Forum Index
this forum welcomes all forumers who appreciate decent and well thought out views and discussions. all forumers are encouraged to accept that different forumers have different views and often there is no absolutely right or wrong views.
Menu
 Forum IndexHome
FAQFAQ
MemberlistMemberlist
UsergroupsUsergroups
RegisterRegister
ProfileProfile
Log in to check your private messagesMessages
Log inLogin/Out

Quick Search

Advanced Search

Links
mysingaporenews
Singapore River Tour
Singapore Education
Singapore Orchids
littlespeck
ypapforum
Singapore Hosting
Sample Link 2
Sample Link 2

Who's Online
[ Administrator ]
[ Moderator ]


Google Search
Google

http://www.phpbb.com
Gems of Parliament
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... , 13, 14, 15  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic     Forum Index -> Singapore Current Affairs
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
redbean



Joined: 07 Mar 2006
Posts: 13465
Location: singapore

PostPosted: Sat Mar 15, 2014 10:29 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Policies Good, Politics can do better

This is what sums up the views of Chua Mui Hoong about what’s happening in Parliament and what the Govt has been doing. Before anyone starts to throw chairs and tables at her, let me make a point here. What she wrote is just her opinion. And this is what she called herself, Opinion Editor. Her title says it and you are free to disagree and also you may have your own opinions that may not agree with hers. I think that is fair.

How many of you agree with her that the Govt policies are good? I am stretched to find any. Maybe I will do a contortionist act by agreeing with a few that are good depending on who you are. High ministerial pay is good and helps to fight corruption too. And it gives our President a lot of dignity too.

High property prices are good as they turned Sinkies into millionaires without having to work and can collect higher rentals.

All the changes regarding CPF are good as they made Sinkies smiled at their monthly or quarterly statements that informed them how rich they are till they died. The money is guaranteed to be there, and would not runaway even if preventing the owners from squandering it.

Allowing medical cost to go unchecked is also a good policy as it means the quality must be damn good as good things don’t come cheap. Our medical fees are now like branded goods, paying for quality for those who can afford it. For those who can’t, just stand far far away to admire.

Our policies on foreign talents are even better, starting from paying for their education with generous scholarships to giving them high paying jobs to replace Sinkies that are not good enough despite world class university education that emptied their savings. And fakes are also excellent for the economies, don’t disturb them as long as the employers are happy with them, and the displaced PMEs are not complaining and happy driving taxis to be their own bosses.

I could go on with another long list of good policies, but that would become too boring. Let me quote Ignatius Low on Housing. ‘It has been this resolve to move quickly without being encumbered by the decisions of his predecessors that has been the basis of Mr Khaw’s success.’ He went on to ask Boon Wan to take a bow for a job well done. I don’t know how many of you would agree but I don’t think it is such a difficult thing to do when someone shitted and vomited all over the place and one has to clean up the mess. But the stench stayed, a lot of money and effort wasted with many home buyers forced to buy sky high priced properties that would strangle them one day when they lost their jobs. They would be displaced PMEs as a matter of time. And there are many high income earners that were either forced to buy expensive private properties, migrated or still depending on renting properties, booted out from buying cheaper public housing.

The damage had been done and the prices are still in high heavens. Good job done?

And how many would agree that the report card for Health and Manpower be rated as satisfactory? As for Transport, appalling is quite appropriate though the report card said, ‘Can and must do better’.

