<TABLE class=msgtable cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="96%"><TBODY><TR><TD class=msg vAlign=top><TABLE border=0 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%"><TBODY><TR class=msghead><TD class=msgbfr1 width="1%"> </TD><TD><TABLE border=0 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0><TBODY><TR class=msghead vAlign=top><TD class=msgF width="1%" noWrap align=right>From: </TD><TD class=msgFname width="68%" noWrap>CPL (Res) (kojakbt22) <NOBR>
</NOBR> </TD><TD class=msgDate width="30%" noWrap align=right>5:34 am </TD></TR><TR class=msghead><TD class=msgT height=20 width="1%" noWrap align=right>To: </TD><TD class=msgTname width="68%" noWrap>ALL <NOBR></NOBR></TD><TD class=msgNum noWrap align=right> </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TR><TR><TD class=msgleft rowSpan=4 width="1%"> </TD><TD class=wintiny noWrap align=right>30219.1 </TD></TR><TR><TD height=8></TD></TR><TR><TD class=msgtxt>Comparison of LIVE parliamentary debates of 5 countries and the “wayang” in the Singapore Parliament
March 17, 2010 by admin
Filed under Opinion
Leave a comment
http://www.temasekreview.com/2010/03/17/comparison-of-live-parliamentary-debates-of-5-countries-and-the-wayang-in-the-singapore-parliament/
OPINION
When one pay top salaries, one don’t expect to get monkeys. The PAP has always boasted that it has the BEST ministers and MPs in the whole world and that’s why Singaporeans need to pay them out of the world salaries to “retain” their services. If this is indeed so, then we should be expecting a first world parliament, but this is not the case.
In other countries, parliamentary debates are conducted LIVE on TV for the nation to see. MPs pose their questions directly and the ministers are supposed to answer them right on the spot. That is the standard practice everywhere else.
In Singapore, our MPs are paid a monthly allowance of $13,000 and even then, they are unable to speak LIVE in Parliament such that all their questions and answers are SCRIPTED. Not only that, some MPs still got the cheek to complain that the pace of Parliament is too “fast” for them or find lame excuses to defend their poor oratory skills like one new MP who claimed that “not everybody can speak as well as Lee Kuan Yew.”
This is the Parliament we have in Singapore – no LIVE coverage, only segments are shown on the state TV and even then, one Deputy Prime Minister was caught napping when the other was speaking:
Let us compare the above with the LIVE parliamentary debates in five countries which have similar parliamentary systems as ours – United Kingdom, Australia, Canada, Malaysia and Hong Kong:
1. United Kingdom:
Watch opposition leader David Cameron shred the British Prime Minister Gordon Brown into pieces in one of the spectacular moments of the questioning in the House of Commons on issues of election and inheritance tax in 2007. Cameron would probably be bankrupted or detained under the ISA had he tried to embarrass the Singapore Prime Minister like this.
<EMBED height=385 type=application/x-shockwave-flash width=480 src=http://www.youtube.com/v/5xUy2inkGHQ&hl=en_US&fs=1& allowscriptaccess="always"> </EMBED>
2. Australia:
Australia’s Prime Minister Kevin Rudd was embarrassed by opposition leader Peter Costello when asked about the income tax thresholds and rates during the PM’s question and answer session in 2007
<EMBED height=385 type=application/x-shockwave-flash width=480 src=http://www.youtube.com/v/J3QiwaU3CMM&hl=en_US&fs=1& allowscriptaccess="always"> </EMBED>
3. Canada:
The Canadian House of Commons voted to adopt a recommendation which, if implemented, would make it possible for U.S. Iraq War resisters to obtain Permanent Resident status in Canada during a LIVE parliamentary session in 2008.
<EMBED height=385 type=application/x-shockwave-flash width=480 src=http://www.youtube.com/v/kFN01eHw6IM&hl=en_US&fs=1& allowscriptaccess="always"></EMBED>
4. Malaysia:
Opposition parliamentarians walked out of the Dewan Rakyat in protest against Finance Minister Najib Abdul Razak’s refusal to entertain questions during his winding-up of the Budget 2009 Bill debates. Najib, who told the House that questions would be answered at the end of his speech, did not allow the numerous attempts for clarification.
