selection.

I am raising this post as I more less can tell you what the latest list of NMPs will do in the House. The most vocal will Viswa and Paulin, followed by Mildred and Audrey. Viswa failed in his final hurdle to be an PAP MP despite being posted to PAP MP Nursery - SPH Research Dept. He then went on to become Feedback Chairman. Paulin will be all air, followed closely by Audrey.

There is a ray of hope with Mildred but like Ee will be altruistic yet compliant.

Then we have Jocelyn. Maybe she would like to ask the house why the Police charged the HDB Ah Lian gang for rioting while her rich gang was not charged. Something the Journalist Ravi Velu asked in his article but never received an answer.

On the contrary, I think Viswa is more than a replacement for Siew. He may not speak on more issues or the same issues, but his criticisms will be more clean-cut because he has quite a critical mind and approach things from new but straightforward angles that people too engrossed in winning debates cannot see. He will also touch on more ground issues than political ones compared to Siew who was talking about 377A, Bt Batok by-election and Films Act that appeals only to the aware. However, I admit it is still too early to say.

He was never selected as PAP MP. He lambasted an old friend Vivian Bala for compromising to the PAP so quickly when Vivian went into the PAP in 2001 and changed tack. If Viswa had been rejected as a PAP MP, the reason is probably because this chap doesn't hesitate to score own goals which is what PAP fears. And as we should expect PAP would set a quota of critical NMPs because they control the selection, so you are right that it fails. Either Siew is out and Viswa is in or vice versa. PAP won't want both of them in one Parliament. That is why voting opposition continues to remain important.

As for Low's presence in NMP committee, guess he's just performing his Parliamentary duty. He is unlikely to have volunteered himself for it and rejecting Parliamentary appointments can paint him as irresponsible. It's probably the same reason why opposition contest GRCs despite opposing it and no opposition has yet to declare they will reject NCMP if they are offered no matter how hardhitting their stands are. The support for Siew had been quite enormous on the net but nobody remembered that he evaded speaking on the NMP when he made a speech on the latest electoral changes.

 

[cass888]

I think you are forgetting that Siew is somewhat controversal. I might even hazzard that some of his views are vote losing (especially from the morally conservative segments of our society - the elderly, the Christians, the Muslims etc) so the members of the select committee (whether PAP or Low Thia Kiang) are likely to veer away from him.

With the failure to appoint Siew, it now becoming evident that they are prepared not too accept strong differing views from NMPs.

 

[commoner]

If LTK joins the selection committee, he is classified as supporting the NMP, if he don't, PAP simply says LTK cannot work within the system,,, either way he's fucked.

I think the new series of NMPs are PAP additional mouth pieces.

But I think this is a good thing. 82 PAP MPs and 9 Pseudo-PAP NMPs vs 2 oppositions. This will reflect in the next GE results definitely.

Also PAP is damn good that after Siew has declared to submit for 2nd term, and has somewhat indicated not to run in the next GE, by rejecting, PAP has silenced Siew completely. If SIew runs in the next GE, he will classified as Man without principles.

Nice to watch what next GE will bring... will LKY still be ard and call in the tanks if Pinkie AssLoong is voted out?

 

[scroobal]

I do agree with your comments on red herring. I just felt that the panel should not get away anything in this regard.

Siew has proven to be the best over the last 3 cohorts at least. His performance on a range of issues has been exemplary and one has to be impressed with his quality of research and time on his heels.

Just want to point out that any character defect issue would be a red herring. There is no one in this world without a character defect. Who has been honest 100% of the time? Who has never done something out of selfishness? It is important to look beyond character (as only close friends would know about a person's character and friends may become enemies) and judge based on the words and actions of the person. If a person is totally unknown, then that person needs to do more to become known first (being a scholar CEO of some GLC mouthing off words of wisdom does not cut it).

 

[scroobal]

Viswa would make an excellent PR Director for any government that hires him. I would classify him as an excellent diplomat and a champion of motherhood statements - need to look after the poor, the law must take its course, equity etc. In fact he built his business on this plus something else.

