Talk:Nominated Member of Parliament/Archive 1

Archive 1

Partisanship

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)

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)

Discussion on "Suggestions for improvement" section

Hi Smuconlaw, I have listed the sources below. Please let me know why you think they can be used in this article.

• Sylvia Lim (NCMP), "President's address: Debate on the address", Singapore Parliamentary Debates, Official Report (28 May 2009), vol. 86, cols. 683–684.
• See also Wong Wee Nam (4 December 2008), The Need for a Multi-party System, Sgpolitics.net, archived from the original on 2 December 2010, retrieved 2 December 2010; Wong Wee Nam (29 May 2009), The Real Political Change that Singapore Needs, Sgpolitics.net, archived from the original on 2 December 2010, retrieved 2 December 2010.
• Gangasudhan; Ravi Philemon (9 November 2009), Talking Point(s) with NMP Viswa Sadasivan, The Online Citizen, archived from the original on 2 December 2010, retrieved 2 December 2010.
• Kelvin Teo (11 December 2009), Reforming the NMP Scheme, The Online Citizen, archived from the original on 4 December 2010, retrieved 4 December 2010.

Thanks. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 20:16, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Here are my responses:

• Sylvia Lim's Parliamentary speech. The sentence in the article states: "Singapore opposition parties generally feel that the NMP scheme cannot be improved as it goes against the most fundamental democratic ideals of fair representation and elections", and the speech by Sylvia Lim in Parliament basically states this. "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source": WP:PRIMARY.
• Wong Wee Nam and Kelvin Teo's statements. The article states: "Despite ... calls to do away entirely with the NMP system ..." Wong Wee Nam wrote two articles on Sgpolitics.net calling for the NMP system to be scrapped. His articles are not being cited as a reference to anything apart from his own views. Similarly, Kelvin Teo's article on The Online Citizen is being cited for his own views.
• Viswa Sadasivan's views. The article describes the views of former NMP Viswa Sadasivan, and references it to an interview which was done with Viswa by The Online Citizen. Again, the source merely references the views that Viswa personally expressed in the interview.

— SMUconlaw (talk) 21:17, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the response.

• Sylvia Lim – can you please link me to the text of the speech? I am unable to find this online. Prima facie, this appears to be an opinion which Sylvia Lim holds, and it should be attributed to her verbatim.
• The views of Kelvin Teo and Wong Wee Nam were not attributed to them, instead used generally, as statements of facts. A casual Google search proves that Kelvin Teo and Wong Wee Nam are non-notable individuals with no expertise in constitutional law (Kelvin Teo is a "political blogger" and former contributor to a yet-to-be-launched student daily, and Wee Nam is a "political watcher").

• "Despite such calls to do away entirely with the NMP system,^[46] there are also those who believe in the scheme and have raised points for its improvement."
• It has also been recommended that fringe or minority groups should go through formal, mandatory elections to choose the representatives that will provide them with a voice in Parliament. Thereafter, they may be called "elected representatives". The Government may assist by providing guidelines for the conduct of proper elections. Furthermore, the maximum number of NMPs – nine – is said to be far too small to ensure proper representation of minority groups. Hence, it has been recommended that there should not be any limitation on the number of NMPs.

• Sadasivan: The question is whether "The Online Citizen" is a reliable source? Even in the case of interviews, we can only use sources that qualify as RS.

Thank you. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 21:40, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

• Sylvia Lim. Though Parliamentary debates are accessible online at [2], they cannot be linked to directly, I'm afraid. (It used to be possible to do so, but unfortunately this was changed last year.) You'll have to look up the relevant debate on the website.
• Kelvin Teo and Wong Wee Nam. Why must Teo and Wong have expertise in constitutional law to be cited as references? One does not have to be a constitutional expert or even a lawyer to state the views which they expressed (which you reproduced in your posting above).
• Viswa Sadasivan. I don't see why The Online Citizen shouldn't be regarded as a reliable source. The interview with Viswa Sadasivan appears only on this website, and you may recall that TOC actually organized a forum with the candidates of the 2011 Presidential election. (By the way, I think "Sadasivan" might be a patronym, in which case he should be referred to as "Viswa". But I'm not entirely sure about this.) — SMUconlaw (talk) 19:02, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

• I still can't find Sylvia Lim's commentary using the link you have provided above. In any case, please remember that we cannot use primary sources to make evaluative claims.
• Kelvin Teo and Wong Wee Nam are non-notable individuals who are neither journalists working with a reputable publication nor individuals with expertise in constitutional law. Wikipedia has higher standards for identifying reliable sources – for one, we do not quote blogs as reliable sources. Neither sgpolitics.net nor theonlinecitizen.com fall under the RS category. We can seek third party opinion on WP:RSN, if you like.
• I contend that the Online Citizen is a blogging community and not a reliable source - whether the interview appears on any other site or not is a moot point. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 13:22, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Sylvia Lim: "Sir, regarding the Nominated Member of Parliament (NMP) scheme, the Workers' Party continues to be against the scheme as we believe that MPs must contest the election as an essential pre-condition to obtain some sort of mandate from the people." Anyway, since we are not in agreement, why don't we take the matter to WP:RSN as you suggest. — SMUconlaw (talk) 14:28, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for posting this, Professor. In this case the statement made by Sylvia Lim should be attributed to her only in reference to the Workers' Party and not opposition parties in general. I will take up the rest for discussion on WP:RSN. Thank you. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 14:42, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

RE: Assessment

I am uncomfortable with the overuse of primary sources in the article and specifically this section ("Assessment"). Apart from this, the quote ("This is the constraint upon us, and I guess I will have to continue to live a schizophrenic political life – speaking against, yet voting for a Bill.") appears to be selectively picked from a bunch of other quotations from a published article in the Straits Times, and is not generally encyclopedic in nature. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 08:00, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I disagree that there has been overuse of primary sources. It is clear that the content of that section is sourced both to primary and secondary sources. Many of the primary sources are included because they specifically support the point that during the Parliamentary debates on whether the NMP scheme should be introduced, a number of PAP MPs spoke out against the scheme. These primary sources are also backed up by secondary sources (newspaper reports). Also, I'm not sure what to make of your objection to the quote. It is intended to emphasize the point that the PAP MPs, though not in favour of the scheme, were constrained by Parliamentary convention and party discipline to vote for it. — SMUconlaw (talk) 08:41, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

A cursory look at the references section and the corresponding assertions made in the article makes it apparent that primary sources have been used to make analytical and evaluative claims. The quote which I refer to above is (i) rhetorical in nature and is (ii) more of a critique of the current government (and possibly an anti-defection restriction) than the NMP system. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 08:50, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Please highlight those sentences where "primary sources have been used to make analytical and evaluative claims". As regards the quote, it is required to reference the previous sentence which states that "in accordance with party discipline, they were eventually required to vote in favour of the constitutional amendment". I do not read it as a critique of the current government, only of the constitutional convention and party rule that the whip must be obeyed. — SMUconlaw (talk) 11:32, 10 May 2012 (UTC)