MP debates by-election law in Parliament replied by Arapahoe @ Sat, 30 Aug 2008 03:18:13 +0800

Arapahoe — Sat, 30 Aug 2008 03:18:13 +0800

go sue the govt.

MP debates by-election law in Parliament replied by gorby107 @ Fri, 29 Aug 2008 22:18:59 +0800

gorby107 — Fri, 29 Aug 2008 22:18:59 +0800

The residents of Jurong GRC and others who want the by-election can create more noises and attention after 01/09/2008 over at Speaker's Corner...

I don't like the way the whatever committee who decide on the boundary of which of the SMC or GRC....
Places like Serangoon are under Marine Parade GRC etc... Is Marine Parade near to Serangoon? Are they within the same estate?

MP debates by-election law in Parliament replied by Poh Ah Pak @ Fri, 29 Aug 2008 21:05:01 +0800

Poh Ah Pak — Fri, 29 Aug 2008 21:05:01 +0800

GRC system is really bullshit.

It is designed to secure PAP regime's rule.

MP debates by-election law in Parliament replied by eemtij @ Fri, 29 Aug 2008 21:02:28 +0800

eemtij — Fri, 29 Aug 2008 21:02:28 +0800

The problem I see is not with the party whip. Whether they lift it or not, very few MPs will stand up against the PM. Also, those few with guts to question the govt usually kenna ridiculed.

What we need is more credible opposition in the parliament. Sad to say we have very few.

OK, back to your question on who is more powerful. Of course PM more powerful now. Wait til next GE, people become more powerful. Only if they knew.

MP debates by-election law in Parliament replied by charlize @ Fri, 29 Aug 2008 20:41:14 +0800

charlize — Fri, 29 Aug 2008 20:41:14 +0800

Originally posted by eemtij:

I read yesterday's newpaper and that got me wondering about the political system here in Singapore.

The parliament voted overwhelmingly to reject the motion to amend the by-election constitution.

The Newpaper reported that the majority of the residents in Jurong GRC wanted a by-election.

Does this mean that our MPs are NOT REPRESENTING their constituents in parliament? Perhaps they think they know better.

Party whip say cannot vote against the PM, so everybody have to follow lor.

Who more powerful? PM or Jurong GRC residents?

MP debates by-election law in Parliament replied by 4sg @ Fri, 29 Aug 2008 17:39:52 +0800

4sg — Fri, 29 Aug 2008 17:39:52 +0800

Originally posted by eemtij:

I read yesterday's newpaper and that got me wondering about the political system here in Singapore.

The parliament voted overwhelmingly to reject the motion to amend the by-election constitution.

The Newpaper reported that the majority of the residents in Jurong GRC wanted a by-election.

Does this mean that our MPs are NOT REPRESENTING their constituents in parliament? Perhaps they think they know better.

You nail all the debating in three lines ..... good.

MP debates by-election law in Parliament replied by eemtij @ Fri, 29 Aug 2008 17:02:47 +0800

eemtij — Fri, 29 Aug 2008 17:02:47 +0800

I read yesterday's newpaper and that got me wondering about the political system here in Singapore.

The parliament voted overwhelmingly to reject the motion to amend the by-election constitution.

The Newpaper reported that the majority of the residents in Jurong GRC wanted a by-election.

Does this mean that our MPs are NOT REPRESENTING their constituents in parliament? Perhaps they think they know better.

MP debates by-election law in Parliament replied by sgdiehard @ Thu, 28 Aug 2008 19:45:57 +0800

sgdiehard — Thu, 28 Aug 2008 19:45:57 +0800

Originally posted by xtreyier:

Thank you Poh, even if we disagree.

To Sgdiehard

I respect your right to express yourself and your views, regardless if it is right or wrong, for only others will intelligently and rationally perceive.

I would just take issue on your beliefs that MPs are 'born with a silver spoon', 'beholden to the party' and the 'party comes first'.

Even our ex PM Goh lived in a govt flat. Most of our MPs came from humble beginnings, for the simple fact that back in the 50s and 60s, Malaysians and Sporeans lived in attap huts or shophouses.

