'Neutral' Speaker of Parliament Campaigning for PAPzis

[HTOLAS]

It appears that the PAPzis have all but thrown the notion of the neutrality of the Speaker of Parliament out of the window. Here you see her in white, campaigning for KPK.

 

[metalmickey]

It appears that the PAPzis have all but thrown the notion of the neutrality of the Speaker of Parliament out of the window. Here you see her in white, campaigning for KPK.

View attachment 8867

They shoulda got the former speaker to show up as well.

Isn't the speaker supposed to be the leader of the PAP faction of parliament? I thought that the speaker is supposed to be both the leader in parliament of her party, and also the moderator of the debate.

 

[HTOLAS]

Under the Westminster system, which we inherited, the Speaker of Parliament is the head of the legislative arm of government. He / she represents all MPs. The leader of the government (PAP) faction is the Leader of the House, currently NEH.

They shoulda got the former speaker to show up as well.

Isn't the speaker supposed to be the leader of the PAP faction of parliament? I thought that the speaker is supposed to be both the leader in parliament of her party, and also the moderator of the debate.

 

[wwabbit]

Leader of the House is Dr Ng Eng Han. http://www.parliament.gov.sg/leader-house
It's a different role from Speaker of Parliament.

 

[metalmickey]

Whatever. Everybody has dual roles. Inside parliament she has to be fair and neutral but once she steps outside she can do whatever she wants.

We don't like it that the boss of the PAP can decide on the timing of elections just because he also happens to be PM but what can you do? The system is the system.

 

[HTOLAS]

The Speaker's role goes way beyond what she does in Parliament - she is the head of the legislative branch of government and represents all MPs. In the UK, anyone appointed to the role of Speaker suspends his party membership - this emphasizes that neutrality.

Whatever. Everybody has dual roles. Inside parliament she has to be fair and neutral but once she steps outside she can do whatever she wants.

We don't like it that the boss of the PAP can decide on the timing of elections just because he also happens to be PM but what can you do? The system is the system.

 

[zhihau]

The Speaker's role goes way beyond what she does in Parliament - she is the head of the legislative branch of government and represents all MPs. In the UK, anyone appointed to the role of Speaker suspends his party membership - this emphasizes that neutrality.

is the Prime Minister required to suspend his party membership as well? since that's the second spot in the highest level of civil service, or is it?

 

[metalmickey]

is the Prime Minister required to suspend his party membership as well? since that's the second spot in the highest level of civil service, or is it?

Cabinet is supposed to be party members. Civil service is supposed to report to party members. PM is not the civil service. He's supposed to be boss over civil service.

 

[HTOLAS]

The PM leads his cabinet, which is comprised of members of his party or coalition. This forms the executive branch of government. There is no need for him to suspend party membership.

is the Prime Minister required to suspend his party membership as well? since that's the second spot in the highest level of civil service, or is it?

 

[steffychun]

They shoulda got the former speaker to show up as well.

Isn't the speaker supposed to be the leader of the PAP faction of parliament? I thought that the speaker is supposed to be both the leader in parliament of her party, and also the moderator of the debate.

Nope. Leader of the House leads. Our dear Dr. Ng.

 

[zhihau]

PM is not the civil service. He's supposed to be boss over civil service.

There is no need for him to suspend party membership.

ah... danke danke

 

[virus]

the former speaker will do well to teach his protege about oral skills.

 

[Rumpole]

From Wikipedia:

"The Speaker, by convention, severs all ties with his or her political party, as it is considered essential that the Speaker be seen as an impartial presiding officer. In many cases, individuals have served in ministerial or other political positions before being elected Speaker. For example, Selwyn Lloyd and George Thomas had both previously served as high-ranking Cabinet members, whilst Bernard Weatherill was previously a party whip.

In the House, the Speaker does not vote on any motion, except in order to resolve ties. After leaving office, the Speaker normally takes no part in party politics; if elevated to the House of Lords, he or she would normally sit as a crossbencher.

If the current Speaker decides to contest a general election he/she does not stand under a party label, but is entitled to describe himself/herself on the ballot as "The Speaker seeking re-election", under the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act. In the past the Speaker could sometimes be returned unopposed; this has not happened in the past few decades, but they have sometimes only faced opposition from fringe candidates.