Anyway it is all about personal opinions and it is good that we can share our opinions on things without being personal. A big of civility will go a long way.
_________________
what i posted is just my personal view. feel free to disagree.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
redbean



Joined: 07 Mar 2006
Posts: 13465
Location: singapore

PostPosted: Sun Apr 13, 2014 9:05 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The things I would like the PAP MPs to raise in Parliament
There are many national issues that the people are unhappy about. And these are not play play things like no water festivals or no tickets to watch the National Day Parade. They are very serious matters that affect their lives and livelihood. But these matters are somehow only raised by the opposition MPs. PAP MPs may disagree and want to tell me they have raised them too. I choose to disagree.
Perhaps the PAP MPs may want to prove me wrong by raising more issues that the people are unhappy about like 6.9m population, jobs for the unemployed or underemployed PMEs, discrimination by foreigners, including CEOs for recruiting their own kind and sacking Singaporeans in the process, scholarships/university places for foreigners, CPF withdrawal age, high COEs and unaffordable car ownership, housing for Sinkies that are banned from buying public flats, etc etc.
There is only one reason why PAP MPs would not raise such questions. They do not see them as problems and are fully in support of govt policies in these matters. They believe the govt policies are right, on the right track. True?
If that be the case, let’s hope that when they left office, they would not stand up to say, actually they don’t agree. It would not reflect very well on them if they do so. It would by hypocritical. Now is the time for them to stand up for the people if they think the policies are not good for the people. It is now when they can do something, to say something, and not after they have left office and no longer consequential.
Funny, didn’t the people elected them to say things for them? Didn’t they say that if elected they would speak out for the people? There are many questions going to be raised in Parliament next week. Just watch what were being raised and are there anything that really mattered to the core interests of the people.
_________________
what i posted is just my personal view. feel free to disagree.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
redbean



Joined: 07 Mar 2006
Posts: 13465
Location: singapore

PostPosted: Sun Apr 20, 2014 10:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The NMP dream team

If only this is possible, having a dream team NMP from the social media. In reality this is unlikely as the bloggers in social media are just too loud, talk too much and will be a pain in the neck if they ever get into parliament. Why would they want these loudmouth bloggers to give them some headache when they don’t need to? Still then, if they really want committed and sincere citizens that have the affairs of the state at heart and are thinking and talking about them daily, without being paid, where else can they find them other than the social media?

Let me imagine what the NMP dream team would be like if the bloggers have a choice. Leong Sze Hian, Roy Ngerng, Alex Au, Vincent Wijeysingha, Chris K, Oxygen, Christine Lim, Cynical Investor to name just a few. Kenneth J, Tan Kin Lian and Gilbert Goh too would make it to the team but they would likely contest the next GE and enter by the main door. And there is a FT in Christopher Balding to consider too. We are so in love with FTs and including one will be just so nice.

With such a team in parliament, PAP would definitely be at their best, no more on leave, busy, no time to attend parliament, and cannot afford to doze off either. It may even devote a handpicked team to take on the NMP dream team, but not necessarily their first team. The first team would be too lethal, a cold steely stare would be enough to deal a deadly blow to the NMP dream team. Let’s just speculate a few names for the PAP task force against the NMP dream team. Lee Bee Wah, Irene Ng, Hri Kumar, Vikram Nair, Lim Wee Kiat, Janil, all great PAP debaters. And for good measures PAP might want the team to be helmed by a minister to give it the ballast. Iswaran would be more than enough to take on this task, and watch out for his southpaw. Fatimah Lateef did not and took a full body blow recently.

It would be a wonder to watch the two teams fight it out in parliament and I am sure the TV ratings would shoot through the roof when parliament is in session. It would beat all the Channel 5 or Channel 8 dramas hands down. Unfortunately this can only happen in dreamland. There would not be any NMP dream team or PAP task force to do mortal combat in parliament.
_________________
what i posted is just my personal view. feel free to disagree.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
redbean



Joined: 07 Mar 2006
Posts: 13465
Location: singapore

PostPosted: Sat May 17, 2014 10:34 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Tony Tan’s presidential address in Parliament

Tony Tan said many things in Parliament in his opening address and there will be many follow up comments on what he said. He wanted the govt to do many things. What he has laid out are the bones, a broad framework and the govt would need to flesh them out with the details. That is the frightening part and I already have seen one, flashed in the media like Santa Claus in coming to town six month early. All I can see is nothing good. I will write about it subsequently in another post.