Most of our MPs are above 45, putting them right back as child of the 60s. Thus your conclusion that our MPs were 'born with silver spoons' is not credible. They know what is poverty first hand, much worse than we this generation ever got to know.

'beholden to the party' and 'party comes first' are unfortunately unsustantiable. Do you have any proof that they, being citizens as well with relatives here, will stupidly support laws that would affect our long term prospects?

Singapore needs professional politicians. Not angst filled student activists that some of the opposition political figures had shown themselves to be. Professionals who can come out with solutions, win votes, win over the ruling party MPs. Not become part of our problem. The longer they remain deluded, the longer will we citizens will suffer from third world class opposition political figures ( MP Chiam, MP Low, NCMP Sylvia excluded)

what I said was this "For the support given to them by the ruling party, compared to the opposition like Sylvia, Low, and Chiam, the young MPs are born with golden spoon."

The young MPs today certainly did not have to deal with party politics, having to recruit new members like Sylvia, Low and Chiam, who are heading their parties. They don't have to be worried about the information given to them about Singapore for the ruling parties have access to many information that the opposition do not have, and I don't think they don't have to worry about the fund for the party. Compared to the opposition, they are fed with silver spoon.

Being born in a poor family and having to raise a family of your own is totally different. I don't need to argue with you on this. I know that having the comfort of a room and three meals provided by my parents even if I have no job, is already very different from what my parents had to go through. If you say that the 30s to 40s generation feel they have the same experience as their parents, then they really don't know what is hardship and what is being poor.

We all have relatives here, what make you think that we don't support any law that affect our "long term prospects"? The question is whether a one party dominant government will continue to be good for Singapore in the long term, or check and balance are necessarily provided by some more oppositions in the parliament?

the NKF saga and the Mas Selamat great escape has proven to us there is still a possible need for something to keep the government on their toe. While the ministers are paid million, they dont take responsibility like those paid million in the private sectors, they stay on. It is hard to believe how the ruling party is keeping their people on the alert.

MP debates by-election law in Parliament replied by xtreyier @ Thu, 28 Aug 2008 18:30:05 +0800

xtreyier — Thu, 28 Aug 2008 18:30:05 +0800

Originally posted by sgdiehard:

Citizens of Singapore of also not without brains, they are just not good at scoring in examinations.

Those who buy gem are never shown costume jewelry, to them all costume jewelry are the same, cheap. But more people wear costume jewelry than real gem, agree? So do the international business man understand the plight of small time hawkers? When you run Singapore like a corporation, do you know the problem of the small citizens? do you retrench the poor workers to maintain your ROI to your shareholders? With very little shares, the dividends given to the citizen as shareholders can provide a good meal for Chinese New Year, but the jobs keep them alive for the rest of the year.

Singaporean MP can’t be said to all that civic conscious to stand for election, they are paid the market price!

The progress of Singapore since independent is not the efforts of a few people, and many of those who contributed to the progress are not in the parliament today. Many of those who are in the parliament are there to be groomed and trained for the future. For the support given to them by the ruling party, compared to the opposition like Sylvia, Low, and Chiam, the young MPs are born with golden spoon.

They joined the ruling party because they agree with the PAP way, and if they disagree, their only choice is to join opposition if they want to stay in politic. What has it got to do with your efficiency?

The opposition and NMPs may not be in the PAP discussions, but it doesn’t mean they don’t discuss.

To the PAP it is the party first, Singapore second, Singaporean last. FT is good for Singapore, but to a certain extend, it is at the expense of Singaporean.

To the opposition, it is Singaporean first, Singapore second, party last (except for Chee SJ, when he ousted his former party chairman).

There is no doubt that the MPs are rational and intelligent, our oppositions are no less rational and intelligent, and they are definitely more gutsy, for they are up against a strong opposition. What is really important is who are they fighting for, who come first when they use their intelligence and rationale.

Just my 2 S’pore citizen’s cent with

Thank you Poh, even if we disagree.

To Sgdiehard

I respect your right to express yourself and your views, regardless if it is right or wrong, for only others will intelligently and rationally perceive.

I would just take issue on your beliefs that MPs are 'born with a silver spoon', 'beholden to the party' and the 'party comes first'.

