9 NCMPs up for grabs!

This is the carrot that the govt is waving at the opposition parties. They know that the opposition candidates will not win an election except for Chiam and Low. And Chiam is fading away with age. The opposition may be left with Low alone unless Chiam can find a worthy successor to replace him. So far none in sight. Chaim should consider Sylvia Lim if all else failed. But not all is lost. The opposition can now hope to contest for the 9 NCMP seats available. This is their best bet. Don't forget, we have yet to hear anything about ensuring better quality MPs, indirectly saying that the barrier could be raised. If that be the case, the opposition will have to scratch their heads botak to find better candidates to stand. They can approach Siew Kum Hong as a possible. Not to be distracted, let's return to this happy proposition that opposition parties should be gunning to be NCMPs. The govt can make this more attractive by increasing the allowance for NCMPs. Then perhaps the opposition can serious go for it. And perhaps the opposition can table a counter proposal in Parliament to have 50% of the contested wards be offered NCMP seats. That will ensure a greater presence of opposition MPs in Parliament, a livelier debate and maybe a better govt. And the ruling govt can continue to be the govt forever and ever.

Good MP, Good Govt and Good Debate

This is the heading of an article by Jeremy Au Yong that screamed across the ST yesterday. He was reporting on Swee Say's assessment on the new changes to the electoral system, that it will bring about these results. How many of you agree with this conclusion? We have good govt for many years and people are getting wealthier, buying million dollar homes without battling an eyelid. Singaporeans are very rich and and living very well. Will we be getting better govt with the changes? Will the people be better off than they were now? Some will and some will remain losers all their lives. Making any one sentence or one paragraph conclusion on this will be too simplistic as the answer can only be found across the whole population. Good MPs? According to who and to who standard of assessment? Slipper MPs are bad, that's quite obvious. What else, must be highly qualified, must be successful, must be rich, must have rich parents, must come from top schools, must have straight As? Would these be the criteria to determine good MPs? Or without these, the quality of MPs will be poor, the barrier to entry if too low will be bad? I am still pondering what is a good MP? Good debate? Do we have good debates, great debates? With 15 minutes of coverage on the TV, one can hardly form any conclusion about the quality of debate, if there was a debate at all. Most often it was either govt MPs praising the govt or govt MPs talking down to the 3 opposition MPs. The provision of more NCMPs is just a side show. Nice to have but mostly inconsequential. What the Parliament needs are MPs of the people's choice, elected by the people under a system that is fair and equitable to all parties. Go back to the single ward representation of the past, and lower the financial barriers to entry. Let the potential MPs stand out and present themselves to the people first, convince the people that they are worthy to be an MP and get voted into the Parliament. Only then will we have a real Parliament of the people, by the people and for the people. Only then can we have MPs defending the rights of the people and not defending the interests of their parties. Retain a few 3 member GRCs to ensure minority representation and the rest can go straight to the people and let the people decide what they think is good for them. The electorate is well educated and mature today. On the other hand, let me offer a simplistic view here, good debates do not guarantee good govt. So it is better to have a business like govt and a not so good debate in Parliament. To have good MPs, good debates and good govt, is like having the cake and eats it. Too good to be true.

MP, NMP and NCMP

The new changes to the electoral system and membership of parliament are going to be met with a dosage of cynicism. What would these terms MP, NMP and NCMP mean now? Members of Parliament, Non Members of Parliament and Not Counted Members of Parliament? In a way they could literally mean these. The Nominated MPs are nominated, not elected and have limited rights. So are the Non Constituency MPs. They are MPs but not MPs. What many have missed is Low Thia Kiang's point that the Parliament is a sitting of elected MPs. The MPs must be elected by the people to represent them. By all these tweakings, would our Parliament become a Parliament dominated by MPs that are not elected by the people? And they can talk until the cows come home, but they are inconsequential when come to voting for bills to be passed by Parliament. So to call the NMPs and NCMPs as Non MPs and Not Counted MPs are not too far off. Just another way of looking at things.

The Straits Times explained

After the censure and comments in Parliament, Han Fook Kwang reluctantly explained the position of the ST's coverage of the Aware saga. He would not want to, for his view is that the ST only reports factually and correctly and the readers are left to their own conclusion. Then why were there accusations that the ST coverage was biased? Why would a non partisan reader like me found the ST coverage more on a single factor, the religious encroachment into a secular organisation and the skimming through of another major issue, the CSE curriculum that Aware was teaching to the children? Sure the ST did reported on this. But Han Fook Kwang also admitted that the coverage could have been better on this. The question is that the ST, the reporters and editors, are all professionals. Didn't they see or know that their coverage was lob sided until the public had to point it out? Lob sided articles are fair game in cyberspace where objectivity and professionalism are not the hallmark of netizens. Netizens mostly do not care a dime about being professional or being objective, being fair. Many do not claim to be. In the case of the professionals, such traits and approach are their bread and butter and cannot be lightly dismissed as another case of irrational exuberance. Did they got carried away by the event? Han Fook Kwang's letter in the ST claimed that 'Our job is to report accurately and fairly what is happening and to make sense of it for our readers so they can draw their own conclusions.' He also said this, 'We have also carried out our own internal review of our coverage and have found that we could have done better in several respects.' And he stands by the professionalism of his reporters. "The Straits Times has no hidden agenda to push this line or that, or to favour one group against another.' This is most assuring.

Of mollycoddled and mollycoddling

Why are Singaporeans taking issue with Sam Tan about them being mollycoddled by the govt? Singaporeans, especially the losers are quite sick actually. When they face a little difficulty they called for the govt to help, for free handouts. Why don't they stand up for themselves, tighten their belts, work doubly hard and create opportunities for themselves to make more money? There are so many successful people here, many earning millions and have millions in their saving accounts. The losers should learn from these successful people and stop expecting help from the govt. They must help themselves, be self reliant. If I only have a few millions in my savings account, I too will talk like that. And tell the losers off. Unfortunately I can't.