By Ravi Philemon

I refer to the letter by Alex Chiang (link), where Mr Chiang writes 'we should also expect our parliamentarians to put aside partisan interests and speak for Singapore'.  

The Parliament of Singapore's website describes Parliament as being 'modelled after the Westminster system of parliamentary democracy where Members of Parliament are voted in at regular General Elections. The leader of the political party that secures the majority of seats in Parliament will be asked by the President to become the Prime Minister (PM). The PM will then select his Ministers from elected MPs to form the Cabinet.'

If Parliament is made up of partisan politicians, should we not expect these politicians to inject politics into the issues they raise in Parliament? Elected partisan politicians believe that what's in the interest of the political party is also in the interest of Singapore. If elected representatives are not expected to speak in Parliament in the interest of their political party, which they believe is also in the interest of the country, there will be no need for a Party Whip, whose responsibility among other things, is also to ensure that elected representatives from their party vote on issues along party lines. 
 
When duly elected representatives in Singapore themselves prefer to identify themselves as 'full-time, good, community service volunteer' (Teo Ser Luck) rather than as politicians, it is no surprise that some like Mr Chiang are confused about the role of elected members of parliament.
 
The role of the opposition politician is to raise questions on the integrity of the system, to ensure that the system holds up to scrutiny, which is what Ms Sylvia Lim did. And the role of the ruling Party is to question the motive of the opposition for raising such questions, which is what Mr K Shanmugam has done. 
 
Both did nothing wrong in acting the way they did. They were only doing their jobs – being politicians.

 

You May Also Like

因爱狗起纠纷 前基层领袖涉致伤中年汉

《海峡时报》昨日报导,一名中年汉原本到公园遛狗,但因为赶跑袭击爱狗的一只松狮犬,而被对方狗主致伤挂彩。 去年12月27日,59岁的中年人黄约瑟(译音)到德乐公园遛狗,一头黑色松狮犬攻击了他那已套上嘴套的牧羊犬。本能反应下,黄约瑟就挥舞狗链赶走那头松狮犬,没有被栓住、也没有套嘴套的松狮犬马上就被赶跑。 还没来得及检查爱狗被咬伤的狗尾巴,黄约瑟的身后就遭一记重击,导致他跌伤在地,割伤左手和右手肘,膝盖也擦伤了。 被指挑衅80岁阿伯干架 黄约瑟因为在去年10月才进行心脏绕道手术,有服用稀释血液的药物,一旦割伤就容易流血,血滴得一地都是。 黄约瑟告诉《海时》,那时他起身,想质问那从身后撞倒他的年轻人究竟干嘛,对方似乎是松狮犬的主人。然而,年轻人却咄咄逼人,而且像李小龙一样走起“武步”,准备好要干架。 他忆述现场有大约10名居民赶到现场,有者斥责年轻人,有者打算报警,却被青年告知”闭嘴“,管好自己的事。据现场一名80岁长者表示,当他劝黄约瑟去看医生时,”青年还挑衅我是不是想打架,他也挑战另一名70多岁阿伯干架。“ 黄约瑟较后前往就医,医生诊断结果发现他的脊椎尾骨骨折,必须在家里休养一个月,心脏康复治疗也需暂时中断。 根据《海时》报导,记者上周27日(周三)陪同黄约瑟二度前往德乐公园,又遇见上述青年。记者尝试采访但遭后者以”警方已处理此事“而拒绝。 ”跑太快“?称本想”轻推“中年汉 不过他有透露他名为梁若仁(Roland Neo),惟否认踢伤黄先生,辩称自己”跑得太快“,原本只是想”轻推“后者,并没有恶意。…

Dirty Little Tactics by SMRT

~ By Ethan Wong ~ The following is Ethan's letter to Minister…

黄循财坚称屋主不是租户

国家发展部长黄循财反驳,公共组屋买家只是租户,不拥有组屋产权的说法,是“不符事实和法理的”,也没有根据。 他提醒,有关住房政策的辩论应该基于事实,而不是误导性的消息。 黄循财在昨日出席公共组屋专业建设高峰论坛。接受媒体采访时,他坚称,不论是私有或公共的租赁产业,买家在租赁期间(period of lease),都能对对自己的产业行使所有人权益。 “他们可以透过出售房产从中受益,或者出租出去。” 他强调,住房政策一直都备受热议,民众可能对它有不同看法,政府也愿聆听各界意见来继续改善。 他指出,自从政府在1967年落实土地买卖计划以来,所有私人住宅地买卖都只有99年的租赁期。这是因为国内土地不足,需要循环利用土地,为将来世代建设足够的住宅。 事实上,在更早前,总理李显龙在上月24日在一项活动上致词时,就尝试反击有关组屋的99年屋契只是长期租约的说法。 李总理:99年屋契“长期租约”不可思议 他直言这种想法“不可思议”,很多私人住宅地契也是99年,但是没人说那是租赁。他边界,公共组屋的屋主,可以自住、转售、或遗赠后代,享有的好处其实比私宅屋主更多。 针对我国为何不仿效他国的廉价租房政策,李显龙则解释,“租户”和“屋主”对待房产的态度不一样。租户不会对房产长期价值感兴趣,但是屋主就会负起维持房子状态的责任,也会捍卫可影响房价的社会暨相关制度。…

Introducing Laurentia Tan

By Ghui – Sports have the ability to unite, the power to…