Even our ex PM Goh lived in a govt flat. Most of our MPs came from humble beginnings, for the simple fact that back in the 50s and 60s, Malaysians and Sporeans lived in attap huts or shophouses.

Most of our MPs are above 45, putting them right back as child of the 60s. Thus your conclusion that our MPs were 'born with silver spoons' is not credible. They know what is poverty first hand, much worse than we this generation ever got to know.

'beholden to the party' and 'party comes first' are unfortunately unsustantiable. Do you have any proof that they, being citizens as well with relatives here, will stupidly support laws that would affect our long term prospects?

Singapore needs professional politicians. Not angst filled student activists that some of the opposition political figures had shown themselves to be. Professionals who can come out with solutions, win votes, win over the ruling party MPs. Not become part of our problem. The longer they remain deluded, the longer will we citizens will suffer from third world class opposition political figures ( MP Chiam, MP Low, NCMP Sylvia excluded)

MP debates by-election law in Parliament replied by sgdiehard @ Thu, 28 Aug 2008 18:09:00 +0800

sgdiehard — Thu, 28 Aug 2008 18:09:00 +0800

Originally posted by xtreyier:

To Poh.

It is perfectly ok to insult me, but please do not insult our MPs.

These citizens are not without brains. They had done well at schools and had international business experiences and would know the difference between a piece of gem and a whole lot of crap.

They are civic conscious enough to stand for election, and help formulate solutions to help ease our suffering. While there are never any quick fix solutions, our progress as nation - from nothing of 1965 to something by 2008 is a testimonial of their efforts and those that came before them.

If they seem to take sides with the govt, it is simply because of our efficiency. Any motion or policies would have long been discussed and thrashed behind close doors in their party HQs, lunch meeting, golf games, constituency meetings, etc. Being intelligent and rational persons, they would already have agreed or had formulated sound plans even before parliament sittings.

However, the opposition and NMPS are not privy to such discussions. Thus it seems they stand alone. Their arguments, while solid, are still not enough to sway the rationale behind policy decisions.

Solution

Our opposition and NMPs must work smarter the next round. Instead of being enemies, they should become friends, meet for dinners,etc. and learn to sound out the ruling party's arguments first before parliament. By knowing how their policies are being rationalize, will one be able to see the 'backbone' and how to conteract it in parliament, and win over the backbenchers support.

It is not enough to have strong arguments. There must be the persuasive touch to win support. That means homework and assessment of each and every MP in parliament, for their weakness and their strength.

Just my 2 S'pore citizen's cent worth.

Citizens of Singapore of also not without brains, they are just not good at scoring in examinations.

Those who buy gem are never shown costume jewelry, to them all costume jewelry are the same, cheap. But more people wear costume jewelry than real gem, agree? So do the international business man understand the plight of small time hawkers? When you run Singapore like a corporation, do you know the problem of the small citizens? do you retrench the poor workers to maintain your ROI to your shareholders? With very little shares, the dividends given to the citizen as shareholders can provide a good meal for Chinese New Year, but the jobs keep them alive for the rest of the year.

Singaporean MP can’t be said to all that civic conscious to stand for election, they are paid the market price!

The progress of Singapore since independent is not the efforts of a few people, and many of those who contributed to the progress are not in the parliament today. Many of those who are in the parliament are there to be groomed and trained for the future. For the support given to them by the ruling party, compared to the opposition like Sylvia, Low, and Chiam, the young MPs are born with golden spoon.

They joined the ruling party because they agree with the PAP way, and if they disagree, their only choice is to join opposition if they want to stay in politic. What has it got to do with your efficiency?

The opposition and NMPs may not be in the PAP discussions, but it doesn’t mean they don’t discuss.

To the PAP it is the party first, Singapore second, Singaporean last. FT is good for Singapore, but to a certain extend, it is at the expense of Singaporean.

To the opposition, it is Singaporean first, Singapore second, party last (except for Chee SJ, when he ousted his former party chairman).

There is no doubt that the MPs are rational and intelligent, our oppositions are no less rational and intelligent, and they are definitely more gutsy, for they are up against a strong opposition. What is really important is who are they fighting for, who come first when they use their intelligence and rationale.

