Prime Minister's Question Time in London. Enough to make Pinky Loon faint!

[Rumpole]

Watch this video of Prime Minister’s Question Time in London on 23rd May 2012. How about this for a First World Parliament?

Background: Starting at midday, the Prime Minister answers questions from MPs in the Commons for half an hour EVERY Wednesday. In most cases, the session starts with a routine 'open question' from an MP about the Prime Minister's engagements. MPs can then ask supplementary questions on any subject, often one of current political significance. Opposition MPs follow up on this or another topic, usually led by the Leader of the Opposition, Edward Miliband. Normally, he is the only MP allowed to come back with further questions.

Though the country is different, the questions asked in this video are on the kinds of issues that every citizen of a civilised country should be concerned about - employment, healthcare, legal reform, taxes, economy, etc.

In contrast, the Third World SG Parliament meets once every month and this is just the tip of the iceberg, there are many other aspects of a First World Parliament that are not present in SG’s so-called Westminster model. Talk about those some other time.

Do you think that if Pinky Loon was subjected to this kind of fast paced grilling every Wednesday he will learn how to think on his feet and accept questions from foreign media on his NZ trip made at taxpayers’ expense? Since he obviously is not of the same calibre and governing a much smaller country, shouldn’t his pay be cut by at least 50%?

[video=youtube;AK2ZGumop-4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AK2ZGumop-4&feature=rellist&playnext=1&list=PLC099F2BF93F759B7[/video]

 

[mojito]

Do you think that if Pinky Loon was subjected to this kind of fast paced grilling every Wednesday he will learn how to think on his feet and accept questions from foreign media on his NZ trip made at taxpayers’ expense? Since he obviously is not of the same calibre and governing a much smaller country, shouldn’t his pay be cut by at least 50%?

Can you imagine Sylvia Lim, Show Mao or Pritam present well-research reports and doggedly push the god-king of Peasantpore for a response? I certainly cannot. Do you wonder if they will ever do anything to address the root causes?

 

[tanwahp]

Going by what's happening in Singapore, you will only have opposition leader's question time with people like GMS, Skpunggol and Temasek Times while LHL happily shake leg and claim his million dollars.

 

[mojito]

Going by what's happening in Singapore, you will only have opposition leader's question time with people like GMS, Skpunggol and Temasek Times while LHL happily shake leg and claim his million dollars.

Member of opposition bench questions another member of opposition. That should be a world's first!

 

[hairylee]

Ah Lee Baba foresaw for his son and put paid to such rowdy parliamentary session long time ago.

 

[Fook Seng]

Can you imagine Sylvia Lim, Show Mao or Pritam present well-research reports and doggedly push the god-king of Peasantpore for a response? I certainly cannot. Do you wonder if they will ever do anything to address the root causes?

For non-MP opposition members, what else can they do but to put half-cooked reports for public review? See what sort of problems it has raised with the holes in the report. Well-researched, my foot. This is certainly something I prefer not see implemented. Even GMS's proposal seems better thought-out.

 

[kingrant]

I'll be surprised if he wants to follow the model. Somehow, Singapore's Cabinet works on a different model. It's called 你死你的事， you die your business, a collective responsibility but the respective Minister answers for his own Ministry's affairs. So to each his share of questions, from each his pound of flesh.

 

[wwabbit]

From http://www.parliament.gov.sg/what-we-do

"At the start of each Parliament sitting, one and a half-hours are reserved for Question Time. This is a chance for MPs to raise questions with the Ministers on their respective Ministries' responsibilities. Through questioning the Ministers, Parliament makes the Government accountable for its actions and allows the public to listen to a spectrum of views and opinions to find out how decisions affecting them are made. This forms an integral part of Parliament's role.

Questions may be filed by any MP seeking either oral or written replies from Ministers"

So we do have our own Q&A though there seem to be a couple of difference. Questions are made to the Ministers instead of the PM, and questions are submitted before hand so that the ministers can prepare answers to them before the actual sitting. So yes, LHL definitely has it a lot easier than David Cameron.


As for what questions have been asked by Worker's Party MPs, you can find them all here if you are interested:
https://www.facebook.com/workersparty/notes

 

[mojito]

Easier, yes. And I would argue it is a better system if the ministers can prepare beforehand, issues may be better addressed. There would be little drama to look forward to unfortunately.

 

[watchman8]

Can you imagine Sylvia Lim, Show Mao or Pritam present well-research reports and doggedly push the god-king of Peasantpore for a response? I certainly cannot. Do you wonder if they will ever do anything to address the root causes?

This country needs more opposition mp in parliament. Only then will there be sufficient support from the civil service to help the opposition mp do their research. You think mp can research on social issues solely on their own and during the meet the peasants sessions?

Do you know how many bureaucrats support each minister to answer simple questions in parliament?

Do you think the current small number of opposition mp allows them the freedom to ask tougher questions without worrying about sanctions from speaker of parliament, libel or defamation lawsuits?

Do you think the opposition mp don't worry about the skewed justice system? The outgoing Chief Justice is infamous for his chengsan judgment in 1997.

The first and foremost priority is to get more opposition mp, and not trying to destroy the few who have to navigate survive in the PAP shark pool.

 

[Time2Evacuate]

The Singapore Parliament is not a "Third World Parliament" like you described above.

The Singapore Parliament is a FOURTH WORLD Parliament.

Why?

Because most third world parliaments are multi-party systems, unlike Singapore.

Singapore is not really multi-party, but de facto one-party.

Ergo, the Singapore Parliament is FOURTH WORLD.

 

[wwabbit]

Most people have the misconception that first/second/third world refers to the economic development status of the country, but in reality it refers to the Cold War alignment of the country. First world countries were aligned with the United States, Second world countries were aligned with the communist bloc, and Third world countries were non-aligned. The misconception mostly come from the small correlation between the alignment and economic development status.

