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 ... , 14, 15, 16  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: 13853
Location: singapore

PostPosted: Thu Feb 26, 2015 9:14 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Blind spot in Parliament?
Shanmugam were vicious in tearing down the WP for the lapses in AHPETC. He threw at WP everything he got that could put the WP in a very bad light. And the ST did its best as the prime newspaper to inform the readers of every detail that happened in Parliament, on the TV over and over again. The WP was in defensive mode and was kept really busy to ward off the blows. Where got time to engage in other issues or to talk about other issues or even to prepare for the GE? The election campaigning has started, and in case the opposition parties are still sleeping, the PAP is on a campaign march. Read the ST and the coverage of the ministers and PAP will tell you what is happening.
Back to Shanmugam’s performance in Parliament. There were so many things that are worthy to be gems of Parliament and I would take time to cover them. Let me just touch on the set of fees that Shanmugam obtained from the MND to attack the WP. In that chart, the fees payable by residents and commercial units were exactly the same. Sylvia Lim spotted the difference as it is a norm to charge commercial organizations a different rate in practically everything, water, electricity and of course S&CC. The big question, is there a mistake in Shanmugam’s chart?
Shanmugam did not think so and it was reported that he had double checked and confirmed there was no mistake. The residents and commercial units were charged the same S&CC in PAP wards in 2014. Please correct me if I am wrong on this with the latest.
There are many reasons for me to accept that the data were accurate. First, the MND would not give such an important set of data to be used in Parliament to accuse the WP for mismanagement or over charging to Shanmugam. It would be very embarrassing if untrue and found out to be untrue. A public apology would be needed. And the WP could say the same thing, sorry not enough, please explain.
Shanmugam, being a top notch lawyer, would not miss the error and would have corrected them before presenting them to Parliament as a weapon. He would not embarrass himself with a set of wrong data in public, in Parliament.
And mind you, so many ministers and MPs must be privy to this chart and it is unbelieveable and unbecoming that no one is diligent or clever enough to spot the huge mistake if there is one. Everyone must know that there was no mistake. It could not be a case that there was a mistake but no one thought a need to tell him and wanting Shanmugam to make a fool of himself in Parliament. It also could not be a case of idolizing Shanmugam and looking gaga when he spoke, assuming that this god like lawyer could not make mistake, everything he said must be carefully thought out.
Unless there is any announcement to this, I must presume or assume that the chart must be right. Now who was the person that produced some data and letters claiming that the changes to lower the fees for PAP Town councils, especially the part for commercial units, were done recently? How recent and why? Or was that just another assumption of fabrication to prove Shanmugam wrong? There is no way to prove the chart wrong unless it is wrong. This is factual and no one can lie about it.
Is there another truth? Is there a blind spot 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: 13853
Location: singapore

PostPosted: Thu Mar 05, 2015 8:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Tharman’s budget – Handouts or welfarism
For once I share the pains of our Ministers and MPs in Parliament for speaking out against the angpow budget pushed out by Tharman. We have resisted 50 years not to turn our country, sorry, not sure if it is still a country, into a welfare state. We have carefully planted in the minds of our people that welfarism is bad. It would lead to a crutch mentality when the people become too dependent on the Govt for handouts and refuse to work, become lazy.
This Tharman budget is exactly that, a welfare budget, leaning to the left and like what NMP Chia Yong Yong said, would lead to nothing left in our reserves. How can we empty our reserves and turn this island into a welfare state? This is not sustainable. Where is the money going to come from? The recipients of welfare would lose the drive to work. This is very dangerous.
Look at our Ministers and MPs, no welfare or subsidies except their million dollar income and $16,000 allowance and they could live well and never bother to ask for welfare or subsidies. And they are still working so hard, never loosen their work ethics despite the big handouts, oops I mean pay and allowance. See the point?
It is not the subsidies or welfare. It is how much they are getting. The solution is simple. Give the people enough like the Ministers and MPs and they would scorn and talk cock about the danger of welfarism. They would go to the street to demonstrate against welfarism and handouts. They would throw out any govt that proposes the easy way of going left.
Maybe giving the people millions would not be sustainable. A few ministers getting millions is surely sustainable. How about $16,000 to the MPs or more political appointment holders, more mayors and ministers of states? Sustainable? Where is the money coming from? How come no MPs asking any questions whether these largesses are sustainable? Silver Support Scheme not unsustainable? Maybe $3,000, yes $3,000 is just right. I think if the Govt were to give the people $3,000 each, no need $16,000, they would be so happy and would tell the Govt to do away with all the subsidies and handouts. And they would surely work as hard as the Ministers and MPs. The more entitlements or handouts, the harder they will work. The Ministers and MPs are testimonies to this formula. See how hard they are working despite their high income, not handouts? See, no crutch mentality right?
To those who are talking against the handouts or welfare state mentality, I think they are wrong. People work harder with bigger handouts and welfarism. When they are earning millions, working is for fun and they are enjoying every moment of their life, working or talking cock doesn’t matter. The trick therefore is to make the people rich and fat and they would all be happy working and enjoying life. No more needs for subsidies and welfarism.
Tiok boh?
_________________
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: 13853
Location: singapore