What Tony said in brief is that the Govt has screwed up big time and need to reflect on the failed policies and to rework on them. And he has laid them out, the areas that the Govt must redeem itself, to address the ills it has created in recent years. Ouch, no one sees it this way, and all were thinking that everything was fine and Tony was just reading a brief written for him and means nothing.

Another thing Tony made it very clear is that it is all about Singaporeans. In his speech, he has never mentioned a single word, the most offensive word in today’s context, about ‘locals’. Tony has made it doubly and triply clear, that it is about Singaporeans and those jokers that have been sputtering the word ‘locals’ better take heed. I hope Tony really meant what he said and the Govt takes note of this and erase the word ‘locals’ from their vocabulary and reports.

What else did Tony said? Oh, he touched on the political debate that is going on, where else but in TRE and cyberspace. He acknowledges that it was good and healthy for a constructive debate to improve the lives of Singaporeans. Destructive and crude attacks are not the right thing to do as they would distract the readers from the real issues. When people start to attack other people personally and viciously instead of addressing an issue, the debate ends there. The other party will just ignore what is being said and walk away. For a constructive debate to carry one to a fruitful ending, both sides must feel comfortable to engage. Confrontation politics is bad and must be discouraged.

Now this last sentence is a tricky one. Some opposition politicians have stood up to defend themselves. And some ruling party politicians have spoken smugly and derisively about opposition politics as if Tony was telling the opposition politicians off. Wait a minute. Is Tony addressing this confrontational politicking at the opposition? Who are the real culprits that have been indulging in confrontational politics? Who have been hitting below the belt, using all means and power to attack viciously at their opponents? Don’t look at me. Read Tony’s comments and ask yourself, are you the guilty one? Don’t always presume that it is always the other party that is at fault. Historical evidences and facts pointed to one direction, when politics were confrontational, vicious and destructive, you know who came up on top and who were the victims. Like that also cannot see, or still so thick, thinking that only other people must be at fault, and self is always an angel.

Tiok boh? Or did I read Tony wrongly?
_________________
what i posted is just my personal view. feel free to disagree.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
redbean



Joined: 07 Mar 2006
Posts: 13465
Location: singapore

PostPosted: Sun May 18, 2014 11:39 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

CPF improvements on the cards as Parliament reopens

The above is the title of an article by reporter Neo Chai Chin in the Today paper on 17 May and this is his first paragraph, ‘SINGAPORE — The savings and annuity schemes under the Central Provident Fund (CPF) system will be improved to ensure Singaporeans, who are living longer, have enough for their financial needs in their golden years, President Tony Tan said yesterday as he reopened the 12th Parliament after its mid-term break.’
There is so much hope and optimism in Neo Chai Chin’s article. But always remember, when the Govt voluntarily offers to help, you better beg them to leave you alone and say thank you. The Govt has been so proactive in trying to help Sinkies in managing their CPF savings and we know what is the end result. After every help, the Sinkies find the pot of gold, their CPF savings, placed further and further away from their reach.
So, Tony is talking about the CPF savings, about annuity scheme, about CPF Life scheme, in fact about all the schemes in the CPF set up. So far, how is it? Is it better for the CPF members? From my understanding, all the schemes and the things intended to help the CPF members, is all about using the money of the CPF members to help themselves and ended with the money stuck deeper and deeper in the quicksand.
What would come out from the CPF after Tony’s comments is anyone’s guess. I am not a single bit hopeful but more of fear that the pot of gold will be kicked further down the road, all for the good of the CPF members.
Anyone disagree with me?
_________________
what i posted is just my personal view. feel free to disagree.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
redbean



