'Neutral' Speaker of Parliament Campaigning for PAPzis

[steffychun]

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?

Why do we need an upper house when most of the scholars are elites?

 

[steffychun]

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.

UK has councils and local elections elect councillors.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local_election#United_Kingdom

 

[metalmickey]

UK has councils and local elections elect councillors.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local_election#United_Kingdom

What is truly shambolic about our system is that MPs and councillors are elected AS ONE PACKAGE. If we are truly democratic, then we do it like they do, hold separate elections for parliament and town councils. That is the real way it should be done.

Why do we need an upper house when most of the scholars are elites?

A clarification of the PAP MP system. Elite civil servants tend to be scholars. MPs slated to be cabinet ministers / ministers of state tend to be scholars. Backbenchers - I don't think so.

We probably don't need an upper house because an upper house is a waste of time. You don't need two sets of rubber stamps on decision making. Singapore style is to do things fast. More democracy unfortunately means less speed. More speed unfortunately means less democracy.

 

[steffychun]

What is truly shambolic about our system is that MPs and councillors are elected AS ONE PACKAGE. If we are truly democratic, then we do it like they do, hold separate elections for parliament and town councils. That is the real way it should be done.

If that happens in Singapore, it would mean the PAP would penetrate the locals even more.

 

[winnipegjets]

The Opposition should demand a new Speaker be voted in. The Speaker is supposed to be neutral and she has demonstrated that her loyalty is to the party and not to her new role.

 

[winnipegjets]

These PAP goondus have no clue how parliament works and their role. That's the Speaker is out there campaigning for the PAP.

 

[steffychun]

The Opposition should demand a new Speaker be voted in. The Speaker is supposed to be neutral and she has demonstrated that her loyalty is to the party and not to her new role.

The WP post GE 2016 should have their MPs as a speaker. See how LHL will be treated

 

[winnipegjets]

The WP post GE 2016 should have their MPs as a speaker. See how LHL will be treated

I hope the WP would change the rules to make the Speaker a neutral officer of Parliament.

 

[steffychun]

I hope the WP would change the rules to make the Speaker a neutral officer of Parliament.

no chance unless they get 2/3 majority

 

[HTOLAS]

In the US system, the chief executive (president) is elected separately from the legislature (Congress). Also, the legislature has 2 separately elected chambers (Senate and House of Representatives.) As such, you could argue that these two branches of government have the express will of the people and do not need a separate neutral head for any of them.

In the Singapore system (as with the Westminster system) the people only elect the Parliament, and from parliament is drawn the cabinet (the executive.) The good thing about this is that there is less likelihood of the kind of stalemate you see in the US. The bad thing is that it may be less representative of the will of the people. As such, institutions like a neutral Speaker has been built in to ensure all parties are fairly heard in Parliament and equitably represented outside it.

Also, it is NOT a good thing to have the speaker appointed from your party - it means you lose one voice. For this reason, Singapore's constitution actually provides for the Speaker to be appointed from outside Parliament should the composition of Parliament be so close that no party wants to give up anyone.

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?

 

[steffychun]

In the US system, the chief executive (president) is elected separately from the legislature (Congress). Also, the legislature has 2 separately elected chambers (Senate and House of Representatives.) As such, you could argue that these two branches of government have the express will of the people and do not need a separate neutral head for any of them.

In the Singapore system (as with the Westminster system) the people only elect the Parliament, and from parliament is drawn the cabinet (the executive.) The good thing about this is that there is less likelihood of the kind of stalemate you see in the US. The bad thing is that it may be less representative of the will of the people. As such, institutions like a neutral Speaker has been built in to ensure all parties are fairly heard in Parliament and equitably represented outside it.

Also, it is NOT a good thing to have the speaker appointed from your party - it means you lose one voice. For this reason, Singapore's constitution actually provides for the Speaker to be appointed from outside Parliament should the composition of Parliament be so close that no party wants to give up anyone.

Problem is Singapore's speakers were never outside of the PAP.

 

[HTOLAS]

Problem is Singapore's speakers were never outside of the PAP.

George Oehlers and Punch Coomaraswamy were not MPs.

 

[steffychun]

George Oehlers and Punch Coomaraswamy were not MPs.

Oehlers was before 1965. Ok note taken on Punch Coomaraswamy