PostPosted: Fri Mar 06, 2015 8:13 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

CPF is not your money, the drumming starts
NMP Chia Yong Yong’s debutante speech in Parliament is exactly the right kind of speech the Govt is waiting to hear, and must be very pleased with it. CPF money is not the CPF member’s money, or at least not all. Her reason, the employer’s contribution would not be there if the Govt did not legislate it to be there. And the Govt also tops up once in a while. So, the CPF members cannot decide how and when it should take it out and how to spend it. Tiok Boh? See, when the Govt helps you, by topping up your CPF, see what is going to happen to your money? So scary.
All the charity organizations in Singapore that I have contributed my $2 to, using the same reasoning, please, the money is not yours and you have no right to do as you please. I want to have a say. All the civil servants and ministers and MPs, your salary is paid by taxpayers’ money and I am a taxpayer, I contributed part of your salary, you cannot anyhow spend your salary without my permission ok?
KNN, I am also confused. So, please tell me the money in my CPF account belongs to who? Who has the right to use it, spend it or use it to buy Medishield Life or CPF Life? Oh dear, if the entity that decides how to spend the money must be the owner of the money, then I retract my question. Sorry, take it that I never ask. It just confirms that the money is not my money because I cannot or did not decide or give permission for the CPF to buy CPF Life and Medishield Life Insurance for me. And yes, I also cannot decide when I can take out the money and how much I want to take out for my own use. So, on these grounds it is not my money. Tiok Boh?
This is the first time when the ownership of a person’s life time savings is in question, and it seems that the Govt or the CPF has a right to it. Not my money. But why the Govt says it is my money, or at least dare not say it is not my money, or says it is the Govt’s money? Not my money mah!
The money in the CPF is like in no man’s land, dunno who is the rightful owner. Got like that meh? While the Parliament is sitting, can the ministers clarify this for once, whose money is it? And if it is the members’ money, what right can the Govt decide how and when it wants to spend it on things the Govt compulsorily made the members to pay for it? Who gives the Govt this right to spend the members’ money on CPF Life and Medishield Life?
What do you think? Keep beating the drums that the money does not belong the the CPF members and after sometime the people will get use to it and will convince themselves that the money do not belong to them but to whoever that has the audacity to take it by hook or by crook. A lie when repeated often enough will be taken as the truth.
I think a legally trained mind must be cleverer than the ignorant and daft untrained mind. The daft Sinkies must get use to this new interpretation of your money, oops, not your money, but the money in your CPF account, is not entirely yours. Other entities also got a share to it. Maybe the employers can take it back. Maybe the charitable Govt that contributed $200 into it can have a controlling say over it.
Tiok Boh? This must be another uniquely daft Sinkie thinking.
_________________
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: 13853
Location: singapore