Joined: 07 Mar 2006
Posts: 13465
Location: singapore

PostPosted: Wed May 28, 2014 8:13 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Low Thia Khiang’s constructive politics
Low Thia Khiang tried to expand Tony Tan’s call on constructive politics in Parliament yesterday. He made many good points about what destructive politics was all about. What he said made very good sense to me. But to some it would come through like high falutins. And to those who believe that his descriptions of destructive politics are constructive politics, they would not bother one bit to listen to what he was saying. Some may call him idealistic and his version of constructive politics as an aspiration. Politics was not meant to be constructive.
Though Tony Tan aspires for politics to be more constructive in his Presidential Address, he could really mean what he said and want it to happen, but how many people would listen to him and actually make politics more constructive? Maybe those who have been indulging in destructive politics believe that they were really constructive.
From the tone and emotion of the voices in Parliament yesterday, Tony Tan may need to visit Parliament again to explain what he really meant or his definition of constructive politics. The expression on the faces told all, who were being constructive and who were being destructive. I don’t think the house understood what Tony said or what he wanted. The mood, as usual, exuded contempt and hostility.
Low Thia Khiang’s effort to talk about constructive politics is more like 对牛弹琴。
_________________
what i posted is just my personal view. feel free to disagree.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
redbean



Joined: 07 Mar 2006
Posts: 13465
Location: singapore

PostPosted: Wed May 28, 2014 8:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Constructive Politics in Parliament
Last night’s news on Parliament was dominated by a new find in Puthucheary. He came across as the smartest MP in the house. He was on his feet many times, even his speech on healthcare was allowed extra time to expound on his wisdom. The ministers were in awe, mesmerized by his grasp on the issues facing healthcare. He seemed to have all the answers especially on what Gerald Giam had to say. And Gerald Giam was as good as saying nothing but sound bites.
Gerald Giam made two points which I thought were very pertinent and should be seriously considered by the MOH instead of being brushed off lightly by some wise cracks. The first point was the American private healthcare system. Gerald told the house that the American govt made it a law for excessive profits from health insurance to be ploughed back to reduce the premiums paid by the insured.
This point was hastily dismissed by Puthucheary with no second thought. It was a private insurance scheme and should not be used in our discussion on a public healthcare scheme. Why not? Be it private or public healthcare scheme, excessive profits must be moderated and best returned to the insured. Otherwise the insurance agencies would be raising higher and higher premiums to make more and more profits. I think this is a very important point for our govt and private insurers to take note of and to prevent premiums from running away.
The second point by Gerald, actually related to the first, is that the claims made in our public health insurance scheme came to 63% of premiums collected, ie giving a huge surplus of 37% to the insurers. The American private health insurance’s claim was 82% and the American govt was already finding the profit too high.
This point was again pooh-poohed by Puthucheary. What is wrong with collecting more premiums and more surplus? What? Who said that? Nothing wrong with collecting unnecessary higher premiums from the masses? Puthucheary’s logic was that there were too many unthinkables and contingencies that could happen and could raise the claims unexpectedly. It was good to have a big cushion of excess premiums. Ya, I know that too, let’s add another 20% to the premium.
This kind of thinking I can agree if I am prepared to worry about when the sun would not shine again or when the next epidemic will hit. We must have a lot of extras, a lot of fats, just in case. No wonder the CPF minimum sums keeps going higher and higher. No wonder the nation’s reserves for a rainy day must keep increasing, even if we have 20 trillions will not be enough. No wonder some ministers are saying their salaries are not enough.
It is okay to collect more premiums. It is okay to increase the minimum sums to $1m. Who can dispute against such logic? But who is paying? Whose pocket will be hurt?
What is wrong with collecting more money from the people?
I am worried when we have so clever people in the govt who wants to worry about everything under heaven, every unknown, and wanting to provide for them and make the people pay for their concerns. I know their hearts are good and in the right place.
Who is indulging in constructive politics and who is indulging in destructive politics?
_________________
what i posted is just my personal view. feel free to disagree.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
redbean