Just watch and see. No where close to Siew's substance and certainly not an alternative to Siew. I thought you would have realised it when he led the Feedback Team. In fact the whole NMP team is full of nice guys. I get the feeling that PAP is building the NMP persona as a nice guy.

Viswa is in the same league as Simon Tay - both looked after and sponsored by the establishment with Viswa coming in later.

I wonder if the Speaker disqualified himself when he chaired the panel when Viswa was scrutinised. Both came from SPH Research Dept with the Speaker being the Head at one time.

On the contrary, I think Viswa is more than a replacement for Siew. He may not speak on more issues or the same issues, but his criticisms will be more clean-cut because he has quite a critical mind and approach things from new but straightforward angles that people too engrossed in winning debates cannot see. He will also touch on more ground issues than political ones compared to Siew who was talking about 377A, Bt Batok by-election and Films Act that appeals only to the aware. However, I admit it is still too early to say.

He was never selected as PAP MP. He lambasted an old friend Vivian Bala for compromising to the PAP so quickly when Vivian went into the PAP in 2001 and changed tack. If Viswa had been rejected as a PAP MP, the reason is probably because this chap doesn't hesitate to score own goals which is what PAP fears. And as we should expect PAP would set a quota of critical NMPs because they control the selection, so you are right that it fails. Either Siew is out and Viswa is in or vice versa. PAP won't want both of them in one Parliament. That is why voting opposition continues to remain important.

As for Low's presence in NMP committee, guess he's just performing his Parliamentary duty. He is unlikely to have volunteered himself for it and rejecting Parliamentary appointments can paint him as irresponsible. It's probably the same reason why opposition contest GRCs despite opposing it and no opposition has yet to declare they will reject NCMP if they are offered no matter how hardhitting their stands are. The support for Siew had been quite enormous on the net but nobody remembered that he evaded speaking on the NMP when he made a speech on the latest electoral changes.

 

[scroobal]

Its a possibility and to square it, they took out the opposite camp.

I think you are forgetting that Siew is somewhat controversal. I might even hazzard that some of his views are vote losing (especially from the morally conservative segments of our society - the elderly, the Christians, the Muslims etc) so the members of the select committee (whether PAP or Low Thia Kiang) are likely to veer away from him.

 

[scroobal]

That is not true. Low was voted by his constituents and not the PAP. If he does follow the parliamentary protocols then it would be a different matter. You cannot be involved in something which you inherently don't believe in its totality.

Many people do not think the elections process is fair but they do take part because they believe in representative elections in principle and many aspects of it is evident.

The NMP if taken at face value when first mooted was quite altruistic especially when you had chaps that were much better than the PAP and even some opposition candidates. Kanwaljit is a classic example. Eeven Walter gave them a hard time. Not this lot.

If LTK joins the selection committee, he is classified as supporting the NMP, if he don't, PAP simply says LTK cannot work within the system,,, either way he's fucked.

 

[Perspective]

Viswa would make an excellent PR Director for any government that hires him. I would classify him as an excellent diplomat and a champion of motherhood statements - need to look after the poor, the law must take its course, equity etc. In fact he built his business on this plus something else.

Just watch and see. No where close to Siew's substance and certainly not an alternative to Siew. I thought you would have realised it when he led the Feedback Team. In fact the whole NMP team is full of nice guys. I get the feeling that PAP is building the NMP persona as a nice guy.

Viswa is in the same league as Simon Tay - both looked after and sponsored by the establishment with Viswa coming in later.

I wonder if the Speaker disqualified himself when he chaired the panel when Viswa was scrutinised. Both came from SPH Research Dept with the Speaker being the Head at one time.

Yes Simon Tay I remember. Perhaps at face value it seems Siew's career has no connection with the establishment unlike Tay and Viswa. But no agreement on substance on this one - for the record Tay comes closest and only to defending some group involving JBJ and Chee gathering in Hong Lim long before protests were allowed there, a taboo whereas Siew safely predictably stuck to non-partisans, lobbying for AWARE and TOC but veering off SDP. But Tay is known as a highly up-nosed and high and mighty fella.

