Agreed. Her actions are typical of a PAPzi who is supposed to be neutral but is anything but. Her race is incidental to it. Indeed, such PAPzi behaviour has been demonstrated by SR Nathan, Yam Ah Mee, et. al.
-
IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here. The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.
BREAKING! Malay Speaker of Parliament disapprove WP to debate on AIMGATE !!!
- Thread starter myfoot123
- Start date
Fuck you! Everything also racist. You want to behave like a PAP dog calling netizens racist is it?
Which part of the thread is false? I need to be specific in case people still visualise it was Michael Palmer whom Low Thia Kiang's praised as impartial.
Anyway, my point is, if WP wanted to probe into AIMgate, PAP would expect some corruption to be dug out incidentally and certain people in AIM or Teo Ho Pin may eventually seen to be corrupted and ended up in court case. Thus it is best to keep as brief as possible for PAP to sweep the dirty laundry into oblivion even though the matter is considered "high profile" that draw public interest to it.
I think AIMGATE is not so much a legal issue, nor a conflict of interest issue. They can do what they did on paper, and that's exactly what MND's investigation found, nothing illegal was done.
That said, what's legal and what's ethical is two different thing.
I think this issue should be debated in Parliament in order for both sides - PAP and Opp views to be discussed and heard in a first world parliament. Looks like we are never quite there yet, as proven by the toilet paper bill, and now this.
That said, what's legal and what's ethical is two different thing.
I think this issue should be debated in Parliament in order for both sides - PAP and Opp views to be discussed and heard in a first world parliament. Looks like we are never quite there yet, as proven by the toilet paper bill, and now this.
Even with Non Chinese speaker of parliament is still racist..should be Speaker of parliament!! But it would politically incorrect to say the "M" word..
Ah i see so if the speaker of parliament was a chinese for some reason denying the debate would be more legitimate. I guess PAP got this on lock down using her as the speaker of parliament anytime the opposition goes against the PAP they just bring her out and then the oppo is accused of being racist and all is good for the PAP.
AIMgate both ethically and legally are clearly greached....just go and google cnflict of interest and you will see that it is as clear as day? How can the fucking PAP be allowed to be a judge over its own cause...
a PAP company was involved so there should have been a public inquiry benched with members of he judiciary and non partisan members of the public...not those PLP fuckers from their so called Ministerial salary review Committee obviously....maybe a prominent person from Society etc.....
Disagree, I'm afraid.
There should be a few of them in it, perhaps 4 or 5.
It will be nice to see them squirm and sweat.
Don't mind having those like Lucky, TinTin and Baey. At least they are not that ugly.
I agree that we disagree
The parliament which is best for Singapore will either have no fucking maggots in white at all or perhaps 4 to 5 as you said.
Maybe a compromise of 2 to 2 1/2 maggots in white be in that best of parliament.
boot out.vote out sound less agressive
The Speaker has no grounds to deny the debate. After all, the question rose from Sylvia Lim in parliament, and the PM responded by calling for the review, so to close the previous debate, the motion to debate should be granted to have a proper closure.
Is she a Speaker or is she a mouthpiece? I know electronically, there is no difference.
Is she a Speaker or is she a mouthpiece? I know electronically, there is no difference.
What is the reason furnished by the Speaker for rejecting the motion? If Parliament can't debate issues, then there is no need for Parliament and for the Speaker.
The Opposition should stage a walkout and then discuss the issue outside Parliament or at Speaker's corner.
The Opposition should stage a walkout and then discuss the issue outside Parliament or at Speaker's corner.
From Wiki
More generally, conflicts of interest can be defined as any situation in which an individual or corporation (either private or governmental) is in a position to exploit a professional or official capacity in some way for their personal or corporate benefit.
Depending upon the law or rules related to a particular organization, the existence of a conflict of interest may not, in and of itself, be evidence of wrongdoing. In fact, for many professionals, it is virtually impossible to avoid having conflicts of interest from time to time. A conflict of interest can, however, become a legal matter for example when an individual tries (and/or succeeds in) influencing the outcome of a decision, for personal benefit. A director or executive of a corporation will be subject to legal liability if a conflict of interest breaches his/her Duty of Loyalty.
There often is confusion over these two situations. Someone accused of a conflict of interest may deny that a conflict exists because he/she did not act improperly. In fact, a conflict of interest can exist even if there are no improper acts as a result of it. (One way to understand this is to use the term "conflict of roles". A person with two roles—an individual who owns stock and is also a government official, for example—may experience situations where those two roles conflict. The conflict can be mitigated—see below—but it still exists. In and of itself, having two roles is not illegal, but the differing roles will certainly provide an incentive for improper acts in some circumstances.)