Joined: 07 Mar 2006
Posts: 13465
Location: singapore

PostPosted: Wed May 28, 2014 10:14 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Singaporeans First or Foreigners First
When Jee Say and his comrades announced the birth of a new party I was a bit uneasy. We don’t need more opposition parties but for opposition candidates to gel together as a united front. My misgivings were kind of softened when the name of the party was announced. It is called Singaporeans First Party. And I was quite agreeable with his manifesto that puts Singaporeans First. At least we have a political party that values and wants to protect the interests of Singaporeans.
Yesterday in Parliament when Foo Mee Har called for Singaporeans First in employment opportunities she was shot down by Amy Koh. Amy’s position is the same as the PAP/Govt. Cannot put Singaporeans first and lost out on foreign talents. If there are better foreign talents, just too bad if Singaporeans were passed over. It is a competitive world and we must fight for the best foreign talents. This is the same as ST’s Fernandez position, regardless of nationalities as long as they are talents. This position also presumes that the foreign talents hired are really better talents than Sinkies and not otherwise, not because they are of the same kind or clan.
Foo Mee Har ended having to qualify her position that all things being equal, or something like that, Singaporeans must be given first right of refusal. I like that.
Is Amy Koh’s foreign talents preference against Singaporeans First the policy position of PAP? If this is the case, then we will have two parties with two different priorities with respect to jobs for Singaporeans. Singaporeans First Party would put the hiring of Singaporeans First as a major policy. PAP will be talents regardless of nationalities. Am I right to make this conclusion?
Would the PAP care to clarify its position on this new development in Parliament? Was Amy Koh spelling out PAP’s policy on the hiring of talents?
_________________
what i posted is just my personal view. feel free to disagree.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
redbean



Joined: 07 Mar 2006
Posts: 13465
Location: singapore

PostPosted: Thu May 29, 2014 10:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Table thumping constructive politics in Parliament
After watching the TV clip on the exchange between Hsien Loong and Low Thia Khiang last night I have so many things to write about. My problem now is how to write them constructively and not destructively. My bigger problem is trying to decipher what is being constructive and what is being destructive as I am quite blur after the exchange. Maybe after a few rounds of meditation my mind will be clearer. Or maybe I need not have to be bothered on those terms as they are meant for politicians in Parliament.
Let me touch on the less important aspects of the exchange instead of the serious stuff for the moment. Serious stuff involving policy matters must spend more time and effort on them. Rushing in to take pot shots or to make comments like bull arse flies may end up flip flopping, or is it shifting or changing of position, can’t figure out which is a more appropriate and right word to choose.
One thing to note is not to be too cynical or breathtakingly cynical. Matilah Singapura said my posts are corrosively cynical. Which is more powderful? I think Matilah was saying it as a form of compliment. Not sure if Hsien Loong was complimenting Low Thia Khiang for his cynicism in Parliament.
I think writing in blogs is not like in parliament and to be cynical is good in its own way. And no one would expect any blogger to follow up with recommendations and suggestions on policy changes. Not only bloggers did not have the resources, neither do they have the data and complete information on an issue. Without knowing the full details of a problem and without the resources available, surely cannot expect too much from bloggers right? What about opposition MPs, are they in a position to provide real solutions giving their limitations on resources as well? Are govt policies so simple that anyone can just offer solutions with their little knowledge on the issues or their own limitations in ability?
Oh, cynicism is a way of suggestions, can also be constructive too. As an example, would it be enough to say that the water in the longkang is deep enough for swimming, or ponding for the people paid to do the job to get rid of the problem? Or must one also tell the people paid to do the job how to clear the longkangs to be constructive? Often the solutions are obvious and one needs only to point out the problem, or to make a little cynical comment. And big problems often need big cynicism to achieve the same effect. And bigger problems may need breathtaking cynicism to jolt people from their sleep. And at times you may need corrosive cynicism when all else fails and the problem just get biggerer.
I am going to do more meditation to sort out the deep and challenging thoughts from the exchanges in Parliament. I am also going to meditate on what Hri Kumar said, ‘Singapore politics still free from cynicism.’ Obviously he has not heard of ‘breathtaking cynicism’. Matilah may whisper to him about corrosive cynicism.
_________________
what i posted is just my personal view. feel free to disagree.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
redbean



