Legitimising NMPs for the wrong reasons?

[Perspective]

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.

It was supposed to be two terms but somehow Simon Tay (Zulkifli and Eunice as well?) got 3. Some got one. So some forummers here are right, the process is too arbitrary. Then again, nothing should be unexpected of a PAP dominated Parliament. Should there be a multiparty Parliament and the NMP remains, I expect appointments of NMPs to be more transparent and consistent and less shrouded in mystery. Siew would have got another term. However, it is more likely that the parties will collectively send the NMP scheme packing.

 

[scroobal]

May be its time for WP to reconsider their position on this very clearly and that includes their stand on participation.

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.

 

[lockeliberal]

Dear Scroobal

The NMP scheme was meant to bring forth alternative views through non politicians or through a non partisan process hence the presence of both PAP and non PAP MPs.

I have personally no problems with an unelected rep or an appointed rep primarily because of the existence of institutions such as the house of lords. I believe that NMPs and NCMPs should form an unelected second house and not be mixed in with an elected one. as at present in Singapore.

I believe that Siew performed well did his job and whether or not was marked for his candor and controversy is another seperate issue.

The process for the search for an alternative view in parliament is dominated again by the PAP and lets not kid ourselves about the token opposition presence in parliament or in the committee in charge of the search. If the premise for the mindset for the search is one for individuals to bring forth issues but not be divisive nor question to strongly the PAP, then it does only bring forth a certain " alternative type."

The problem lies not in the idea or the ideal.........the problem lies with the people qualifying that ideal with a string of buts.................................




Locke