First point, the scheme did not cater for a case when a candidate refuses to accept the offer of a NCMP seat. The provision was to let Parliament to use its discretion. Now they did not know what to do? Who should the rejected seat be offered to and on what grounds? Can the party of the candidate offer another replacement from the same party from the next best candidate? Or should the party appeal or request to the election office or whoever is authorized to make such a decision?
With the provision of a number of NCMP seats, would it be an automatic process for the office or whoever, to offer the NCMP seat to the next best qualified candidate? Or should it be left as vacant when an offer is turned down? If this be so, what if all 12 candidates offered turned down, no NCMP?
Another point, if the best performing losing candidate happens to be a GRC, should not the offer of NCMP be to all the candidates in the best losing GRC? Why one only? Isn’t a GRC a version of ‘one for all, all for one’?
Another consideration, is the minority interest a matter of concern here? If a whole GRC team is offered, then the minority candidate issue would not become an issue. If it is offered to one instead of a GRC team, does it not compromise the intent and purpose of the GRC? Don’t simply brush this aside as a non issue in the case of NCMP.
There must be proper procedures to take care of as there are many variable known possibles. And a case like a candidate refusing to accept a NCMP seat is most possible and should have been taken care off before it becomes an issue and wasting so much time in Parliament for people to ‘chut pattern’ or ‘cho kah chiu’ and making everyone looking so lost and angry. It leaves so much room for politicking.
So, when would a COI be appointed to look into this NCMP scheme to patch up the holes?
10 comments:
Aiyo RB, you have totally missed the point lah.
The point is that the NCMP scheme is precisely designed to insult best losers from the opposition mah. That's why it does not apply to best losers from the ruling party.
So what happened in Parliament about the NCMP matter a few days ago is just further insults to the insult of having NCMPs in the first place. And I think in this instance, the WP deserved those insults because they they are so "gian png" (hard up) even for a bit more crumbs off the table.
Why? Why? Why?
Why are we wasting so much so much time on NCMP scheme?
We have betterer things to do lah.
Hokkien say "Eat-Full-Very-Free"!
Look at the whole ECONOMY.
Many people are "crying". Some loudly some silently.
Dark clouds ahead........
Beware of Economic Tsunami......
How will this very very very crowded tiny city state be affected?
Will we continue to 发! 发! 发!
希望明天会更好! 希望明天会更好! 新年快乐
Cheers.
I must agree that it is kind of an insult to the losers. The best loser's prize, to be in Parliament. And the losers are fighting for this prize. What a joke!
Everytime they tweak we twitch.
But 70% still will shout 'song ah'.
Ehhh RB, all the points you raised are already catered for in the Statutes -- Parliamentary Elections Act (Chapter 218), Sections 52 & 53. There's nothing extraordinary about rejecting the NCMP seat.
Regarding the point about minority NCMP coming from GRC -- currently is not compulsory. Currently it is up to the political party to decide, or if the party don't want to decide, then determined by the Returning Officer by drawing lots.
In S'pore all laws & govt contracts very comprehensive one, all scenarios already catered for. Even if you don't know what you're signing for when govt ask you to sign.
So why PAP kick up a big fuss if rejection of NCMP seat is catered for in law and is part & parcel of Elections Act??? Becoz PAP knows at least 70% of Sinkies are dumb and don't know anything and is good to score political points by making the WP look like trouble-makers.
Complicate the matter, condemn the opposition, confuse the voters and compel citizens to swallow everything they say down their throats.
Where else in the world do we see so many confusing rules, schemes, rulings, concepts that really benefits no one but the PAP. Sickening is all that I can say.
Where else in the World
to find 70% of daft educated
voters?
NCMP like National Service,
SHOULD BE SCRAPPED.
Period.
It was reported that Parliament spent 2 hours in intense debate on the replacement of NCMP candidate. Somebody should do a tally on how much it costs to the taxpayers, based on the salaries of all who attended Parliament and not forgetting the rental of the building. Why, you might ask? Is it not a terribly important issue to be debated? Well, read on and judge for yourselves.
Li Lian got the votes of 15,801 voters in Punggol East, she represents these 15,801 voters. WP got the votes of 35,547 voters in East Coast GRC, any of the WP candidates in that GRC can represent those 35,547 voters. How can anybody in his right mind then claim that Li Lian represents more voters than Daniel Goh? What I've given is pure and simple math. The GRC and the NCMP are both flawed systems concorted by PAP, and they must live with the flaws they have created.
And that is just one side of the coin. Look at the reverse side. If Li Lian had just declined the NCMP seat and WP sits quietly on the sidelines, it would then have been left to Parliament to decide whether they want to execute the wish to have more NCMP in Parliament. This also happens to be the exact same wish expressed now by the PM himself (unless it's all lies!). So it would be up to Parliament to offer that empty seat to a deserving candidate. Hey Presto! That deserving candidate will be someone from the next highest losing majority. Need I say more? It's the exact same coin, look from the other side.
In that second scenario, if Parliament itself solves the problem of filling that vacant NCMP seat, the debate would not take more than two minutes. There would not need to have an intense debate of two hours!
So I ask you readers to make up your own mind - is it worth the time to debate for two hours? Or should somebody work out how much it costs to the taxpayers for all these highly paid leaders to debate over the matter?
Smal type of trees will not grows tall....
Post a Comment