PostPosted: Fri Mar 06, 2015 8:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Depleting our reserves!
Many jokers are screaming about depleting our national reserves without knowing what cock they were talking about. Do they know how much is in our national reserves, how much is being used for whatever schemes to help the people and how much is being put into the reserves or how much is the reserves growing, and how much is enough? Or are the reserves at such a low level, being depleted by losses that it is in danger of being depleted? As an analogy, if our reserves are $1 trillion, and growing by $20b annually, what is the fuzz if the Govt is taking out $15b to throw at the people? If what is being taken out is less than being put in, how can it be depleting?
There are many simple questions that needed to be asked about our reserves. How much is there? Is it growing or depleting? How much is enough? What should the excess be use for? Does anyone know anything about our reserves? Does any joker in Parliament know how much is in our reserves before crying father and crying mother about a few billion being spent? Are they really concern about the big money that belongs to the state and people when they are contented with grappling at this huge grey shadow called reserves but not knowing what exactly it is? President Ong Teng Cheong asked about it, to know how much was there, and only then could he or anyone be making sense in what they are talking about. Tiok boh?
Would the Govt of the day make a policy statement on our reserves, how much it is, what is the rate of growth, presuming that it is growing and it should be if the two SWFs and MAS are investing wisely and making profits instead of losses. Would the Govt take a position as to what percentage at what level should be used for the benefits of the people? It doesn’t make sense to have an unlimited number and to keep on accumulating the reserves for the sake of growing the reserves and not benefitting the people?
And before another joker scream in fear, until face white white, that our reserves are being depleted please make you know what you are talking about. If the amount to be spent is less than the amount being used, it cannot deplete the reserves. If the fund managers of our reserves are making positive contributions with profits from their investments, and with more injections of new funds, the reserves will not be used up by a controlled and limited expenditure for the good of the people.
How much is our reserves? Do you know? Don’t be a clown crying wolf whenever someone suggests using some of the reserves or sharing some of the profits from the reserves. It may be time that we grow the reserves at a slower pace with a greater portion of the profits being used to better the life of the people, to let the people enjoy a bit of the combined wealth of the nation.
What is wrong with that? You only start to deplete the reserves when you are spending more than you are putting into it? Is the Govt spending more and putting less into the reserves?
_________________
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: 13853
Location: singapore

PostPosted: Thu Mar 12, 2015 8:28 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ministers salary, 3 year no increase, so ‘charm’
It was reported in the main media today that the ministers did not have any pay rise for the last three years. And their salaries are falling behind the benchmark in the approved formula. And in another report it said the average household income has gone up by 38%! Goodness, we are shortchanging the pay for the ministers and politicians. How can we do that? 3 years no increase, cannot be like that mah. And the ministers and politicians are suffering quietly, dare not make a noise or ask for an increase, probably tightening their belts.
I think the committee in charge of ministerial salary must convene and recommend an adjustment upwards. We have to be fair and kind to the ministers or else they will quit and join the private sector that would pay them more. Then we will lose the service of these super talents and the economy would go bust, the country will be in deep trouble, our wives and daughters will become maids.
How about a 10% increment to make up for the 3 years of no increase? Let’s see, the entry level for minister at MR4 says the salary should be $1.2m. Now the minister’s salary is only $1.1m, a shortfall of $100,000. I think a 10% increase will be just nice, ‘gum gum ho’. What do you think? Since the ministers are so ‘pai seh’ to ask for a raise, the people must not keep quiet and look the other way right?
Or the opposition MPs should put up a paper for this. Won’t that be nice. Oops, cannot. Then they will also be accused of being greedy, looking after their own paychecks. I think the best people should be the NMPs. I think they are not only neutral but also very clear thinking. Yes, that’s it, get the NMPs to propose a motion to raise ministers’ salary. Get the new NMPs to say it. They are full of fire and novel ideas, to think out of the box.
A 10% increment of $1.1m is about $110,000. Enough or not? How many people earn that much in a year? The median household income according to the media is about $70,000. Household income you know! How many percent of the population earns less than $110,000 annually, as a household? 80%?
So? To give the ministers a $110,000 increment should be fair right? Don’t say I did not say, we need to pay the ministers a decent salary for our own good. I know some of you would say, wah, increment already $110,000 and 80% of the people’s household income is less than that. Would it be too much or not? Come on, nothing is too much when you are getting good value for money. The ministers and politicians are worth every cent paid to them. What is another $110,000?
Just because they never complain does not mean they are not unhappy. They are just being nice, honourable and reasonable people. If they are forced to ask for a raise then you people will say they are greedy. Let’s do the right thing and petition the Ministers’ Salary Review Committee to do the necessary.
What do you think?
PS: I think the IBs will clap and say Redbean now very reasonable. Sure support one. And the non IBs will say Redbean ‘kee seow’. Life as a blogger also very ‘charm’, say left got whacked, say right also kena whacked. Got hardship allowance for bloggers or not? Come to think of it, 10 years as a blogger also got no raise.
Now kopi also no have. Launch book also not enough takers. So far only about 50 copies ordered and I need at least 200 copies to get it off the ground. ‘Jiat lat’ man.
_________________
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: 13853
Location: singapore