+++++++++++++++++
someone should just ask for the whole factual scenario to be referred to the High Court and ask what they think....then you see how clever the judges really are........
...asking a fucking ministry which is controlled by the PAP to investigate a PAP company who is involved with some shenanigans with PAP town councils is like asking an accused person whether he is guilty of an offence....
BTW isnt that another conflict of interest????
More generally, conflicts of interest can be defined as any situation in which an individual or corporation (either private or governmental) is in a position to exploit a professional or official capacity in some way for their personal or corporate benefit.
Depending upon the law or rules related to a particular organization, the existence of a conflict of interest may not, in and of itself, be evidence of wrongdoing. In fact, for many professionals, it is virtually impossible to avoid having conflicts of interest from time to time. A conflict of interest can, however, become a legal matter for example when an individual tries (and/or succeeds in) influencing the outcome of a decision, for personal benefit. A director or executive of a corporation will be subject to legal liability if a conflict of interest breaches his/her Duty of Loyalty.
There often is confusion over these two situations. Someone accused of a conflict of interest may deny that a conflict exists because he/she did not act improperly. In fact, a conflict of interest can exist even if there are no improper acts as a result of it. (One way to understand this is to use the term "conflict of roles". A person with two roles—an individual who owns stock and is also a government official, for example—may experience situations where those two roles conflict. The conflict can be mitigated—see below—but it still exists. In and of itself, having two roles is not illegal, but the differing roles will certainly provide an incentive for improper acts in some circumstances.)
+++++++++++++++++
someone should just ask for the whole factual scenario to be referred to the High Court and ask what they think....then you see how clever the judges really are........
...asking a fucking ministry which is controlled by the PAP to investigate a PAP company who is involved with some shenanigans with PAP town councils is like asking an accused person whether he is guilty of an offence....
BTW isnt that another conflict of interest????
Re: UNELECTED Speaker doesn't understand her role as champion of ALL Backbenchers in
That's why she chose to remain in NUTC. Many so-so lawyers also join the SPF for the same reason - highly unlikely to make it in the real world.
That's why she chose to remain in NUTC. Many so-so lawyers also join the SPF for the same reason - highly unlikely to make it in the real world.
Re: UNELECTED Speaker doesn't understand her role as champion of ALL Backbenchers in
Hi Rumpole,,thanks for the insight..how does the speaker maintain his/her independence and not be afraid to face the wrath of the party? The PM etc can always sack the speaker..or threaten the speaker with preselection for the next election and so on...
Hi Rumpole,,thanks for the insight..how does the speaker maintain his/her independence and not be afraid to face the wrath of the party? The PM etc can always sack the speaker..or threaten the speaker with preselection for the next election and so on...
if got parliament also cannot debate, might as well shutdown parliament. elections vote for fuck?
Even with Non Chinese speaker of parliament is still racist..should be Speaker of parliament!! But it would politically incorrect to say the "M" word..
Where got speakers of parliament ? Speaker should be neutral, right ?
Re: UNELECTED Speaker doesn't understand her role as champion of ALL Backbenchers in
Hi there. If the Speaker was elected by non-partisan election, it would not be possible for the Prime Minister to sack the Speaker. It wasn’t the PM who appointed him in the first place. The Speaker draws his legitimacy from being elected by the House and only members of the House can force him out – by a vote of no confidence. In 2009, Speaker Michael Martin decided to resign rather than face a vote of no confidence over his handling of an expenses scandal in which he might lose.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8057203.stm
Rules for the election of the next Speaker were tightened, partly to strengthen public confidence in the institution of Parliament and the Speaker which had been badly damaged by the scandal. Country before party and not the other way round.
Hi there. If the Speaker was elected by non-partisan election, it would not be possible for the Prime Minister to sack the Speaker. It wasn’t the PM who appointed him in the first place. The Speaker draws his legitimacy from being elected by the House and only members of the House can force him out – by a vote of no confidence. In 2009, Speaker Michael Martin decided to resign rather than face a vote of no confidence over his handling of an expenses scandal in which he might lose.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8057203.stm
Rules for the election of the next Speaker were tightened, partly to strengthen public confidence in the institution of Parliament and the Speaker which had been badly damaged by the scandal. Country before party and not the other way round.
Last edited:
Parliament is there for wayang........to project leegitimacy for otherwise what a well disguised absolute monarchy.
Similar threads
