How about a Tombang Scheme?

I would like to take up on what Kan Seng said about making the cake bigger so everyone can have a share of it. How about turning this NCMP scheme into a bigger scheme called the Tombang Scheme? The Tombang Scheme shall work this way. The best losers in a constituency or GRC shall be made NCMPs. In this way we can have 84 elected MPs and 84 NCMPs. Then we will have good quality debates in Parliament. And the ruling party has nothing to fear as when voting on any issue is needed, they could easily win by 84-0. The voters knowing that there will be guaranteed with oppositions in Parliament will just vote for the best party and the best party will likely get all the 84 MPs in. And we have a bigger cake to share with the opposition parties. And the opposition party MPs can make all the noises they want in Parliament. This could be an improved system from what we are having now. And if the NCMPs can prove that they are really good, the voters will vote for them in the future. This is good for the country, surely. It gives the people a chance to observe and assess the NCMPs before voting them in. Good huh?

Parliamentary debate is not schoolboy debate

How so? What is the difference between a parliamentary debate and a schoolboy debate. Let me figure. In the case of a school boy debate, the opposing teams will debate for or against an issue. And they stood by their positions. If they were to vote, both sides will vote accordingly. In a parliamentary debate, you can have opposing sides debating until their faces turned red or green. But when comes to voting, all can vote for one side. Then one starts wondering, why? There were two parties arguing and strongly believing in what they said. Then how come when they have to take sides, all took only one side? This is what parliamentary debate is all about. You just debate for the sake of debating, but they don't mean a thing. One can say no but vote yes. So I say, parliamentary debate is not schoolboy debate.

Let's be honest, its schoolboy debate

There were many clever arguments in Parliament yesterday in particular over the issue of NCMPs. The media lauded it as brilliant debate. I scratch my head and say, huh? Shanmugam told Sylvia Lim, Let's be honest, that the WP was afraid that their arguments in the election campaign could not last the scrutiny of a one day cooling period. I was waiting for Sylvia to say, Let's be honest, if the PAP could not convince the electorate after seven days of campaigning, one day of cooling would not help either. Let's be honest, for those who have made up their minds, one day of cooling period will not make any difference. And if it is really for people to think through carefully after what were said during the campaign, would one day be sufficient? Why not 3 days or 7 days? But I am going down to the level of schoolboy debate. And let's be honest, how many voters would really sit down and review what were said and take out a piece of paper to jot down the points before deciding who to vote for. Let's be honest, I do not see what is the dif with or without the one day cooling off period. No need clever arguments and going to Parliament over something that is so arbitrary. Let' be honest I can't find anything clever in the whole debate.

A remarkable comment

'...more Opposition voices might not improve the quality of Parliamentary debate.' With the standard of debate so high, not necessary really. I can agree with that. But I can't agree with the suggestion that the time given to NCMPs for debates be limited. What, NCMP cannot debate or not good enough to debate? How can a Parliamentary debate be meaningful if the NCMPs are not given the same time to debate with other MPs? Ok, NCMPs don't represent anyone so should not be given too much time. This sounds more reasonable. Let's give them enough time just to ask questions. That should be good enough. Aren't the purpose of NCMPs be that they be there to give an alternative voice? They can't vote and the only thing for them to do is to speak. Limiting their time to speak defeats the whole purpose of them being there. Wall flowers?

What problem is this?

‘This govt is truly hopeless. Not only has it squandered billions and billions on stupid schemes it has now allowed the property market to rise to unsustainable levels and create a disastrous lack of availability of homes. It has been aware of the DRAMATIC increase in overseas investment in residential property but wanted to shaft all those ignorant sheeple aka 'working families' even further. It's time to contact your local senator and demand they put an end to the rest of their mad plans. No more looking after foreigners before Australians. No more overseas property investors when Australians can not even purchase homes. No more large unskilled migration when Australians can not find work. No more supporting welfare shopping asylum seekers when Australian pensioners can barely afford food. ENOUGH IS ENOUGH.’ The above was reported in news.com.au. There is an uncanny similarity in what is happening in the Australian property scene and what is happening here. But the difference stops right there. The Australians are really facing a serious problem and they are very unhappy with the govt. On the contrary, we don’t really have any problem. If there is any problem, it is a happy one. The people are all laughing to the bank and inviting more foreigners to invest in our properties here. It is a win win situation. The foreigners speculate and make money from their property speculations. The Singaporeans are all happy that their properties are gaining in value. There are no losers. This is the big difference and the quality of the govt shows. We are so fortunate to have a good govt that could turn an otherwise bad situation into a happy one. Thumbs up to the govt, especially Mah Bow Tan, for making so many Singaporeans rich and happy, and to the property speculators too, both foreign and local. The Australians need to send a team of their govt officials to study how we did it.