PostPosted: Tue Mar 17, 2015 8:33 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The angst of Lily Neo
Lily Neo spoke in Parliament about the increasing angst instead of gratitude towards the govt came under some strong rubbings in the social media. Despite her good intention to tell the govt that things were not so right as the govt would want to believe, she was yelling into the ears of the deaf frogs and risking being slapped like her colleagues in the past. The messengers of bad news are not welcomed and Amy Khor is a good testimony to how it felt being rebuked by the PM of the day, a public dressing down amounting to labeling her something like betraying her party. All she did was to say something for the people, not much different from what Lily Neo had said. It is no joke to get a dress down by a PM and reported in the media. She has since learnt her lesson and saying all the right things and is now a minister of state. Lily Neo got to learn from her to say the right things if there is still time for her to be promoted.
Lily Neo was lucky not to be slapped this time. It was a risky thing to say in Parliament. Inderjit did the safest thing, to avoid a public dressing in Parliament, by saying his peace in his facebook. That is pretty ingenious of him after his disappearing act to the toilet during the PWP voting.
Angst or no angst for the moment is determined by the people in power. When one is in power, everything is right and legal and good for the people and the party. The bold and brazen policies of touching the people’s life savings would be put to a severe test when the party falls from grace. The brushing aside of the people’s objection to the influx of foreigners, the dismissing of a generation of PMEs as collaterals for being replaced by foreigners would be a sour point that would not be easily forgotten as the livelihoods and well beings of many Singaporeans were badly affected.
There are many policies that are the angst of the people but not acknowledged by the deaf frogs. Everything is fine, for as long as they are in power. Who would know what the next govt will do to these policies and how the people would react to all the parties that caused all the angst to the people? The politicians, the top civil servants, the elite, the academics and legal professionals have all been reticent to the barrage of heavy handed policies, without protesting and in a way agreeing that there is no violation to the people’s rights and interests. It is good if there is really no wrong doing to answer for. If there are, many are complicits to them and will have to face the wrath, not the angst of the people when the day comes. For those who voted for, supported the controversial policies, they cannot say they did not. For those in a position to speak up but don’t, they have nothing to speak in their own defence for appeasing to wrong and harmful policies as an after thought.
When fortune changed, when the winds of change changes the power balance, many rights would become wrongs and wrongs would become right. All the angst would become real, not imaginary, not to be swept under the carpet. For the moment, everything is fine, everything is just perfect.
What angst was Lily Neo talking about? Got angst meh?
_________________
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: 13853
Location: singapore

PostPosted: Fri Mar 20, 2015 8:22 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Out of this world’s ministerial pay under pressure
This is another take on the poor minister’s salaries. The ministers are feeling tremendous pressure from the ground to raise their out of this world salary to another level. They were hinting that they wanted to do something about their pay being stagnant for 3 years but fearing a call to raise their ridiculous pay higher would precipitate an end to their PR status in Parliament.
In 2011, there were signs and indications that they were looking forward to another round of fat increases but the whole plan was shelved after the set back in the GE. A Ministerial Salary Review Committee was hurriedly assembled to readjust their pay downwards and the 24 months lucrative bonus scheme was scrapped and replaced by a more ‘Spartan’ watered down version with less than 12 month bonus scheme.
This set back was painful and a minister threatened to leave politics as the pay would affect the lifestyle of the family. The minister was subsequently promoted and regained all the lifestyle missed as a result of the salary cut.
Three years have passed and with the high cost of living, with Sin City becoming the most expensive city on earth, how could they make do with their miserable pay and with no increases for 3 long years? The pain and discomfort must be getting unbearable. It is high time that their pay be revised, after all the handout budget is giving so many billions to the people, why were the ministers left out in the cold? Oh, they also get some of the handouts from the budget I think. But those are pittance really. What could a miserable couple of thousand dollars do when some were yelping what is 10 million?
The problem, would the people allow a small increase of say 10%, mathematically speaking, only 3% per year to offset 3 years of drought? Only 3% mah? Is the ground sweet for an increase? Let’s test the water first. The people’s mood must be good, with surveys saying the people are very happy with the handout budget.
Should the govt proceed with the next step like reconvening the Ministerial Salary Review Committee? The govt seems to be approaching this issue very cautiously. It is the first time that the weight of the people is being felt by the deaf frogs. Yes, felt, they may not be able to hear, but still can feel. It was ‘just do it’ in the past when the daft were so easy to please or cow. Has anything changed? Is the govt starting to get more sensitive to how the people feel or react to things like asking the people to cough out another plate of char kway teow? Things cannot become so difficult after losing one GRC right? This govt is proud of its ‘just do it’ when it is right, no need to listen to the people. Maybe they know that it is not right yet, not the right time to do it. It cannot be that the people are putting pressure on the govt to hold back their horses on any impending pay hike. They will do it if it is the right thing to do, be sure about that.
Which is which? What is holding the govt back from giving themselves another raise when thing are going so well. How about making it as part of the SG50 Celebration, to make the ministers happy also since they have been working so hard to make the people so happy with all their well conceived schemes?
_________________
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: 13853
Location: singapore