Joined: 07 Mar 2006
Posts: 13465
Location: singapore

PostPosted: Fri May 30, 2014 8:29 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Low Thia Khiang turned into a tiger in a cul de sac
The whole weight of the PAP and the Prime Minister bore down on Low Thia Khiang in Parliament. Hsien Loong gave him a lashing in the most ‘constructive’ way after this term was made famous by Tony Tan in his Presidential Address. Hsien Loong could not make it any more constructive than what he did to Low Thia Khiang. This shaken Low’s confidence for a brief moment but he recomposed himself and stood there bravely to rebut everything Hsien Loong threw at him. He would not let any unwarranted remarks go unanswered and he took his time to rebut every one of them, not missing any.
Low Thia Khiang has shown his mettle expected of an opposition leader. He was not going to buckle under the spotlight. He held his ground and even Hsien Loong had to turn on a little smile on and off from his lecturing posture. Mind you, you had a Cambridge trained scholar speaking in his ‘mother tongue’ Queens English that he was most comfortable with and with a full vocabulary of choiced words in his finger tips. On the other side of the bench was a Chinese educated Nantah graduate, born and bred in Teochew and Mandarin but retorting in English, a language that was as good as alien to him. Low Thia Khiang not only spoke well and in good grammatically correct English, he fought back like a tiger. Imagine if the debate were to be conducted in Mandarin, the result would be quite different even though Hsien Loong is also a Mandarin speaker. Maybe next time Low Thia Khiang shall speak in Mandarin when taking on Hsien Loong (or anyone in Parliament) and let Hsien Loong have the choice to reply in English or Mandarin.
I think many who have glued to the TV to watch the drama would have stood up and gave him a standing ovation. Despite all the handicaps, underrepresented, 7 against 80, despite having to struggle with an alien language, despite having only limited resources, and in the face of a hostile and cynical dominant party whose candidates have occupied Parliament like their familiar living room, Low Thia Khiang stood tall, alone to face them. He did himself proud, did his party proud. And I am sure many of the PAP MPs must be quietly admiringly the way Low ‘articulated’ his positions without any fumble.
Many who watched the debate are giving Low Thia Khiang the nod as a worthy opposition leader in Parliament. His performance was a good example for his MPs to emulate and must have shown them that that’s the way to stand up against the hostile stares of intimidating opponents without having to give an inch, like a tiger. At least that was the impression Hsien Loong had of the WP leaders, turning into tigers and heroes. When your worthy opponents like the mighty PAP acknowledged your worthiness, you deserved it.
_________________
what i posted is just my personal view. feel free to disagree.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
redbean



Joined: 07 Mar 2006
Posts: 13465
Location: singapore

PostPosted: Fri May 30, 2014 8:35 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Has Inderjit Singh submitted his resignation letter?
The lengthy letter by Inderjit on what he felt had gone wrong with the PAP and its policies was like him submitting his resignation letter to Hsien Loong. It was as good as saying ‘I disagree and you can do anything you want with me’.
Many readers are applauding the things highlighted in Inderjit’s letter and could feel that it was written from his heart. He just had it too much and could not hold back anymore. Yes, this is the first time an incumbent PAP MP is kpkb while still with the Govt, while still in Parliament. This is a clear break from the past when elites or ex PAP stalwarts would only talk after they have left the corridor of power.
How many PAP MPs or ministers out there are sharing the angst of Inderjit Singh and would want to do the same, or have the guts to say it while still an active member of the house? Would anyone feel excited enough, invigorated enough and encouraged by this act of Inderjit to say, ‘I agree with Inderjit and here is my resignation letter?’
For any MP or minister to take such a stand, it would demand a lot of courage and conviction to do the right thing, to go with the heart, to go against the head, or like Ngaim Dong Dow had said, go against the money.
Are we seeing the first breakaway? Are we seeing the first sign of rebellion in Fortress PAP? What Inderjit had done is unprecedented. It is like a public dress down. Anyone wanting to read what he said can go to this link, http://www.tremeritus.com/2014/05/27/mp-inderjit-singhs-critical-analysis-of-pap-govt/.
_________________
what i posted is just my personal view. feel free to disagree.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
redbean