<EMBED height=385 type=application/x-shockwave-flash width=480 src=http://www.youtube.com/v/HZPACHKeZEA&hl=en_US&fs=1& allowscriptaccess="always"></EMBED>
5. Hong Kong:
The Chief Executive’s Question and Answer Session on 15 January 2009 which was marked by a protest at the beginning by an opposition lawmaker. Chief Executive Donald Tsang did not evict the troublemaker and gracefully accepted whatever was passed to him.
<EMBED height=385 type=application/x-shockwave-flash width=480 src=http://www.youtube.com/v/SkxnV8duUyE&hl=en_US&fs=1& allowscriptaccess="always"></EMBED>
PAP MPs should watch more parliamentary debates from other democratic states to realize what a disgrace they have become. Do they have any sense of shame at all? Instead of speaking up for the people, they frittered their time discussing non-issues like the number of steps on an overhead bridge, food museums, triumph bras, frog tales, hairdos and other nonsense.
By conducting such a farce, the PAP is insulting the parliamentary system which Singapore inherited from the British. Parliament is an august chamber for MPs to discuss, debate and deliberate on major national policies and not a tea session or a time to take an afternoon nap.
It is a time where the Prime Minister and his cabinet are taken to task, held accountable for their words and actions and grilled by the MPs. This is what parliamentary debates are about! Not a “wayang” to rubber-stamp the decisions already made beforehand by senior leaders of the PAP!
In 2006, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said that if there were 10 or more opposition MPs in Parliament, he would have to spend all his time “fixing” them. This is not democracy, but tyranny!
If the PAP is unable to adhere to simple basic democratic principles of governance, then it might as well cut the pretence and do away with Parliament altogether, outlaw all other political parties and set up a National People Congress like China in place of it.
In fact, the Singapore “Parliament” is all but in name only. Like China’s NPC, the decisions on major national policies are all already made behind closed doors by the senior leaders and the delegates are there to “ratify” their decisions to add a veneer of legitimacy to them.
This is the pathetic state our “Parliament” has become after fifty years of uninterrupted PAP rule. So what if we have a dozen more NCMPs or NMPs in Parliament to provide “alternative” views? Will it make any difference? The key decision-makers still lie in the hands of a few persons or one single person who simply refuse to fade away.
No matter how the PAP and the state media tried to window-dress it, the bitter truth is – Singapore has a near totalitarian form of government, not too much different from Nazi Germany, Stalin’s Soviet Union or Kim Jong IL’s North Korea – they too have their own “Parliaments” filled with powerless MPs who are there to just to make up the numbers.
[email protected]
</TD></TR><TR><TD class=msgVFM colSpan=2 align=middle>View Full Message</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
March 17, 2010 by admin
Filed under Opinion
Leave a comment
http://www.temasekreview.com/2010/03/17/comparison-of-live-parliamentary-debates-of-5-countries-and-the-wayang-in-the-singapore-parliament/
OPINION
When one pay top salaries, one don’t expect to get monkeys. The PAP has always boasted that it has the BEST ministers and MPs in the whole world and that’s why Singaporeans need to pay them out of the world salaries to “retain” their services. If this is indeed so, then we should be expecting a first world parliament, but this is not the case.
In other countries, parliamentary debates are conducted LIVE on TV for the nation to see. MPs pose their questions directly and the ministers are supposed to answer them right on the spot. That is the standard practice everywhere else.
In Singapore, our MPs are paid a monthly allowance of $13,000 and even then, they are unable to speak LIVE in Parliament such that all their questions and answers are SCRIPTED. Not only that, some MPs still got the cheek to complain that the pace of Parliament is too “fast” for them or find lame excuses to defend their poor oratory skills like one new MP who claimed that “not everybody can speak as well as Lee Kuan Yew.”
This is the Parliament we have in Singapore – no LIVE coverage, only segments are shown on the state TV and even then, one Deputy Prime Minister was caught napping when the other was speaking:
Let us compare the above with the LIVE parliamentary debates in five countries which have similar parliamentary systems as ours – United Kingdom, Australia, Canada, Malaysia and Hong Kong:
1. United Kingdom:
Watch opposition leader David Cameron shred the British Prime Minister Gordon Brown into pieces in one of the spectacular moments of the questioning in the House of Commons on issues of election and inheritance tax in 2007. Cameron would probably be bankrupted or detained under the ISA had he tried to embarrass the Singapore Prime Minister like this.