PostPosted: Mon Jun 08, 2015 8:15 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hsien Loong, numbers don’t count, substance counts
‘In an interview with a group of ASEAN journalists on Thursday (4 Jun), PM Lee told the visiting foreign journalists that democratic progress comes from quality discussion in Parliament, not the number of opposition members. (He did not mention the number of ruling party members implies that without the presence of opposition members they could have good quality discussion among themselves. Is my assumption tiok or not? )
He described the duty of the opposition as one to “raise serious issues which concern the country, which offers real alternatives to the population and which then debates the hard choices which the country has to make”.
“If they do that, whether they have one member, whether they have ten members, they are good opposition,” he said. “If they don’t do that, you may have 20, 30 members, you are not being responsible. So, I would not go on the numbers. I would go on the substance of the debate.”’ TRE Editorial on 6 Jun 15
I have this bad habit of going with the flow and not to dispute what is politically right to say. So I must agree with Hsien Loong that substance is important in Parliament and not numbers. What is the point of having 87 duds in Parliament when one dud will do the same damage as 87? Similarly, one good opposition leader like Chee Soon Juan or Kenneth Jeyaratnam would be good enough, no need any more opposition members in Parliament. And on the ruling party side, one good member would be equally effective than having a full house of NGs. And this has been proven, after the departure of the pioneering leaders, there was really only one good member in Parliament and Parliament still functione as a Parliament.
Wait wait, I stand corrected. As I said earlier, I always agree with the politically right statement. Did someone say that if you have a good orchestra, even a dud conductor would not make any difference? Now does this analogy say numbers are important? Or is it numbers with substance are important? Ok, ok, I have figured this out. There is no contradiction here. Basically it is about substance. When got substance, one is good substance and many are many good substances, so can have a full house of good substance or good opposition members. You cannot be contented with one or two when you can have more with good substance to be in Parliament.
And don’t forget, Parliament is not a house for schoolboys to debate and see who is cleverer and who wins a debate for fun. It still needs the numbers to vote and pass bills into laws, if not, just to cheer or jeer or to laugh down the opponents. Ok, I never disagree. Good substance is good. But I think can have more the betterer, at least when come to jeering and laughing session, the voices and laughter would be equally loud which can be translated to be effective or at least give the impression to be so. Anyone saying never mind about voting, voting is not important, not necessary? The ruling govt can do the voting and passing of bills. That is the job of the ruling govt. The job of the opposition is merely to debate to make the Parliament looks like a democracy, got quality debate.
How many of you would agree with me? Never mind, did anyone say power logic?
_________________
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: 13853
Location: singapore

PostPosted: Mon Feb 01, 2016 8:35 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Is the NCMP another scheme due for more tweakings?

The Lee Li Lian snub of the NCMP seat revealed quite a number of problems, that the scheme was not well thought out, just like the Elected President scheme. There are so many lose ends that were flying loosely in the air and it takes a Lee Li Lian to expose the inadequacy of the thinking process towards the NCMP scheme. There is no need for a Kishore to wake up and exclaim, ‘Gosh, the NCMP scheme could lead to rogue MPs being put into Parliament.’

First point, the scheme did not cater for a case when a candidate refuses to accept the offer of a NCMP seat. The provision was to let Parliament to use its discretion. Now they did not know what to do? Who should the rejected seat be offered to and on what grounds? Can the party of the candidate offer another replacement from the same party from the next best candidate? Or should the party appeal or request to the election office or whoever is authorized to make such a decision?

With the provision of a number of NCMP seats, would it be an automatic process for the office or whoever, to offer the NCMP seat to the next best qualified candidate? Or should it be left as vacant when an offer is turned down? If this be so, what if all 12 candidates offered turned down, no NCMP?

Another point, if the best performing losing candidate happens to be a GRC, should not the offer of NCMP be to all the candidates in the best losing GRC? Why one only? Isn’t a GRC a version of ‘one for all, all for one’?