Joined: 07 Mar 2006
Posts: 13465
Location: singapore

PostPosted: Fri Jul 11, 2014 10:55 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Respecting Parliament and the trust of the people
The embarrassing revelation of Parliament having not enough MPs present to make a quorum for the passing of bills is not funny. It is not a small matter.
Our MPs maybe part time, some full time, but they are paid extremely well for being part timers. The people can understand that they are busy people with many hats to wear, many directorships and meetings to attend. But to skip Parliament is unacceptable.
The Parliament is the highest office of the land. It is not only an honour to be sitting in Parliament, it carries a lot of responsibility and prestige as law makers. It carries the hope and aspirations of the people. MPs are elected by the people to represent their interests in Parliament. And Parliament does not sit everyday.
When Parliament is in session, it must be the top priority of MPs to be in attendance. Any MP that thinks being present in Parliament is secondary to his other money making activities should not offer himself as a representative of the people. They are not only disregarding the interest of the people but showing disrespect to the highest institution of the land.
The Prime Minister and the Speaker of Parliament must impress upon the MPs that this is the highest duty, to be representatives of the people in Parliament. The MPs and MPs to be must commit to serve the people and be present in every Parliamentary sitting except for extenuating circumstances that they could not be present. How can anything be more important than a Parliament in session? How can MPs feel so comfortable and convenient to be absent from Parliament?
Maybe I am wrong. Parliament is not important. Being present in Parliament is a waste of time. Law making is not important, voting and passing of bills in Parliament are not important. If that is the case, by all means, no need to attend Parliament, or no need to have Parliamentary sessions to discuss national issues and make laws. What is the status of Parliament? A rubber stamping institution, be present or absent is not material?
How can there be less than 25% of MPs present in a Parliament session and how long have these been going on? $16,000 a month is a lot of money, teeny weeny peanuts to some, to at least make a show of face or sleep in Parliament. Anyone who thinks that $16,000 a month is not big enough and not justifiable to make a presence in all Parliamentary sittings must not stand for election as an MP. It is an insult to the Office of Parliament. It is not doing justice to the people that elected them to be in Parliament.
What do you think?
_________________
what i posted is just my personal view. feel free to disagree.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
redbean



Joined: 07 Mar 2006
Posts: 13465
Location: singapore

PostPosted: Tue Aug 12, 2014 8:46 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Eugene Tan and Roy Ngerng not selected as NMP
This is the new talk of the town. For Roy Ngerng, the writing was on the wall and is a non event. For the effable professor, many have kind words for him and would consider him worthy of a second term. His dropping is sending all the jaws dropping as well. For all the NMPs, Eugene is one that has made the most impact in Parliament, dedicated, consciencious, and I think perfect attendance. He is like the teacher’s pet, the class monitor, everything exemplary. Everyone is expecting him to be rewarded with another term.
Well, he was not in the new team. Why? Did he not say or do the right thing as a NMP? Many people are asking why such an industrious NMP was dropped? He is about everything that you can ask for in a NMP.
In my view he is deserving of better things. He is good enough, or many times deserving as an MP. The alternative parties should queue up to make their pitches to him to bring him on board. For sure he would not be absent from Parliament sessions. For sure he will take his job as an MP seriously. But these are not the only thing good about him. He has a good mind and a very decent man. At least that is my impression of him as I did not know him personally.
Oh, maybe he is being dropped but already invited for tea and would be slated as the next candidate. Now, I would say this is a good reason to drop him from being an NMP.
_________________
what i posted is just my personal view. feel free to disagree.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
redbean