Just my 2 S’pore citizen’s cent with

MP debates by-election law in Parliament replied by Poh Ah Pak @ Thu, 28 Aug 2008 17:46:15 +0800

Poh Ah Pak — Thu, 28 Aug 2008 17:46:15 +0800

xtreyier, I apologise if you have been offended by anything I have posted.

There is nothing personal.

But I must say that your view that PAP MPs can "check" on the executive is not a correct assessment of Singapore politics.

MP debates by-election law in Parliament replied by xtreyier @ Thu, 28 Aug 2008 17:21:34 +0800

xtreyier — Thu, 28 Aug 2008 17:21:34 +0800

To Poh.

It is perfectly ok to insult me, but please do not insult our MPs.

These citizens are not without brains. They had done well at schools and had international business experiences and would know the difference between a piece of gem and a whole lot of crap.

They are civic conscious enough to stand for election, and help formulate solutions to help ease our suffering. While there are never any quick fix solutions, our progress as nation - from nothing of 1965 to something by 2008 is a testimonial of their efforts and those that came before them.

If they seem to take sides with the govt, it is simply because of our efficiency. Any motion or policies would have long been discussed and thrashed behind close doors in their party HQs, lunch meeting, golf games, constituency meetings, etc. Being intelligent and rational persons, they would already have agreed or had formulated sound plans even before parliament sittings.

However, the opposition and NMPS are not privy to such discussions. Thus it seems they stand alone. Their arguments, while solid, are still not enough to sway the rationale behind policy decisions.

Solution

Our opposition and NMPs must work smarter the next round. Instead of being enemies, they should become friends, meet for dinners,etc. and learn to sound out the ruling party's arguments first before parliament. By knowing how their policies are being rationalize, will one be able to see the 'backbone' and how to conteract it in parliament, and win over the backbenchers support.

It is not enough to have strong arguments. There must be the persuasive touch to win support. That means homework and assessment of each and every MP in parliament, for their weakness and their strength.

Just my 2 S'pore citizen's cent worth.

MP debates by-election law in Parliament replied by Mid9Sun @ Thu, 28 Aug 2008 16:47:49 +0800

Mid9Sun — Thu, 28 Aug 2008 16:47:49 +0800

Noticed that most of the NMP supported a by-election...and those "elected" ones oppose.

PM said they dun wan a "forced" by elections when mp decide to switch sides or resign...like what's happening/happened in other countries which destablized govt. However, this can be good or bad depends on the circumstances.

At the time being, I think they can compromise in this way, for GRCs by-election should be called if mp is unable perform his duty with natural courses, like death, sickness, etc. But if mp resigns or switch sides, then no.

This is my tot on this issue, so if there's a flaw in my views, do correct me.

MP debates by-election law in Parliament replied by Poh Ah Pak @ Thu, 28 Aug 2008 14:51:38 +0800

Poh Ah Pak — Thu, 28 Aug 2008 14:51:38 +0800

GRCs are to ensure that power comes with check and balances through more voices in parliament.

Don't make me laugh please.

PAP yes men check Lee Kuan Yew?

The MPs to run for elections are selected by the inner clique within the PAP.

You think they will let someone who won't kowtow into parliament?

This is being naive about the political situation in Singapore.

You want more lawmakers, we can reform the system to have two bodies for legislative powers. Upper house, lower house.

Better than the fucking GRC.

MP debates by-election law in Parliament replied by SevenEleven @ Thu, 28 Aug 2008 14:47:40 +0800

SevenEleven — Thu, 28 Aug 2008 14:47:40 +0800

Originally posted by xtreyier:

Sigh......In 1968, there were 58 Single Member Constituencies. Which means 58 representatives of the people in Parliament. With these 58 good men, lay their power to agree or disagree on govt policies, and formulate solutions for our growing nation.

Such powers within these few men were necessary during our formative years after independence, with an uncertain future and gloomy prospects, with a largely uneducated population.

But now in 2008, with more educated citizens, with better prospects and more confidence in our future, there should be more voices heard in parliament, so that our govt may make informed and better represented decisions, from grassroots level.