Another consideration, is the minority interest a matter of concern here? If a whole GRC team is offered, then the minority candidate issue would not become an issue. If it is offered to one instead of a GRC team, does it not compromise the intent and purpose of the GRC? Don’t simply brush this aside as a non issue in the case of NCMP.

There must be proper procedures to take care of as there are many variable known possibles. And a case like a candidate refusing to accept a NCMP seat is most possible and should have been taken care off before it becomes an issue and wasting so much time in Parliament for people to ‘chut pattern’ or ‘cho kah chiu’ and making everyone looking so lost and angry. It leaves so much room for politicking.

So, when would a COI be appointed to look into this NCMP scheme to patch up the holes?
_________________
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: 13853
Location: singapore

PostPosted: Thu Feb 04, 2016 8:39 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Why so much deference to the PAP?
I quote this comment from Low Thia Khiang from the Statestimes Review, ‘“I have seen how the PAP works. And of course the rejection is because we don’t allow political parties to use common areas. You use the PA – the People’s Association, you use grassroots advisers – come on, let’s be honest about that.
…We understand the political reality. We understand that the struggle for functional democracy by a loyal opposition must be fought from within the existing system, under the law legislated by Parliament, even though we disagree with them.”
says Workers’ Party Low Thia Kiang, who lamented about the state of Singapore politics in Parliament today (Jan 29).’
I am not sure if this was the exact words of Low Thia Khiang quoted verbatim. I find the phrase ‘loyal opposition’ so creepy. What is there to be loyal or not loyal to be in the opposition? Opposition parties should only be loyal to Singaporeans, and that includes the PAP. There is no need to be loyal to a ruling party. What does Low Thia Khiang meant by calling himself ‘loyal opposition’? What if he is not a ‘loyal opposition’? Should the opposition parties by ‘loyal opposition’ ie loyal to the ruling party or loyal to the state?
Is this phrase superfluous, unnecessary, a sign of weakness, meek? An opposition is an opposition and should disagree when it disagrees with the ruling party. The disagreement should be based on the national good, national interest and the people’s interest. It could be just a different way of looking at things and wanting to do things differently, no one knows which is the right way or wrong way except to look at it from the interest of the people as first principle.
So, when oppose just oppose lah. There is no necessity to claim to be ‘loyal opposition’. What do you think? Tiok boh? No need to be ‘khek kee’ mah, as long as one is not saying or doing anything wrong to the country and citizens.
_________________
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: 13853
Location: singapore

PostPosted: Sun Apr 17, 2016 9:16 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

PA is not partisan – Chan Chun Sing

The PA is a statutory board….The PA does not allow any political activity or any canvassing on our premises or in our activities. And we certainly do not mobilize anyone for any political party….If Ms Lim has any evidence of such wrongdoing. You can let me know and I guarantee you I will follow up. I will be the last person to ever allow the PA to be politicized.’ Chan Chun Sing

Chan Chun Sing made this comment in Parliament in reply to Sylvia Lim’s question that the PA is being politicized. And it is expected that he would come under scrutiny and attacks in the social media for saying such a darn truth. Many are questioning him that what he said was blatant lie, actually no one dares to call it a lie, something like they did not believe him. I would only want to caution those who said they did not believe what he said to be a bit careful here. If you said you don’t believe what a person said, you are indirectly calling the person a liar. And one can be sued in court for defamation to a minister. There is already a legal precedent set in the past in Singapore courts.

What Chan Chun Sing said is correct. If you have any evidence, bring it up to him or challenge him in court. And as to his statement in Parliament that the PA is non partisan, it is a truth that is unchallengeable. He would not have said it if it is false. For any minister to say this with his eyes wide open, with a straight face, and in Parliament, to be officially recorded, shows the kind of conviction and his strong belief that he was telling the truth and he stood by what he said. He even guaranteed to check it out if anyone has evidence to prove otherwise.

For saying this in broad daylight, it shows that he is really PM material. I don’t think any other minister would have the guts to say such a darn truth and put himself to be attacked or to be ridiculed. Some in social media are still doubting Chan Chun Sing’s suitability to be the next PM. He has proven that he is a cut above the average ministers with this clear statement of truth. Anyone dares to challenge him in court that he is not telling the truth, that he is a liar?

We are witnessing first hand the rise of our next PM. Here is a man of conviction, a man that would not mince his words to tell the darn truth and to challenge anyone to prove him wrong. That is the quality to be expected of a PM in waiting.