Currently it is arguable Singapore's government resembles more of a Second World government, where the Sovient Union and China had one-party states controlled by their communist party, although the main difference is that in those countries, other political parties were completely not allowed to exist.

 

[@rmadill0]

Conclusion: Our parliament cannot be compared to the UK's. We paled in comparison.

Why? Because able men are all hiding behind computers slamming how bad our government and the opposition are.

 

[Leongsam]

Watch this video of Prime Minister’s Question Time in London on 23rd May 2012. How about this for a First World Parliament?

Thank goodness Singapore parliament does not waste countless hours arguing about the most inane issues which are of no significance in the grand scheme of things.

This is the sort of shenanigans that LHL was referring to when he asked Singaporeans not make his job of running the country harder by voting for the opposition.

It's a typical example of how British PMs have to waste time "fixing" the opposition while they try to hog the stand asking questions purely for the purpose of bogging down proceedings and making life as difficult as possible for the party that is responsible for the direction and the future of a whole country.

This process of confrontation may have been acceptable in the 19th century when life played out at a more leisurely pace. However, in the 21st century where speed and productivity are paramount, it is a destructive force that benefits nobody least of all the common man in the street.

 

[neddy]

Thank goodness Singapore parliament does not waste countless hours arguing about the most inane issues which are of no significance in the grand scheme of things.

This is the sort of shenanigans that LHL was referring to when he asked Singaporeans not make his job of running the country harder by voting for the opposition.

It's a typical example of how British PMs have to waste time "fixing" the opposition while they try to hog the stand asking questions purely for the purpose of bogging down proceedings and making life as difficult as possible for the party that is responsible for the direction and the future of a whole country.

This process of confrontation may have been acceptable in the 19th century when life played out at a more leisurely pace. However, in the 21st century where speed and productivity are paramount, it is a destructive force that benefits nobody least of all the common man in the street.

That is how Singapore ends up banning chewing gums and "Stop at Two" policy.

Kitaro was banned from Singapore for having long hair.

There is no opposition to fix.

 

[Leongsam]

That is how Singapore ends up banning chewing gums and "Stop at Two" policy.

Kitaro was banned from Singapore for having long hair.

There is no opposition to fix.

It would make no difference even if there was a sizeable opposition presence in parliament. As long as the ruling party has a simple majority, legislation is passed regardless of the amount of hot air the opposition generates.

As for Kitaro I wish the PAP had let him in and then fixed him permanently. His music is horrible.

 

[wwabbit]

It does make a difference.

Sure, any ruling party can push through any legislation they want with just a majority (or super-majority for an amendment of the constitution), they know that they will lose votes in the next elections if they push through fail bills. That's why in the past few decades we have seen the ruling party switch between the Conservative and Labour in the UK, and between Republicans and Democrats in the US.

In the case of the PAP where they have never been in the danger of losing any significant number of seats in parliament, they have instead become complacent and arrogant, choosing to push through terrible legislation despite the protests of the few opposition members that have been elected. Yet they never had to answer for those failures. This will change with opposition members in say 40% of the seats.

 

[Leongsam]

It does make a difference.

Sure, any ruling party can push through any legislation they want with just a majority (or super-majority for an amendment of the constitution), they know that they will lose votes in the next elections if they push through fail bills. That's why in the past few decades we have seen the ruling party switch between the Conservative and Labour in the UK, and between Republicans and Democrats in the US.

When the balance of power is razor thin, all you get is gridlock and the country ends up going downhill. That is exactly what happened in countries such as Spain. Neither side of the divide want to make the hard calls necessary to keep the country afloat as they know it will cost them the elections.

Instead, the politicians concentrate on taking care of themselves while letting the country go to hell. You'll notice that while Greece and Spain are bankrupt, none of the politicians are in the same situation. They're all very wealthy.

If Singapore goes the same way, it is finished.

 

[wwabbit]

I don't see any evidence of Spain being gridlocked. Either you are making it up or you need to provide the evidence. The Spanish PM had no problems implementing austerity measures despite its unpopularity.

For Greece it is trickier because there was a coalition government which nearly fell apart when the PM lost his head and called for a national referendum. Eventually though the PM was forced to resign and a new coalition government was formed that went ahead with austerity measures.

In any case, real "gridlock" can't happen in Singapore. "Gridlock" is generally applied to parliament systems with two houses controlled by two different majorities. The most obvious example being the current and the last US Congress where the Republicans control the House of Representatives while the Democrats control the Senate, so they end up with several bills being passed in one house but failing in the other. Since our parliament only has one house, this can't happen.

So no, you have not proven your case that a thin majority causes government indecisiveness.

 

[Leongsam]

In any case, real "gridlock" can't happen in Singapore. "Gridlock" is generally applied to parliament systems with two houses controlled by two different majorities. The most obvious example being the current and the last US Congress where the Republicans control the House of Representatives while the Democrats control the Senate, so they end up with several bills being passed in one house but failing in the other. Since our parliament only has one house, this can't happen.

The example you give is one form of gridlock. The other form of gridlock is when there is so much opposition to a necessary measure that the ruling party backs off from the implementation because they know that it will cost them the next election.

A whole lot of policies vital for growth end up in the "too hard" basket and disappear from the radar screens as the system chugs along to deal with the next issue of the day.

I see this happening almost daily where I am. Highway projects are stalled because of opposition from the Greens. Fiscal policy changes come to a screeching halt because of ideological or cultural considerations. When the opposition senses that the govt is determined to get its way, the legal system is then used to put a spanner in the works.

The end result is a continuation of the status quo while the rest of the world races ahead.

Do you think China would be where it is today if it followed the Westminster model of governance?