Talk:Nominated Member of Parliament
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
 An attempt to better coordinate and organise articles related to Singapore. To participate, simply edit this page or visit our noticeboard for more info. |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) |
| Mid | This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale. |
Parisanship: I have modified this sentence:
The idea behind the scheme was to allow supposedly non-partisan citizens to participate and contribute to parliamentary debates without having to go through the electoral process.
I believe that the idea of nonpartisan citizens is problematic because everyone either has an opinion (and thus has to take sides and consequently is partisan) or has no opinion and therefore does not care about an issue. But if I do not have an opion, do I need to be represented? This sentence, however, suggests that these people want to participate! Why would they want to do this if they have no opinion? --Ghormax 15:53, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
- I think non-partisan here means that the person has no afiliation to any political party, so does not have to follow party lines, and hence is supposedly more free to express his/her honest opinion. Just my non-partisan thought here :D. --Vsion 00:10, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
-
- Which is true. The last two edits made by Ghormax seems to be introducing another POV to counter a POV, and is certainly not helping it to be more NPOV.--Huaiwei 09:18, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- I only added words that made it clear that these are not facts but assumptions. You have to make clear that the idea "nonpartisan" is an opinion by the ruling party to claim supremacy and a feature of Singapore's bureaucratic rule and they may be a part of the Confucian tradition. However, they cannot represent nonpartisan people because these people have no opinion. The Founding Fathers of the USA also wanted to abolish partisanship but as soon as the first election to Congress parties were forming. I believe nonpartisan is a misnomer. --Ghormax 21:50, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- According to www.m-w.com [1], nonpartisan means "not partisan; especially : free from party affiliation, bias, or designation". If the NMPs do not belong to any political party, they, by definition, are nonpartisan. I don't understand your comment "However, they cannot represent nonpartisan people because these people have no opinion. ". Could you explain further? "Have no opinion" means brainless or what? All normal people have opinions one way or another, isn't it? At least on matters that affect them dearly. --Vsion 22:27, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- I refered to the fact that the comment will undoubtedly be understood as lack of bias mentioned in the MW definition. But if it is lack of party affiliation, it seems to indicate that there is only a small number of politicians (the NMPs) who represent the majority of Singaporeans (who are nonpartisan). This would, furthermore, suggest that the majority of Singaporeans has only become represented since the introduction of the scheme! Since they are nominated, however, they cannot truly represent anyone but themselves. --Ghormax 20:54, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Maybe you want to check out Kanwaljit Soin and examine her success in raising difficult issues in Parliament as an NMP. Also, there is that Woon Cheong Ming Walter's bill passed in parliament. The facts are (1) they do not belong to any political parties, (2) they care about important social issues, (3) they "represent" some sections of the population, through their words and actions in Parliament (4) they have participated in legislative deliberation. Do you agree with the above four points I've made? Let's agree on these facts first before arguing about semantics and commenting on the politics. thanks.--Vsion 23:27, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
- I can agree to your argument (accept that the one on representation) and suggest the following change: "citizens without party affiliation" to remove the ambiguity. --Ghormax 08:14, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, I agree on the change. --Vsion 09:21, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
- I can agree to your argument (accept that the one on representation) and suggest the following change: "citizens without party affiliation" to remove the ambiguity. --Ghormax 08:14, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
- Maybe you want to check out Kanwaljit Soin and examine her success in raising difficult issues in Parliament as an NMP. Also, there is that Woon Cheong Ming Walter's bill passed in parliament. The facts are (1) they do not belong to any political parties, (2) they care about important social issues, (3) they "represent" some sections of the population, through their words and actions in Parliament (4) they have participated in legislative deliberation. Do you agree with the above four points I've made? Let's agree on these facts first before arguing about semantics and commenting on the politics. thanks.--Vsion 23:27, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
[edit] Pressured by NMPs
In his book, Ho wrote: "Undoubtedly, the introduction of NMPs into Parliament has given more incentives, or added pressure, to the PAP MPs to perform better. ...", so we do have a reference here. But for anyone who watched the parliament sessions on TV, the differences before and after the introduction of NMPs are very obvious. Before that, the Ministers' briefings were almost breezes to them. But with the NMPs they are much better prepared, and I no longer saw any PAP backbenchers taking naps during debates, at least not conspicuously. --Vsion 10:12, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
- You should first of all note that the book you are quoting is itself a point of view, not a fact. It is probably true that it pressured MPs to consider more viewpoints and it even seems reasonable that they were pressured to be less abusive of their power. Putting pressure on something, however, does not necessarily result in truly better performance. The word "better" is normative and thus a point of view! So I think it is justified to consider it a POV. --Ghormax 21:50, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
- On the other hand, do you have any reference to show that there was any "deprovement" so to speak, and if they have been unsuccessful in adding pressure to PAP MPs? Attempting to reduce POV dosent legitimise introducing the opposite POV. It involves the consideration of both POVs.--Huaiwei 03:35, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
- I did not try to indicate that it worsened their behavior. But if there is no effective proof that it improved their behavior, it remains a POV. --Ghormax 20:45, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
- Actually Ho's statement is verifiable, you can examine the parliamentary session, see the list of bills passed and read the Q&A transcripts. On the other hand, Chua's statement "this scheme co-opts dissenting voices and has a moderating effect on their political views moving them to the center.", to me, is commentary and speculative. The statement, by itself, also doesn't make sense, how do NMPs moderate dissenting voices, moving them to the center? Please explain. --Vsion 21:19, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
- This argument says that moderate dissenting voices are nominated and thus there is an attempt to deligitimize the need for more aggressive opposition. Furthermore as members of parliament they will feel the need to moderate their own voice. But I definetly recommend reading Chua's book! --Ghormax 08:14, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
- This is clearer now, thanks. Maybe we should reword Chua's statement in the article. I agree with your first sentence above, but not sure about the second one. I feel that as NMP, they are given more leeways to voice dissents as they now enjoy immunity. Yes, I will look up Chua's book. --Vsion 09:21, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
- This argument says that moderate dissenting voices are nominated and thus there is an attempt to deligitimize the need for more aggressive opposition. Furthermore as members of parliament they will feel the need to moderate their own voice. But I definetly recommend reading Chua's book! --Ghormax 08:14, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
- Actually Ho's statement is verifiable, you can examine the parliamentary session, see the list of bills passed and read the Q&A transcripts. On the other hand, Chua's statement "this scheme co-opts dissenting voices and has a moderating effect on their political views moving them to the center.", to me, is commentary and speculative. The statement, by itself, also doesn't make sense, how do NMPs moderate dissenting voices, moving them to the center? Please explain. --Vsion 21:19, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
- I did not try to indicate that it worsened their behavior. But if there is no effective proof that it improved their behavior, it remains a POV. --Ghormax 20:45, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
- On the other hand, do you have any reference to show that there was any "deprovement" so to speak, and if they have been unsuccessful in adding pressure to PAP MPs? Attempting to reduce POV dosent legitimise introducing the opposite POV. It involves the consideration of both POVs.--Huaiwei 03:35, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