Singaporeans should prepare to welcome him and cheer for him as the next PM of Singapore. I bet no one would dare to challenge him and prove him wrong. This is not like the TV programme of kids saying the darnest things. This is a PM potential telling a political truth. And he meant it. This is quality stuff. You see this happening only once in 50 years.

PS. For praising Chan Chun Sing so boldly I am expecting daft sinkies to start throwing stones at 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: 13853
Location: singapore

PostPosted: Wed Aug 17, 2016 8:19 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

When the majority do not represent the majority
How can this be? The majority must always represent the majority or else they can’t be the majority. This is not really true in a democratic system like Singapore. How many really believe the majority, or the politicians elected by the majority of the voters really, represent their interests?
Take the recent sub judice bill passed in Parliament. The media was trying its best to tell its readers that 72 voted for the bill and only 9 from the WP voted against it. So we have the majority 72 saying yes to the bill. The 72 MPs voted are representatives of their constituencies and technically represent them. But are the majority of the voters of these constituencies in favour of the sub judice law? In a worse case scenario, other than all the good reasons Shanmugam said about how necessary is this law and how important is sub judice , and the 72 votes, the law could be used to silence the voice of the people as the WP has said in Parliament. And Lee Wei Ling also urged the people to speak up against this bill, now law, that it is not in the interest of the people, that it’s aim is to ‘muzzle public opinion’. This may be just her opinion, but could also be the opinion of the majority, not the 72 that voted for it.
If the majority of the people are against this bill, would not the 72 MPs, a big majority in the Parliament, not be representing the majority of the people when they voted for the bill?
What do you think? Did the 72 MPs represent the interests of the majority of the people? They could, if the people are so daft and so happy to have their mouths zipped.
_________________
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: 13853
Location: singapore

PostPosted: Wed Mar 21, 2018 8:16 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Criminals can serve jail sentences at home



When I heard that MP Murali asked in Parliament if Kong Hee can serve his jail sentence at home I was really shock. Who in his right mind would ever think of that except for minor crimes. Any crime that deserved a jail sentence cannot be minor. When I recovered from my shocking spell and recomposed myself, I started to appreciate what this Murali had in mind. He came across as a very caring MP, caring for voters in his ward. Oops, I am not sure if Kong Hee is a PR, a local, or a citizen. Can anyone confirm this? And if indeed Kong Hee is a citizen then his MP should be speaking for him. I also think Murali is not his MP. Where is Kong Hee's MP, sleeping, not caring for the people that voted for him?

I have further thoughts on this matter and the more I think about it, the more I am convinced that Murali has very good intention. Put it this way, cheating a few million dollars without intention to cheat and never benefiting from it except for his wife, should not be dealt with so harshly. And Kong Hee is such a nice guy, saving so many poor souls and helping them to be rich and to go to heaven. These must be good mitigating factors to deserve serving his jail sentence at home.

There are also obvious tangible and financial benefits and considerations to support Murali's thought. It is very costly to keep a person in prison. The cell and the bed, the medical support and the 'Or tau png' ie black bean rice, also cost money. There will be so much savings if Kong Hee would to serve his sentence at home and pay for his own cell, his own food and medical services. And the cell and cells for such cases would be needed for those creating fake news or cannot pay their compulsory CPF insurance schemes. The prison must prepare to cater for more intakes with so many new laws coming up.

An added financial incentive would be that prisoners granted jail sentences at home would have to pay $100 a day for this privilege. And there will be no discount for holidays and Sundays. The govt coffers would be much richer if the sentence of 7 years, ie 7x365x$100 is paid. I think this is great idea. And the rich prisoners would be more than willing to serve their jail sentence at home so that the cell space could be allocated to other more needy cases, the hardups that cannot afford to pay.

What do you think, good idea or not? I fully agree with Murali though Shanmugam has rejected it. This is indeed a fine idea from a very clever and caring MP. 'Mo tak teng'. Any idea that makes money for the govt, I like. Then perhaps they would spare the people's savings in the CPF from more compulsory schemes.
_________________
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: 13853
Location: singapore

PostPosted: Thu Mar 22, 2018 8:32 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Indranee - Male police officer to search female suspect terrorists



Again my initial shock to this suggestion was unfounded after careful consideration and thinking about all the positive things that could come out from this change in our law. Many conservative males would be aghast at the thought of men searching women and their hands groping all over the female torso and private parts. But hey, think positively and there are really many good things from this crazy and demeaning idea. Sorry woman, if a woman minister can suggest it, then it must be ok.