GRC had curbed the powers of the past 58 men who represented us. If GRC is removed, it would revert back to the 58 men ( no certainty of minority ethnic group representation) who controls our destiny. If these 58 men are good, upright and wise, it would be no problem. But if they are not, and are all yes men, then we would have a dictatorship on our hands, be it which party rules.

GRCs are to ensure that power comes with check and balances through more voices in parliament.

Today, we have 84 elected officials, from the ruling party as well as the opposition party, not counting NCMPs and NMP from both sides.

With the whip in place, everyone is singing to the chorus. GRC was mooted to ensure minorities interest. Then it became a maintenance entities "Town Council" to ensure "economy of scale" and it became a tool for upgrading and it became "an investment companies"

the lines have already been long lost and GRC went from 3 to 6 constituencies. from Bradell to Marine Parade GRC. from able man to a back door entries into politics

MP debates by-election law in Parliament replied by Poh Ah Pak @ Thu, 28 Aug 2008 14:45:20 +0800

Poh Ah Pak — Thu, 28 Aug 2008 14:45:20 +0800

In 1968, there were 58 Single Member Constituencies. Which means 58 representatives of the people in Parliament. With these 58 good men, lay their power to agree or disagree on govt policies, and formulate solutions for our growing nation.

That's not true lah.

There is only one power that calls the shots.

That is Lee Kuan Yew and his clique.

58 MPs "agree" or "disagree" with Lee Kuan Yew?

President Ong himself want to get info on reserves also hard already, you tell me MPs can check Lee Kuan Yew.

You first day in Singapore politics huh?

MP debates by-election law in Parliament replied by charlize @ Thu, 28 Aug 2008 14:40:05 +0800

charlize — Thu, 28 Aug 2008 14:40:05 +0800

4 legs good.

2 legs bad.

MP debates by-election law in Parliament replied by xtreyier @ Thu, 28 Aug 2008 14:29:40 +0800

xtreyier — Thu, 28 Aug 2008 14:29:40 +0800

Originally posted by SevenEleven:

I agree with you. don't know what he was trying to say?

Sigh......In 1968, there were 58 Single Member Constituencies. Which means 58 representatives of the people in Parliament. With these 58 good men, lay their power to agree or disagree on govt policies, and formulate solutions for our growing nation.

Such powers within these few men were necessary during our formative years after independence, with an uncertain future and gloomy prospects, with a largely uneducated population.

But now in 2008, with more educated citizens, with better prospects and more confidence in our future, there should be more voices heard in parliament, so that our govt may make informed and better represented decisions, from grassroots level.

GRC had curbed the powers of the past 58 men who represented us. If GRC is removed, it would revert back to the 58 men ( no certainty of minority ethnic group representation) who controls our destiny. If these 58 men are good, upright and wise, it would be no problem. But if they are not, and are all yes men, then we would have a dictatorship on our hands, be it which party rules.

GRCs are to ensure that power comes with check and balances through more voices in parliament.

Today, we have 84 elected officials, from the ruling party as well as the opposition party, not counting NCMPs and NMP from both sides.

MP debates by-election law in Parliament replied by SevenEleven @ Thu, 28 Aug 2008 13:57:00 +0800

SevenEleven — Thu, 28 Aug 2008 13:57:00 +0800

Originally posted by Poh Ah Pak:

???

I agree with you. don't know what he was trying to say?

MP debates by-election law in Parliament replied by charlize @ Thu, 28 Aug 2008 13:48:58 +0800

charlize — Thu, 28 Aug 2008 13:48:58 +0800

Originally posted by maurizio13:

Say hypothetically, if only one MP remained in the GRC while the rest died, there would still be no legal requirement to hold a by-election. All this remaining MP has to do is hire more assistants to aid him in his work.

One point of contention is, the composition of the MPs in the GRC with the death of Dr. Ong has changed the entire structure. It's like voting in Team A, but it's now Team B that is running the show. I have no doubt that P4P will win back the GRC, but it's whether the current P4P leadership has the fortitude to put the GRC back into contest.

