ORDER! Speaker of the House should be ELECTED and the Whip lifted

Post 1 – History of the Speaker of the House of Commons

The earliest holders of the office were often agents of the monarch. Until the 17th century, members of the House of Commons often continue to view their Speaker (correctly) as an agent of the Crown. And now the Sinkie Crown is sending feelers to tell us to be prepared for their Anointed One?

[video=youtube;I_p5t4rPQ44]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_p5t4rPQ44[/video]

Rumpole of the Bailey

* Rumpole is the main character in a British TV series about an ageing London barrister who defends any and all clients (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rumpole_of_the_Bailey for more info). The author, who is an NUS law grad living and working abroad, chose this moniker to encourage an interest in legal issues because it does not just affect lawyers and their clients. The everyday layman needs to be informed of his rights and obligations and in the context of the “Little Red Dot” to avoid being talked down to or misled by their highly paid Ministers, including those that don’t have any portfolio, or civil servants with bad attitude and poor knowledge of the laws which they are supposed to be enforcing.

Post 2 – Speaker of the House tells King Charles I nicely that he answers to the House and not to the King

As Parliament evolved, however, the Speaker's position grew into one that involved more duties to the House than to the Crown; such was definitely the case by the time of the English Civil War. This change is sometimes said to be reflected by an incident in 1642, when King Charles I entered the House in order to search for and arrest five members for high treason. When the King asked him if he knew of the location of these members, the Speaker, William Lenthall, famously replied: "May it please your Majesty, I have neither eyes to see nor tongue to speak in this place but as the House is pleased to direct me, whose servant I am here."

[video=youtube;Xz1XORmNP2M]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xz1XORmNP2M[/video]

Post 3 – How is Speaker of the House elected in a truly FIRST WORLD PARLIAMENT

In the United Kingdom, candidates for Speaker must be nominated by at least twelve members, of whom at least three must be of a different party from the candidate. Each member may nominate no more than one candidate. The House then votes by secret ballot; an absolute majority (in the UK sense, i.e. more than 50% of the votes cast) is required for victory. If no candidate wins a majority, then the individual with the fewest votes is eliminated, as are any candidates who receive less than five percent of the votes cast. The House continues to vote, for several rounds if necessary, until one member receives the requisite majority.

The Speaker presides over the House's debates, determining which members may speak. The Speaker is also responsible for maintaining order during debate, and may punish members who break the rules of the House. Unlike presiding officers of legislatures in many other countries, the Speaker remains strictly non-partisan, and renounces all affiliation with his or her former political party when taking office. The Speaker does not take part in debate nor vote (except to break ties, and even then, subject to conventions that maintain his or her non-partisan status).

Therefore, why should the Whip not be lifted for the election of a Speaker of the House. He or she is going to be Speaker of the House and not of the Party!

[video=youtube;0aMdSLfbgMk]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0aMdSLfbgMk[/video]

Post 4 – FIRST WORLD PARLIAMENT IN ACTION – Speech in a bid for election as Speaker

Here is John Bercow’s speech in his successful election bid. Note he is a Conservative MP whose election was largely due to support from Labour MPs! He is the current speaker and was first elected in 2009 when Gordon Brown was Prime Minister of a Labour government! Yes, country above party and not the other way round as the AIM saga seems to suggest. He is the son of a taxi driver, as compared to the son of some overpaid talking head from the State-owned broadcaster spewing government approved propaganda since the 60s!

[video=youtube;qHcG2Q0GYRA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qHcG2Q0GYRA[/video]

Post 5 – FIRST WORLD PARLIAMENT IN ACTION – Speech in a bid for election as Speaker

Here is Sir George Young’s speech in his failed bid. He is a Conservative heavyweight who lost to a better candidate.

[video=youtube;Z06Zr-gQDlI]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z06Zr-gQDlI[/video]

Post 6 - Summary

And after viewing all these, any one still thinks that the PAP’s grandies have the right to tell you who the Speaker of the House should be? Are we reverting back to medieval times and making the Speaker an agent of the monarch again? Who is wearing the crown now in Sinkieland? The father or son or daughter-in-law?

Why don’t we Singaporeans tell the PAP grandies to fark off and that we want the Speaker of the House to be elected in a fair, transparent and NON-PARTISAN manner!

