Hsien Loong, numbers don’t count, substance counts

‘In an interview with a group of ASEAN journalists on Thursday (4 Jun), PM Lee told the visiting foreign journalists that democratic progress comes from quality discussion in Parliament, not the number of opposition members. (He did not mention the number of ruling party members implies that without the presence of opposition members they could have good quality discussion among themselves. Is my assumption tiok or not? )
 
He described the duty of the opposition as one to “raise serious issues which concern the country, which offers real alternatives to the population and which then debates the hard choices which the country has to make”.
 
“If they do that, whether they have one member, whether they have ten members, they are good opposition,” he said. “If they don’t do that, you may have 20, 30 members, you are not being responsible. So, I would not go on the numbers. I would go on the substance of the debate.”’ TRE Editorial on 6 Jun 15
 
I have this bad habit of going with the flow and not to dispute what is politically right to say. So I must agree with Hsien Loong that substance is important in Parliament and not numbers. What is the point of having 87 duds in Parliament when one dud will do the same damage as 87? Similarly, one good opposition leader like Chee Soon Juan or Kenneth Jeyaratnam would be good enough, no need any more opposition members in Parliament. And on the ruling party side, one good member would be equally effective than having a full house of NGs. And this has been proven, after the departure of the pioneering leaders, there was really only one good member in Parliament and Parliament still functione as a Parliament.
 
Wait wait, I stand corrected. As I said earlier, I always agree with the politically right statement. Did someone say that if you have a good orchestra, even a dud conductor would not make any difference? Now does this analogy say numbers are important? Or is it numbers with substance are important? Ok, ok, I have figured this out. There is no contradiction here. Basically it is about substance. When got substance, one is good substance and many are many good substances, so can have a full house of good substance or good opposition members. You cannot be contented with one or two when you can have more with good substance to be in Parliament.
 
And don’t forget, Parliament is not a house for schoolboys to debate and see who is cleverer and who wins a debate for fun. It still needs the numbers to vote and pass bills into laws, if not, just to cheer or jeer or to laugh down the opponents. Ok, I never disagree. Good substance is good. But I think can have more the betterer, at least when come to jeering and laughing session, the voices and laughter would be equally loud which can be translated to be effective or at least give the impression to be so. Anyone saying never mind about voting, voting is not important, not necessary? The ruling govt can do the voting and passing of bills. That is the job of the ruling govt. The job of the opposition is merely to debate to make the Parliament looks like a democracy, got quality debate.
 
How many of you would agree with me? Never mind, did anyone say power logic?