If it was an opposition ward GRC, you can be sure the incumbent party will want to hold a by-election the very next day.

MP debates by-election law in Parliament replied by Poh Ah Pak @ Thu, 28 Aug 2008 13:45:48 +0800

Poh Ah Pak — Thu, 28 Aug 2008 13:45:48 +0800

He left a legacy to protect and ensure that we the citizens will be protected, no matter which political party wins. His legacy is GRC.

???

MP debates by-election law in Parliament replied by xtreyier @ Thu, 28 Aug 2008 13:26:43 +0800

xtreyier — Thu, 28 Aug 2008 13:26:43 +0800

Some may dislike MM Lee and the GRCs, but this canny man is a patriot true and true. He left a legacy to protect and ensure that we the citizens will be protected, no matter which political party wins. His legacy is GRC. Today, the ruling party is trusted. but who knows the future?

In a parliament of only a few men, eg, as some opposition had proposed, - it will only be these few that decide on issues pertaining our country. It is easy for these men to fall into the trap of being 'yes' men.

But if they were more members, it would be a difficult task to enjoy absolute power without persuading everyone to agree. More responsible heads are better than one to oversee our growing economic portfolios.

I have no issue on the present motion, for i do not belong to the constituency of Bt Batok or Jurong. I feel it is a issue that only these constituents can decide if they had been served.

But I am NOT comfortable with MP Halim's report that her grassroots leaders are saying that their constituents, the people they meet, are not keen to hold a by-election.

However, a poll conducted by NMP Siew sheds a different light.

Are her grassroot leaders doing their jobs, or misrepresenting the grassroots??! This is a critical issue she must address to stay relevant, being the elected representative of her people, or she may be misleading our PM with wrong information into making wrong decisions, and affecting his party's vote in future.

As he had said it, it is not only the person we voting for, it's the party's mandate. If the party's mandate is not relevant to the people, the chances are, people will vote against the mandate, no matter how good the MP will be.

Guess MP Halim will have to account for her trust in her grassroot leaders.

MP debates by-election law in Parliament replied by SevenEleven @ Thu, 28 Aug 2008 11:11:06 +0800

SevenEleven — Thu, 28 Aug 2008 11:11:06 +0800

Originally posted by Poh Ah Pak:

I oppose the GRC system.

Fucking political bullshit.

Jurong got how many people, need so many MPs to administer?

Fuck you lah PAP.

MPs die, hire assistants.

Then why not one fucking MP hire assistants?

Minority interests, come and fuck my backside lah.

Mr Poh,

I appreciate your input, however I feel that expilextives language is uncalled for, at least not in my post.

Thanks

MP debates by-election law in Parliament replied by d3rF @ Thu, 28 Aug 2008 11:07:01 +0800

d3rF — Thu, 28 Aug 2008 11:07:01 +0800

Originally posted by maurizio13:

Say hypothetically, if only one MP remained in the GRC while the rest died, there would still be no legal requirement to hold a by-election. All this remaining MP has to do is hire more assistants to aid him in his work.

One point of contention is, the composition of the MPs in the GRC with the death of Dr. Ong has changed the entire structure. It's like voting in Team A, but it's now Team B that is running the show. I have no doubt that P4P will win back the GRC, but it's whether the current P4P leadership has the fortitude to put the GRC back into contest.

I guess this is probably where technology can be the "force multiplier" for the work load required by the MPs, i.e. to use the web to reduce the amount of time required for MPS or whatever. Maybe even to have some pervasive technology that allows MPs to "meet-the-people" while on-the-move.

Regarding the by-election, what if the new member in the GRC is from opposition? Hmm....

MP debates by-election law in Parliament replied by Poh Ah Pak @ Thu, 28 Aug 2008 10:58:58 +0800

Poh Ah Pak — Thu, 28 Aug 2008 10:58:58 +0800

I oppose the GRC system.

Fucking political bullshit.

Jurong got how many people, need so many MPs to administer?

Fuck you lah PAP.

MPs die, hire assistants.

Then why not one fucking MP hire assistants?

Minority interests, come and fuck my backside lah.

Recent Posts in 'MP debates by-election law in Parliament' | sgForums.com