A1. A realization that group think is very dangerous? Or to further protect the rice bowls of some by pandering to ‘populist’ demands for more opposition? Or is the ruling party and hence government of the day trying to look good in some international forum where a KPI such as ‘level of political representation’ is considered?

Q2. If the ruling party, the PAP, were so good and right all the time and is constantly and perpetually infused with ‘talent’ why the need to even consider NMPs, much less an increased number of NCMPs to ‘oppose’ (or ‘provide a different voice’ if we were to put it in a more politically correct by wordy way) the house?

A2. Refer to A1.

Q3. If NMPs and NCMPs are deemed a ‘requirement’ for whatever reason known only to the ruling party who has graciously decided to accomodate more ‘opposition’ instead of ‘fixing’ them why is there such a disparity in their allowances? About 15k a month for MPs and under 2k a month for NMPs and NCMPs?

A3. Refer to A1.

Thanks for clarifying KJ’s comments. The bigger scheme of things, if anyone notices at all, is NMP scheme puts out the fire of any capable individual, whom has a burning desire to make a difference (politically or not). If there is a backdoor entry into Parliament, why bother to stand for elections?
This is the barrier of entry of all barrier of entries for politics in Singapore.

Sorry if my analogy offends some but this is what is happening IMHO :(

Thanks for reading my blog and your comment.

I think you have slightly misunderstood what I intended to convey.

Firstly, I would just like to state that I am fully committed to promoting democracy in Singapore. Not only have I pledged it (and meant it) all my life, but I have expressed it through my writings on my blog and my other political activism. I don’t think I need to further prove my will to promote democracy.

Do read my post on why I oppose the NMP scheme (linked from this post). That will give you a clearer idea of why I oppose it. My opposition to it is not based on any NMP personalities. It is against the SCHEME itself.

Having said that, the reality now is that the NMP scheme is here, and will soon be here to stay. I similarly oppose the GRC scheme, but it doesn’t mean that I will reject any candidate who contests a GRC.

My comments about Viswa were based on my observations and personal interactions with him. If he is true to himself in Parliament, I think we could hear lots of intelligent criticisms of the PAP’s way of doing things. I think it’s better to have him, than to have some PAP-lookalike cheerleading the govt like some of the previous batch of NMPs (fortunately one of those cheerleaders didn’t make the cut).

Having said that, I acknowledge that my choice of words “good contribution to the discourse in Parliament” may have given the wrong impression regarding what I feel is the role of MPs in Parliament. I will be more careful with my words in future. For the record, I agree that Parliament isn’t just about discourse. The role of the MP is primarily to propose, debate, shape and vote on legislation, and to hold the executive to account. Everything else is secondary.