However, the convention that major parties do not stand against the Speaker is not as firmly established as is sometimes suggested. Generally, former Labour Speakers have faced only fringe candidates, but former Conservative Speakers have faced major party candidates. The Labour and Liberal parties stood against Selwyn Lloyd in both elections in 1974, and Labour and the SDP stood against Bernard Weatherill in 1987. Speakers who represented Scottish or Welsh constituencies have also faced nationalist opponents; Plaid Cymru stood against George Thomas in 1979, and the Scottish National Party stood against Michael Martin in 2001 and 2005. At the 2010 general election, mostly just fringe candidates stood against John Bercow, but he was also contested by Nigel Farage, former and new leader of UKIP, who obtained 17.4% of the vote (up from 3.5%), and John Stevens, from the Buckinghamshire Campaign for Democracy party, who obtained 21.4% of the vote. Bercow won with only 47% of the vote."

Cheers.

 

[steffychun]

From Wikipedia:

"The Speaker, by convention, severs all ties with his or her political party, as it is considered essential that the Speaker be seen as an impartial presiding officer. In many cases, individuals have served in ministerial or other political positions before being elected Speaker. For example, Selwyn Lloyd and George Thomas had both previously served as high-ranking Cabinet members, whilst Bernard Weatherill was previously a party whip.

In the House, the Speaker does not vote on any motion, except in order to resolve ties. After leaving office, the Speaker normally takes no part in party politics; if elevated to the House of Lords, he or she would normally sit as a crossbencher.

If the current Speaker decides to contest a general election he/she does not stand under a party label, but is entitled to describe himself/herself on the ballot as "The Speaker seeking re-election", under the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act. In the past the Speaker could sometimes be returned unopposed; this has not happened in the past few decades, but they have sometimes only faced opposition from fringe candidates.

However, the convention that major parties do not stand against the Speaker is not as firmly established as is sometimes suggested. Generally, former Labour Speakers have faced only fringe candidates, but former Conservative Speakers have faced major party candidates. The Labour and Liberal parties stood against Selwyn Lloyd in both elections in 1974, and Labour and the SDP stood against Bernard Weatherill in 1987. Speakers who represented Scottish or Welsh constituencies have also faced nationalist opponents; Plaid Cymru stood against George Thomas in 1979, and the Scottish National Party stood against Michael Martin in 2001 and 2005. At the 2010 general election, mostly just fringe candidates stood against John Bercow, but he was also contested by Nigel Farage, former and new leader of UKIP, who obtained 17.4% of the vote (up from 3.5%), and John Stevens, from the Buckinghamshire Campaign for Democracy party, who obtained 21.4% of the vote. Bercow won with only 47% of the vote."

Cheers.

Only happens in the UK.

 

[metalmickey]

From Wikipedia:

"The Speaker, by convention, severs all ties with his or her political party, as it is considered essential that the Speaker be seen as an impartial presiding officer. In many cases, individuals have served in ministerial or other political positions before being elected Speaker. For example, Selwyn Lloyd and George Thomas had both previously served as high-ranking Cabinet members, whilst Bernard Weatherill was previously a party whip.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speaker_of_the_United_States_House_of_Representatives

"Unlike some Westminster system parliaments, in which the office of speaker is considered non-partisan, in the United States the speakership of the House is a leadership position in the majority party and the office-holder actively works to set that party's legislative agenda; the office is therefore endowed with considerable political power. The Speaker does not usually personally preside over debates, instead delegating the duty to freshman members of the House from the majority party."

Although I acknowledge that Singapore is supposed to be Westminister system.

 

[brocoli]

The Speaker's role goes way beyond what she does in Parliament - she is the head of the legislative branch of government and represents all MPs. In the UK, anyone appointed to the role of Speaker suspends his party membership - this emphasizes that neutrality.

In the US, The speaker by tradition, is the head of the majority party in the House of Representatives

think Gingrich and Nancy Pelosi

 

[wwabbit]

Although I acknowledge that Singapore is supposed to be Westminister system.

We were based on the Westminster system. After many constitution changes, it doesn't look very much like Westminster anymore.
Have we ever had an upper house?

 

[metalmickey]

We were based on the Westminster system. After many constitution changes, it doesn't look very much like Westminster anymore.
Have we ever had an upper house?

We're still closer to westminister than the US system. We don't have an upper house because we're too small to have an upper house. We don't elect the president, and we don't have that separation between executive and legislative because parliament forms the cabinet.

But it is true that UK doesn't have the GRC or town council system. That is truly shambolic.

 

[wwabbit]

We don't elect the president

Eh.... 10chars

 

[metalmickey]

Eh.... 10chars

We don't directly elect the chief executive. Chief executive in Singapore / UK is PM. Chief executive in US is president. Happy?