Source: The Online Citizen
People not comfortable with a one-party House: Sylvia Lim
April 27 2014 16:10
The following is an exchange between Workers’ Party MP, Sylvia Lim and the People’s Action Party MP, Hri Kumar. The two were speaking on the issue of checks and balances in the political system in Singapore during a roundtable discussion organised by the Straits Times last week.
The transcript here is based on the video recording which is made public by the Straits Times. We do not vouch for the completeness or the accuracy of the presentation of the views of either Ms Lim or Mr Kumar, as far as the edited video is concerned.
Nonetheless, we felt it is important to present the transcript here particularly for better understanding of why the political opposition in Singapore is important in Parliament, insofar as the opposition’s own position is concerned.
Transcript:
Question: What do you make of the findings that checks and balances were selected as the most important issue by most respondents?
SYLVIA LIM: I’m quite encouraged by the findings [of a Straits Times poll] that voters do value checks and balances and accountability. I think it’s very heartening. It’s been interpreted to mean that Singaporeans do find that at the system level, the institutions have to function with some sort of balance regardless of whether the policies are good or bad, in that sense. I’m comforted by it because it shows that the voters do value choices and they do value, in that sense, plurality in the political scene.
One thing which I have observed, much more I think since the last elections, is that the public seems not to be quite convinced that they probably will get better service from the government if the government does not take them for granted. This is a very strong sense that I feel from people who articulate this to me as well. And I think they also assess perhaps some of the policy reviews that the government is doing since the last election and they feel that, you know, it is actually being motivated probably by the results of the election.
HRI KUMAR: I can understand why a good number will feel that checks and balances is important. Because conceptually you would want an opposing voice, right? Conceptually. If you have one party saying the same thing, then it doesn’t sound healthy. You want different voices because through having, discussing different points will probably give you a better result, or better outcome. Conceptually.
The question is: what is checks and balance? And who gives better checks and balance?
That’s where reality and concept may not be quite the same. So, I’m sure Sylvia may not agree with this. The proof is really in the pudding. And if you attend Parliament, you’ll see that it is not as you will understand in concept. That PAP has one idea, and the opposition has another idea which is a different idea. Doesn’t work like that in real life. Doesn’t work like that in real life.
So you have the ministers coming out with a certain policy, then you have PAP MPs who will disagree, who will say, I think this can be improved, I think that can be improved, maybe we should do it differently. Checks and balances can also be done by members of the same party.
Many people come to me and say, oh but the PAP you know you have the Whip, and so all of you must vote the same way. That’s true. That’s the system we inherited, for party discipline. But nonetheless, you still have PAP MPs giving different views in Parliament.
How many times have you heard WP MPs give a different view from the WP? Zero. Zero.
So, if you think our Whip is thick, theirs is thicker. And theirs is obviously more painful.
SYLVIA LIM: Now, we value Parliament as very important, and the power to vote is also very important. So therefore, for example, on certain government agenda which we feel is not good for the people, we have actually voted against it as a party united, no doubt, ok. And even provided alternative solutions or suggestions on how the government could handle it differently. For example, the Population White Paper is a good example.
Now, Hri correctly mentioned that we at the moment seldom contradict each other because first of all we are a small party in opposition. If you recall we are only, after the Punggol by-election, seven MPs out of 87. And you just imagine if one or two of us start to say things which do not toe the party line, I think the PAP will be singing the opposite song. They will be singing. See you’re disunited, how can you run the government. That will be what will happen.
I think our role… is that the people need to see that the system is healthy. I don’t think many people will be comfortable with the fact that you have a whole House full of MPs from one party, no matter how much they talk or things like that. I don’t think people will be comfortable with that because in the end you know that the party Whip comes in and that’s about it.
People not comfortable with a one-party House: Sylvia Lim
April 27 2014 16:10
The following is an exchange between Workers’ Party MP, Sylvia Lim and the People’s Action Party MP, Hri Kumar. The two were speaking on the issue of checks and balances in the political system in Singapore during a roundtable discussion organised by the Straits Times last week.
The transcript here is based on the video recording which is made public by the Straits Times. We do not vouch for the completeness or the accuracy of the presentation of the views of either Ms Lim or Mr Kumar, as far as the edited video is concerned.
Nonetheless, we felt it is important to present the transcript here particularly for better understanding of why the political opposition in Singapore is important in Parliament, insofar as the opposition’s own position is concerned.
Transcript:
Question: What do you make of the findings that checks and balances were selected as the most important issue by most respondents?
SYLVIA LIM: I’m quite encouraged by the findings [of a Straits Times poll] that voters do value checks and balances and accountability. I think it’s very heartening. It’s been interpreted to mean that Singaporeans do find that at the system level, the institutions have to function with some sort of balance regardless of whether the policies are good or bad, in that sense. I’m comforted by it because it shows that the voters do value choices and they do value, in that sense, plurality in the political scene.
One thing which I have observed, much more I think since the last elections, is that the public seems not to be quite convinced that they probably will get better service from the government if the government does not take them for granted. This is a very strong sense that I feel from people who articulate this to me as well. And I think they also assess perhaps some of the policy reviews that the government is doing since the last election and they feel that, you know, it is actually being motivated probably by the results of the election.
HRI KUMAR: I can understand why a good number will feel that checks and balances is important. Because conceptually you would want an opposing voice, right? Conceptually. If you have one party saying the same thing, then it doesn’t sound healthy. You want different voices because through having, discussing different points will probably give you a better result, or better outcome. Conceptually.
The question is: what is checks and balance? And who gives better checks and balance?
That’s where reality and concept may not be quite the same. So, I’m sure Sylvia may not agree with this. The proof is really in the pudding. And if you attend Parliament, you’ll see that it is not as you will understand in concept. That PAP has one idea, and the opposition has another idea which is a different idea. Doesn’t work like that in real life. Doesn’t work like that in real life.
So you have the ministers coming out with a certain policy, then you have PAP MPs who will disagree, who will say, I think this can be improved, I think that can be improved, maybe we should do it differently. Checks and balances can also be done by members of the same party.
Many people come to me and say, oh but the PAP you know you have the Whip, and so all of you must vote the same way. That’s true. That’s the system we inherited, for party discipline. But nonetheless, you still have PAP MPs giving different views in Parliament.
How many times have you heard WP MPs give a different view from the WP? Zero. Zero.
So, if you think our Whip is thick, theirs is thicker. And theirs is obviously more painful.
SYLVIA LIM: Now, we value Parliament as very important, and the power to vote is also very important. So therefore, for example, on certain government agenda which we feel is not good for the people, we have actually voted against it as a party united, no doubt, ok. And even provided alternative solutions or suggestions on how the government could handle it differently. For example, the Population White Paper is a good example.
Now, Hri correctly mentioned that we at the moment seldom contradict each other because first of all we are a small party in opposition. If you recall we are only, after the Punggol by-election, seven MPs out of 87. And you just imagine if one or two of us start to say things which do not toe the party line, I think the PAP will be singing the opposite song. They will be singing. See you’re disunited, how can you run the government. That will be what will happen.
I think our role… is that the people need to see that the system is healthy. I don’t think many people will be comfortable with the fact that you have a whole House full of MPs from one party, no matter how much they talk or things like that. I don’t think people will be comfortable with that because in the end you know that the party Whip comes in and that’s about it.
