- Joined
- Jul 24, 2008
- Messages
- 33,627
- Points
- 0
[h=2]PAP
falling apart?[/h]
October 30th, 2012 |
Author: Contributions
PAP MP Raymond Lim
In the Shit Times Opinion page today, PAP MP Raymond Lim (MP of East Coast
GRC, Ex-Transport Minister) seems to take offence with the Prime Minister’s
initiative of having a National CONversation with the people. Perhaps he
understood it as a CON job afterall. He challenged the initiative by questioning
“is this REALLY a good way to govern”?
Casting further doubts on the exercise, he wasn’t sure if the polls and
surveys that have gone into the National Conversation were even properly
conducted. He remarked; “… we ASSUME the polls or surveys ARE PROPERLY CONDUCTED
– with proper sampling methods and so on …”, suggesting that he is wary and
sceptical of the information gathered thus far. Surely such comments coming from
someone within the White Camp tell alot about the faith of the MPs on their
leader.
But let us delve deeper into the ramblings of this Whitey. He wonders whether
opinion polls and governing by referendum is the way to go. He feels that
“often, it is only a segment of the people, special interest groups, who (would)
hijack the referendum process to safeguard or promote their own interests.”
Well, if he had spoken up before the NC took place, we might have gotten some
real representation from the onset. That representation would come from the
people we have elected as our parliamentary representatives. The Workers Party
would then be at the forefront of representing the alternative to the PAP. The
39.9% of citizens would be fully represented and their views, opinions and
desires would be greatly manifested and aligned with National interests. It’s as
simple as that.
He argues that “populist law-making has a more fundamental drawback (as) many
public policy issues are not simply a binary matter of yes or no”. What he
failed to see is the fact that listening to the people helps to ensure that
these policies are properly moderated and balanced before they are implemented.
Is he suggesting that it must always be the government who know best, and the
policies work best when shoved down the throats of citizens?
He uses the immigration issue to support his point. Unfortunately, it reveals
the devil in him when he fails to weigh the difference between governance and
reality. Where a policy works well to ensure the country remain competitive, it
creates hell for the locals who have to make ends meet. So, what should his
choice be – what works well or that which creates hell? It’s again as simple as
that. No use trying to self-reason a glaring policy flaw. No point threatening
the citizens that “it is not foreigners who suffer but Singaporeans in general
as our economic growth will fall.” He seems to not have the ability to see that
it is better to have a smaller economy to having to live in hell each day.
It is most offensive to hear from an elected parliamentary representative
lecturing the people that it is not within their rights to make demands of their
representatives. He seems downright rude when he said this: “The argument that
for effective governance in a democracy, we need to have debate, deliberation
and compromise is also the reason those who demand that their MP should champion
fervently their constituents’ positions in the House ARE WRONG”.
He added that “we elect not a postman but a representative to the highest
institution in the land to debate, deliberate and make laws that advance the
national rather than individual interest”.
Compare the last two quotes above. In the first one he uses “debate,
deliberate and compromise”. In the second, where he felt is the right way
forward, he uses “debate, deliberate and MAKE LAW”. “Compromise” is deliberately
replaced by “make law”. Well folks in the 60.1% camp, here is your man, a man
with a shovel in his hands to deal with you.
Again, he fails to see that when a collective group of citizens voices the
same problem, that problem is no longer an individual problem. It is now a
national problem. The example he uses, the current immigration problem, where he
argues that we need the foreigners at our expense, and is in the national
interest belies the fact that the other national interest of citizens’ welfare
and well being is of less consequential consideration. This is the sort of MP we
have drawn from our lot by courtesy of the 60.1%.
In conclusion, and the bigger question here is this, if a PAP MP does not
agree and does not support the value of the National Conversion initiated by his
party leader and Prime Minister of the country, then of what use is such a
CONversation. Continuing with it without addressing these unsupporttive elements
will only deem the CONversation a national CON job.
Of course, the final question must be, “Is the PM losing support within his
party, and is the PAP falling apart already?”
.