Order! Order! Will all MPs who think they are qualified to be Speaker of the House please submit their nomination papers! And be prepared to give a speech to the House (televised live to the whole nation) to tell us why he or she should be Speaker.

Singapore law does not follow Commonwealth law since LKY decreed QC void. As such to reduce misunderstanding, I move that the commonwealth nations strike Singapore from the practice laws deemed to be commonwealth compliant. After all, it is apples and oranges as our Leegime likes to put it, let us make it so avoid international misunderstanding.

UK Speakers role is very important given the diversity of parties. In PAP dominant Singapore the Speaker is a yes men till the end.

steffychun said:

UK Speakers role is very important given the diversity of parties. In PAP dominant Singapore the Speaker is a yes men till the end.

Click to expand...

The Speaker's role is to be impartial and facilitate debates.

In 2011 GE, when PAP tried to scare Aljunied voters by mentioning that if they did not vote for PAP, Singapore would be losing a "good" Speaker, was it not Chen Show Mao who spotted the LIE and told the whole of Singapore that under our Parliamentary rules, the Speaker doesn't even have to be an MP?

Parliament's role is to scrutinise the Executive; to make laws; and to pass finance bills (no taxation without representation). PAP dominated or not, that is Parliament's role and to fulfill its functions properly, especially that of scrutinising the Government, the Speaker of the House must be independent and impartial.

Historically, the Speaker of the House in Singapore has been a PAP yes man. That is not because he has to be a PAP yes man to perform his role properly but because the PAP puts the Party before the Country and this has to stop. In fact, being a PAP yes man prevents the Speaker from performing his functions properly. Only a useless stooge will want to be Speaker under such conditions.

you mean S'pore is not an Absolute Monarchy meh ?

Asterix said:

The Speaker's role is to be impartial and facilitate debates.

In 2011 GE, when PAP tried to scare Aljunied voters by mentioning that if they did not vote for PAP, Singapore would be losing a "good" Speaker, was it not Chen Show Mao who spotted the LIE and told the whole of Singapore that under our Parliamentary rules, the Speaker doesn't even have to be an MP?

Parliament's role is to scrutinise the Executive; to make laws; and to pass finance bills (no taxation without representation). PAP dominated or not, that is Parliament's role and to fulfill its functions properly, especially that of scrutinising the Government, the Speaker of the House must be independent and impartial.

Historically, the Speaker of the House in Singapore has been a PAP yes man. That is not because he has to be a PAP yes man to perform his role properly but because the PAP puts the Party before the Country and this has to stop. In fact, being a PAP yes man prevents the Speaker from performing his functions properly. Only a useless stooge will want to be Speaker under such conditions.

Click to expand...

What would and independent speaker in SG do? The moment he attempts to be impartial, he will get a letter from D Singh

Is it not ironic that the person most likely to speak the least in every parliamentary sitting is called the Speaker? British humour at its best!

There are lots of parliamentary rules that need to be changed. One that I think is necessary to show off our millionaire ministers is that there should be a 2-hour question period every day Parliament sits. The questions will be asked on the fly(yes, no requirement to submit questions before the session) so that our 'talented' ministers can show why they are worthy of the million-dollar salary.

In other democracies, ministers and the PM answer the question at QP and people can judge the calibre of their government. Sinkees must get the opportunity to see how good their ministers are.

winnipegjets said:

There are lots of parliamentary rules that need to be changed. One that I think is necessary to show off our millionaire ministers is that there should be a 2-hour question period every day Parliament sits. The questions will be asked on the fly(yes, no requirement to submit questions before the session) so that our 'talented' ministers can show why they are worthy of the million-dollar salary.

In other democracies, ministers and the PM answer the question at QP and people can judge the calibre of their government. Sinkees must get the opportunity to see how good their ministers are.

Click to expand...

Our parliament hardly sits at all. Once in a blue moon. The UK parliament functions almost 365.

steffychun said:

What would and independent speaker in SG do? The moment he attempts to be impartial, he will get a letter from D Singh

Click to expand...

My dear Steffy, you need to read up and improve your general knowledge. Have you heard of this thing called “Parliamentary Privilege”?