At the end of the day the PAP knows its NMPs as well as its PAP candidates. It's not going to appoint too many people who would challenge it aggressively. Alex Au's graph is a clear indication - Siew went for more issues than the other 8 and was close to Sylvia Lim as 2nd and Low coming in 3rd. Even Chiam with stroke filed more questions. That basically proves my points.

 

[scroobal]

Sorry, your earlier post gave the indication that Viswa would make a better NMP for the people than Siew did.

Viswa is the ideal NMP for the PAP. Thats the point I am making and do agree that Siew has been pushing the envelope.

There has been a previous discussion in this forum of Simon acting as a catalyst for second PAP or a split to allow one side as a challenger and the other as a champion. Both PAP but a more robust parliament.

Yes Simon Tay I remember. Perhaps at face value it seems Siew's career has no connection with the establishment unlike Tay and Viswa. But no agreement on substance on this one - for the record Tay comes closest and only to defending some group involving JBJ and Chee gathering in Hong Lim long before protests were allowed there, a taboo whereas Siew safely predictably stuck to non-partisans, lobbying for AWARE and TOC but veering off SDP. But Tay is known as a highly up-nosed and high and mighty fella.

At the end of the day the PAP knows its NMPs as well as its PAP candidates. It's not going to appoint too many people who would challenge it aggressively. Alex Au's graph is a clear indication - Siew went for more issues than the other 8 and was close to Sylvia Lim as 2nd and Low coming in 3rd. Even Chiam with stroke filed more questions. That basically proves my points.

 

[Perspective]

That is not true. Low was voted by his constituents and not the PAP. If he does follow the parliamentary protocols then it would be a different matter. You cannot be involved in something which you inherently don't believe in its totality.

Many people do not think the elections process is fair but they do take part because they believe in representative elections in principle and many aspects of it is evident.

The NMP if taken at face value when first mooted was quite altruistic especially when you had chaps that were much better than the PAP and even some opposition candidates. Kanwaljit is a classic example. Eeven Walter gave them a hard time. Not this lot.

I think if Low got some of his party candidates or members to apply for NMP, like the PAP, then it would be a different story, so I can accept that.

He (and the other opposition MPs) accepts appointments as what would be normal Parliamentarians - that's not very likable to me but I understand but the stigma comes only because the system is PAP dominated. And in a PAP dominated Parliament, Parliamentary appointments are seen by us as PAP appointments. Everything is PAP because the PAP is everywhere. To work as per a PAP dominated system, as some would call it "working outside the system", makes one come across as either as being very selective and contradicting (you'd end up looking like the PAP themselves) or being a bottomless pit (would you walk to work if you disagreed with transport fare hikes?). The key is still to vote for opposition so that they have to appoint opposition MPs in the committees.

 

[scroobal]

Absolutely. Good argument for a backstop and prevent any abuse.

The key is still to vote for opposition so that they have to appoint opposition MPs in the committees.

 

[Perspective]

There has been a previous discussion in this forum of Simon acting as a catalyst for second PAP or a split to allow one side as a challenger and the other as a champion. Both PAP but a more robust parliament.

Simon Tay? Nah. His performance in Parliament was much robust compared to his peer Zulkifli Baharudin who was a real ball-carrier....... but he wouldn't have what it takes to lead one of the 2 PAPs. That encompasses more, like connectivity to people. Tommy Koh or Ngiam could have. The one I heard was Ho Kwon Ping, who was preliminarily selected by PAP but stopped on his tracks for that very reason and risk.

 

[cass888]

Absolutely. Good argument for a backstop and prevent any abuse.

There was really no difference between 4 opposition MPs and 2 opposition MPs since the 2 surviving were the ones who did anything useful in the first place.

 

[Ramseth]

In principle, I'm against the NMP system, but if it's to be there, then I'd think all should be one-termers, no repeat terms, whether viewed to be pro- or anti- government policies. NMPs are supposed to be social representation in Parliament, not political representation. Keeping multi-term NMPs defeats the purpose as certain agenda can get entrenched and other issues not being voiced.

For people who wish to pursue certain agenda persistently and vigorously instead of just having a chance to voice it out in Parliament, they should pursue the political route and stand for election. They can have complete voting powers and multi-terms if they keep winning.