First, a terrorist needs no sympathy, not even if it is a female terrorist. A terrorist, male or female, is very dangerous and deadly. So a man would definitely do a better job searching a female suspect. What if the suspicion is unfounded? Just too bad, better to err on the side of safety, so they said. Be safe than be sorry.

And didn't you people know that it is very difficult to recruit female police officers? Maybe this could be a contributing factor for this change. Also the police is finding hard to recruit male officers but with this change I am sure it would be a great incentive for men to want to join the police force, to grope, oops, I mean search female suspects. They would say, with pleasure Sir. You can imagine how motivated the male officers assigned to do this job. M'am, strip please, I am just doing my job. Many would volunteer for the job. One slight drawback is that there will be a big jam at the airport checking counters as the females lined up for checks could be exceptionally long. And pretty and sexy looking women may find themselves picked for body search. There is nothing personal or the male officers picking on the pretty ones. The terrorists would definitely choose the pretty ones for such tasks as they would look pretty and harmless. And the male officers would prefer to use their hands instead of machine, thus a great savings from having to buy expensive high tech machine.

Even if the local men still refuse to join the police force it would not be a problem. The foreigners, especially those from the third world, would line up for the jobs and the queue could run from Kallang Immigration Centre to JB. They would not bargain for more pay when a job comes with pleasure.

The most direct benefit from this new law would be that no female terrorist would want to try their luck in Singapore anymore as they would not want to be searched by men police officers. Ok, there would be exceptions. The thought of it would terrorise any potential female terrorist from coming here. And Singapore would be safe from this angle and the only terrorist that would come would be the male ones. It would make the job of searching focused mainly on the male suspects. Even then, I suspect the male officers would still be diligently searching the women coming through our immigration checkpoints. You would never imagine how motivated these male officers would be, conducting their search duties, with pleasure and with glee.

Now, who is still against such an excellent idea? I definitely support as it would make Singapore so much safer. When a woman minister said it is ok, it must be ok. And when a PAP minister said it is ok, all the PAP ministers and MP would definitely vote for it.

Shiok.
_________________
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: 13853
Location: singapore

PostPosted: Fri Mar 23, 2018 8:26 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

More power to the police to stop people anyhow take pictures
A new law is being tabled in Parliament to forbid the public from taking images, video or still, of serious incidents aka like terrorist attacks. Under this new Communication Stop Order law, it says as reported in thenewpaper, ‘the commissioner of police when authorized by the home affairs minister’ can invoke this law.
I hope I am reading this correctly, ie, the home affairs minister must authorize first, then the commissioner of police can give the order. If not, any police officer on the spot can suka suka stop anyone from taking video/pictures using their mobile phones or anything in hand. Is this correct? I can still remember a police officer arresting a photographer, I think a reporter, from taking pictures of a flood, or was it something else, ponding?
And some MPs were raising the issue of abuse of power in Parliament. I think this would not be the case. Singaporeans are born with a special DNA and abuse of power would never happen to them. You can never find a single case of abuse of power in the history of Singapore. Everything is done legally. How can there be abuse of power when things are done legally, eg ministerial salary, compulsory CPF insurance schemes? Please don’t accuse the govt of abuse of power to do anything. It is just not in their DNA. They are also Singaporeans and have this exceptional DNA in them.
The CSO is to prevent ‘irresponsible communication’. Actually if this is the case, taking pictures and videos should be alright as the intent is to prevent people from communicating irresponsibly like fake news. Tiok boh? Let people take lah, just make sure they do not anyhow post it to shame anyone for irresponsible behavior like anyhow park or anyhow shit or shit anywhere should be good enough. Tiok boh?
Ok, get the intent and purpose of this CSO right from the start. What is it supposed to prevent? Irresponsible communication? I read this in thenewpaper. ‘Mrs Teo said this is not its intention as it is meant to stop “irresponsible communication” when asked about forbidding people from taking pictures. So if people take pictures and videos but did not communicate or communicate responsibly, like passing them to help the police to work on the case must be ok right? And if passing to the police is ok, then they must be allowed to take right. If cannot take how to pass to police to help the police? You tell me lah.
So what is the real intention, to prevent people from taking images or to prevent people from communicating irresponsibly?
PS. I was thinking of including incorruptibility as part of Singaporean’s exceptional DNA. But on second thought, this one is conditional, that they be paid out of this world’s salary or else. So this Singaporean exceptionalism no count.
_________________
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 ... , 14, 15, 16  Next
Page 15 of 16

 
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