<EMBED height=385 type=application/x-shockwave-flash width=480 src=http://www.youtube.com/v/5xUy2inkGHQ&hl=en_US&fs=1& allowscriptaccess="always"> </EMBED>
2. Australia:
Australia’s Prime Minister Kevin Rudd was embarrassed by opposition leader Peter Costello when asked about the income tax thresholds and rates during the PM’s question and answer session in 2007
<EMBED height=385 type=application/x-shockwave-flash width=480 src=http://www.youtube.com/v/J3QiwaU3CMM&hl=en_US&fs=1& allowscriptaccess="always"> </EMBED>
3. Canada:
The Canadian House of Commons voted to adopt a recommendation which, if implemented, would make it possible for U.S. Iraq War resisters to obtain Permanent Resident status in Canada during a LIVE parliamentary session in 2008.
<EMBED height=385 type=application/x-shockwave-flash width=480 src=http://www.youtube.com/v/kFN01eHw6IM&hl=en_US&fs=1& allowscriptaccess="always"></EMBED>
4. Malaysia:
Opposition parliamentarians walked out of the Dewan Rakyat in protest against Finance Minister Najib Abdul Razak’s refusal to entertain questions during his winding-up of the Budget 2009 Bill debates. Najib, who told the House that questions would be answered at the end of his speech, did not allow the numerous attempts for clarification.
<EMBED height=385 type=application/x-shockwave-flash width=480 src=http://www.youtube.com/v/HZPACHKeZEA&hl=en_US&fs=1& allowscriptaccess="always"></EMBED>
5. Hong Kong:
The Chief Executive’s Question and Answer Session on 15 January 2009 which was marked by a protest at the beginning by an opposition lawmaker. Chief Executive Donald Tsang did not evict the troublemaker and gracefully accepted whatever was passed to him.
<EMBED height=385 type=application/x-shockwave-flash width=480 src=http://www.youtube.com/v/SkxnV8duUyE&hl=en_US&fs=1& allowscriptaccess="always"></EMBED>
PAP MPs should watch more parliamentary debates from other democratic states to realize what a disgrace they have become. Do they have any sense of shame at all? Instead of speaking up for the people, they frittered their time discussing non-issues like the number of steps on an overhead bridge, food museums, triumph bras, frog tales, hairdos and other nonsense.
By conducting such a farce, the PAP is insulting the parliamentary system which Singapore inherited from the British. Parliament is an august chamber for MPs to discuss, debate and deliberate on major national policies and not a tea session or a time to take an afternoon nap.
It is a time where the Prime Minister and his cabinet are taken to task, held accountable for their words and actions and grilled by the MPs. This is what parliamentary debates are about! Not a “wayang” to rubber-stamp the decisions already made beforehand by senior leaders of the PAP!
In 2006, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said that if there were 10 or more opposition MPs in Parliament, he would have to spend all his time “fixing” them. This is not democracy, but tyranny!
If the PAP is unable to adhere to simple basic democratic principles of governance, then it might as well cut the pretence and do away with Parliament altogether, outlaw all other political parties and set up a National People Congress like China in place of it.
In fact, the Singapore “Parliament” is all but in name only. Like China’s NPC, the decisions on major national policies are all already made behind closed doors by the senior leaders and the delegates are there to “ratify” their decisions to add a veneer of legitimacy to them.
This is the pathetic state our “Parliament” has become after fifty years of uninterrupted PAP rule. So what if we have a dozen more NCMPs or NMPs in Parliament to provide “alternative” views? Will it make any difference? The key decision-makers still lie in the hands of a few persons or one single person who simply refuse to fade away.
No matter how the PAP and the state media tried to window-dress it, the bitter truth is – Singapore has a near totalitarian form of government, not too much different from Nazi Germany, Stalin’s Soviet Union or Kim Jong IL’s North Korea – they too have their own “Parliaments” filled with powerless MPs who are there to just to make up the numbers.
[email protected]
</TD></TR><TR><TD class=msgVFM colSpan=2 align=middle>View Full Message</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
