Don't get too hung-up on "alternatives"

[tanwahp]

Recently, the WP (LTK) was challenged by PAP (LHL) in parliament about providing alternatives, which we know WP has an abundant supply of in their manifesto. The SDP wrote about themselves selling "alternatives" and we know they have them in the form of several papers. The NSP was "praised" by Chua Mui Hoong for having transport ideas and although we know it was Chua's kiss of death who was really targetting WP, NSP does have some ideas.

But the opposition parties should not be too hung-up on selling alternatives.

It is good to develop alternatives and keep them handy in the pocket. But the PAP's true intention of challenging the opposition to talk about their "alternatives" is really a distraction tactic to turn people's attention away from their own lousy, failed policies to these "alternatives".

Why should the PAP waste parliament's time debating these alternative ideas in parliament which are not even in force? Parliament time is taxpayers money! It is the policies that are currently in force that needs to be scrutinized, and these policies are the PAP's, and it is the PAP that needs to be scrutinized.

 

[laksaboy]

The PAP and its sycophants should get this into their thick skulls: opposition parties are not a suggestion box. They are not royal courtiers who give advice to the king. Don't use 'constructive politics' as an excuse to justify PAP's 'monarchy'.

 

[po2wq]

... But the opposition parties should not be too hung-up on selling alternatives.

It is good to develop alternatives and keep them handy in the pocket. But the PAP's true intention of challenging the opposition to talk about their "alternatives" is really a distraction tactic to turn people's attention away from their own lousy, failed policies to these "alternatives" ...

opps jobs is 2 criticise evry gahmen policy ... not 2 gif alternatifs ...

ah loonz jingangz tactic is 2 lure opps 2 present their ideas ... so dat dey cud criticise dem n make opps rooks s2pig ...

 

[Thick Face Black Heart]

Agree.

The govt has the entire civil service at its disposal. They should be the one rectifying all the policy errors.

It is the job of the opposition to point out where policies have failed and the exert pressure on the running party to change. That is the primary role of the opposition.

Having alternative ideas is certainly good and adds dimension and substance to the debate. But let's also be clear that it is not the job of the opposition to tell the govt exactly how to correct its errors and devise full fledged policies. If you want the opposition to do that, give them full access to civil service resources first.

 

[Rumpole]

[video=youtube;AZUMEgHmCY8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZUMEgHmCY8[/video]

 

[kingrant]

Very well spoken! Spot on.

Why should the PAP waste parliament's time debating these alternative ideas in parliament which are not even in force? Parliament time is taxpayers money! It is the policies that are currently in force that needs to be scrutinized, and these policies are the PAP's, and it is the PAP that needs to be scrutinized.

 

[GramStroker]

Unfortunately the damned 60.1% can't see that pappies are paid million dollar salaries to ask for alternatives, feedback and questions like "what do you think?"

 

[Cosmos10]

[video=youtube;B_-70ZZG78w]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B_-70ZZG78w&list=UU_6ZBBzLo-jVQKxlcB8uj_g[/video]