The Alternative View
[Source]: http://www.facebook.com/pages/The-Alternative-View/358759327518739
falling apart?[/h]
PAP MP Raymond Lim
In the Shit Times Opinion page today, PAP MP Raymond Lim (MP of East Coast
GRC, Ex-Transport Minister) seems to take offence with the Prime Minister’s
initiative of having a National CONversation with the people. Perhaps he
understood it as a CON job afterall. He challenged the initiative by questioning
“is this REALLY a good way to govern”?
Casting further doubts on the exercise, he wasn’t sure if the polls and
surveys that have gone into the National Conversation were even properly
conducted. He remarked; “… we ASSUME the polls or surveys ARE PROPERLY CONDUCTED
– with proper sampling methods and so on …”, suggesting that he is wary and
sceptical of the information gathered thus far. Surely such comments coming from
someone within the White Camp tell alot about the faith of the MPs on their
leader.
But let us delve deeper into the ramblings of this Whitey. He wonders whether
opinion polls and governing by referendum is the way to go. He feels that
“often, it is only a segment of the people, special interest groups, who (would)
hijack the referendum process to safeguard or promote their own interests.”
Well, if he had spoken up before the NC took place, we might have gotten some
real representation from the onset. That representation would come from the
people we have elected as our parliamentary representatives. The Workers Party
would then be at the forefront of representing the alternative to the PAP. The
39.9% of citizens would be fully represented and their views, opinions and
desires would be greatly manifested and aligned with National interests. It’s as
simple as that.
He argues that “populist law-making has a more fundamental drawback (as) many
public policy issues are not simply a binary matter of yes or no”. What he
failed to see is the fact that listening to the people helps to ensure that
these policies are properly moderated and balanced before they are implemented.
Is he suggesting that it must always be the government who know best, and the
policies work best when shoved down the throats of citizens?
He uses the immigration issue to support his point. Unfortunately, it reveals
the devil in him when he fails to weigh the difference between governance and
reality. Where a policy works well to ensure the country remain competitive, it
creates hell for the locals who have to make ends meet. So, what should his
choice be – what works well or that which creates hell? It’s again as simple as
that. No use trying to self-reason a glaring policy flaw. No point threatening
the citizens that “it is not foreigners who suffer but Singaporeans in general
as our economic growth will fall.” He seems to not have the ability to see that
it is better to have a smaller economy to having to live in hell each day.
It is most offensive to hear from an elected parliamentary representative
lecturing the people that it is not within their rights to make demands of their
representatives. He seems downright rude when he said this: “The argument that
for effective governance in a democracy, we need to have debate, deliberation
and compromise is also the reason those who demand that their MP should champion
fervently their constituents’ positions in the House ARE WRONG”.
He added that “we elect not a postman but a representative to the highest
institution in the land to debate, deliberate and make laws that advance the
national rather than individual interest”.
Compare the last two quotes above. In the first one he uses “debate,
deliberate and compromise”. In the second, where he felt is the right way
forward, he uses “debate, deliberate and MAKE LAW”. “Compromise” is deliberately
replaced by “make law”. Well folks in the 60.1% camp, here is your man, a man
with a shovel in his hands to deal with you.
Again, he fails to see that when a collective group of citizens voices the
same problem, that problem is no longer an individual problem. It is now a
national problem. The example he uses, the current immigration problem, where he
argues that we need the foreigners at our expense, and is in the national
interest belies the fact that the other national interest of citizens’ welfare
and well being is of less consequential consideration. This is the sort of MP we
have drawn from our lot by courtesy of the 60.1%.
In conclusion, and the bigger question here is this, if a PAP MP does not
agree and does not support the value of the National Conversion initiated by his
party leader and Prime Minister of the country, then of what use is such a
CONversation. Continuing with it without addressing these unsupporttive elements
will only deem the CONversation a national CON job.
Of course, the final question must be, “Is the PM losing support within his
party, and is the PAP falling apart already?”
.
The Alternative View
[Source]: http://www.facebook.com/pages/The-Alternative-View/358759327518739