Joined: 07 Mar 2006
Posts: 13465
Location: singapore

PostPosted: Fri Feb 13, 2015 8:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

AHPETC acttions ‘unlawful’, public monies lost
These are two very serious charges made by Shanmugam and appearing on the front page news today. I would presume, yes I am a layman and do not understand if this is different from breaking the law, that unlawful means breaking the law. What should the Govt do when the Law Minister accused the AHPETC of being ‘unlawful’ even with inverted commas? I would again presume, or shall I think, the Govt or the Law Minister is going to file charges against the AHPETC for breaking the law, or is it breaking some rules and regulations or procedures of the Town Council Acts that may not amount to criminal charges?
And the second charge, for causing the lost of public monies, not stolen or theft, but could also be charged for negligence or not doing due diligence in their fiduciary duties. So, should the AHPETC be preparing for a criminal lawsuit coming their way?
When the Law Minister said AHPETC broke the law, or ‘unlawful’, it is not play, play and the AHPETC better start to pray, pray on what is the next move by the Law Minister.
Let’s wait for In Parliament Act 2.
_________________
what i posted is just my personal view. feel free to disagree.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
redbean



Joined: 07 Mar 2006
Posts: 13465
Location: singapore

PostPosted: Wed Feb 25, 2015 9:11 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Who decides who is fit to be the next govt?
I want to follow up with Boon Wan’s statement that the Town Council is the PAP’s way of testing the opposition MPs’ability to run a country. Is running a Town Council a necessary or effective way to gauge a party or MP’s ability to run a govt? LKY never run a Town Council and so did Goh Keng Swee. Maybe that was why the country was so badly run then compared to how well it is run today by the new leaders with the privilege and experience of running a Town Council.
To me, running a Town Council is a piece of cake for any reasonably clear thinking individual. The difficult part is to navigate through the landmines, traps, obstacles and avoiding snipers and ambushes along the way. But to be serious, to really want to manage a Town Council to resemble running a country, to benefit from the experience, then it should go all the way. Let the Town Council be run like a mini state, collect its own taxes or be awarded its fair share of the tax collection, let them run their own police and mini civil service etc etc. That would really be a meaningful training experience.
The current structure of running a Town Council is more like how to overcome the problems and difficulties in an obstacle course when things were just being difficult, when they have no autonomy in finance and in having very little bargaining chips in their dealings with other govt agencies. How fair is the playing field for opposition parties to run their Town Councils and how fair is the test of their ability to run a Town Council like running a mini state? Heard of playing against a loaded dice?
By the way, does an opposition party need to gain the approval from the ruling party in how to run a country, to pass the test set by the ruling party, and then be given a pass grade to go ahead to run a country? Who decides which party is suitable to run a country? The ruling party or the voters?
An alternative party does not need the blessing and consent of the ruling party to be the elected govt. It is not the power of the ruling party to set the conditions and to say the alternative party is not good enough. It is the right and will of the people to decide who they want to run the country. This is a democracy, not a monarchy or someone’s grandfather’s company whereby the family call the shot and decide who is fit or not fit to take charge. Maybe I am wrong and Boon
Wan is right. The ruling party would decide who or which alternative party is able to run the country.
I have a suggestion. The alternative party should send their candidates to PAP for tea, for a fee of course, to be certified fit and able to form and run a govt like the PAP candidates, everyone chopped with the PAP quality seal and ISO 9001 certified.
_________________
what i posted is just my personal view. feel free to disagree.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic     Forum Index -> Singapore Current Affairs All times are GMT + 8 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... , 13, 14, 15  Next
Page 14 of 15

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group. Hosted by Vodien Internet Solutions