I am relatively new here, but have crossed swords with you once before at:

http://www.sammyboy.com/showthread....sting-when-foreigners-visit&highlight=asterix (SDP no longer protesting when foreigners visit?)

From these 2 other threads alone, both in 2011, it seems many forummers hold the same view as me – you are PAP IB.

http://www.sammyboy.com/showthread....early-identical-with-PAP&highlight=steffychun (Steffy Chun is a Stupid Clown nearly identical with PAP)

http://www.sammyboy.com/showthread....edition-Nissan-car-Guess&highlight=steffychun (PAP rewards Internet Brigade cyber agents with a special edition Nissan car)

So, what’s your reward for diverting attention and keeping the masses ignorant? Special edition Nissan car? Post pictures of your reward here leh. We all understand you need to feed your family and since no talent to migrate, have to do what you are doing.

Oh, what they say about you being here 24 hours is true. I posted around midnight and you posted this nonsense 4 hours later. You poor thing! It’s tough enough to be a dog. To be a PAP dog is even more tiring and stressful! Give us your address leh. I will call Pizza Hut to deliver express to you. My treat.

I think TS should get a reality check on our so called Westminster styled first past the post parliamentary system here...or has the Old Fart been too quiet for too long...

minuteman said:

I think TS should get a reality check on our so called Westminster styled first past the post parliamentary system here...or has the Old Fart been too quiet for too long...

Click to expand...

TS says it would not make an iota of difference if the Old Fart opens his big fat mouth or catches me in a cul-de-sac.

Does he have the magical powers to make Part II of the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities & Powers) Act, Chapter 271 and in particular Section 3(1) thereof disappear from our statute books?

"Part II Privileges, immunities and powers to be same as those of Commons House of Parliament of United Kingdom

3. (1) The privileges, immunities and powers of Parliament and of the Speaker, Members and committees of Parliament shall be the same as those of the Commons House of Parliament of the United Kingdom and of its Speaker, Members or committees at the establishment of the Republic of Singapore. "

http://statutes.agc.gov.sg/aol/sear...ansactionTime:01/07/2000 Status:inforce;rec=0

Cheers and Have a Nice Day

Rumpole said:

TS says it would not make an iota of difference if the Old Fart opens his big fat mouth or catches me in a cul-de-sac.

Does he have the magical powers to make Part II of the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities & Powers) Act, Chapter 271 and in particular Section 3(1) thereof disappear from our statute books?

"Part II Privileges, immunities and powers to be same as those of Commons House of Parliament of United Kingdom

3. (1) The privileges, immunities and powers of Parliament and of the Speaker, Members and committees of Parliament shall be the same as those of the Commons House of Parliament of the United Kingdom and of its Speaker, Members or committees at the establishment of the Republic of Singapore. "

http://statutes.agc.gov.sg/aol/sear...ansactionTime:01/07/2000 Status:inforce;rec=0

Cheers and Have a Nice Day

Click to expand...

Good Lord Rumpole !! Have u forgotten that there are 81 PAP MPs in a Pariahment of 87 MPs serving a nation of "lesser-mortals" who adherently equate Rule Of Law to a mandate from the PAP...

minuteman said:

Good Lord Rumpole !! Have u forgotten that there are 81 PAP MPs in a Pariahment of 87 MPs serving a nation of "lesser-mortals" who adherently equate Rule Of Law to a mandate from the PAP...

Click to expand...

No I haven't forgotten. I just like to remind the SG public that it is this way in Sinkieland because the PAP does not believe in playing fair. It is the Parliamentary version of the AIM saga. That is the whole purpose of this thread.

Showing the SG public how Speakers are elected in FIRST WORLD countries is an exercise in civic education and planting in their minds the desire for change. It also serves to point out that the PAP don't always follow the rule book even if it was written by them in the first place. MSM will never point this out. MSM's function in Singapore is to enable the PAP to 指鹿為馬 (lit. "point at a deer and call it a horse", meaning "deliberate misrepresentation for ulterior purposes").

How else can PAP get 90% of the seats with only 60% of the votes. Gerrymandering, which exist in other countries as well but not to the same extent, and GRC, which does not exist in any other country.

Cheers. :p

Thank you TS Bro Rumpole for stating your intention for the post..please more must be done..appreciate if you could also highlight on the aspects of IMO, our archaic Criminal Justice system...