The role of an MP: National AND Local issues!

[Fook Seng]

Voters of Ponggol East SMC, this is my plea to you. 2016 is not that far off. This coming by-election in 2013, show the WP you are not happy... yada yada teach them a lesson blah blah... black eye... et cetera. Make your vote count!

I will be surprised that a PAP IB has any good thing to say for the opposition.

 

[steffychun]

Do you think it is rigth to say vote KJ into parliament to set a higher bar for opposition to deal with national issue like IMF and check balance sheet of TH and GLC and match LHL finance mathematic skills?

Leave toilet bowl leaks to the town Council civil servant to fix and KJ fix the MAS account, a financial keeper of people CPF money.

To do this Singapore needs a mature citizens to understand how to vote with their brains.

“Local issues” vs “National issues”, sounds familiar. PAP trying to hoodwink and deceive peasants again about the true role of an MP in a Westminster style democracy. If you believe Pinocchio Teo in the second video, you will walk away with the mistaken belief that an MP’s job is to help constituents get welfare if they need it, make sure the street lamps are working, etc.

KJ is an idiot over the IMF. All countries need to finance organisations like the IMF to some degree. He is an isolationist.

 

[yellowarse]

Do you think it is rigth to say vote KJ into parliament to set a higher bar for opposition to deal with national issue like IMF and check balance sheet of TH and GLC and match LHL finance mathematic skills?

Agree, KJ is good to have in parliament.

But he can't get enough votes to get past WP and PAP in an MCF. The mass defection from RP prior to GE2011 is an albatross around his neck. His flat affect and cardboard personality don't endear him to voters either.

 

[steffychun]

Agree, KJ is good to have in parliament.

But he can't get enough votes to get past WP and PAP in an MCF. The mass defection from RP prior to GE2011 is an albatross around his neck. His flat affect and cardboard personality don't endear him to voters either.

Good in what sense? You must have practical ideas about international relations.

 

[mojito]

KJ is an idiot over the IMF. All countries need to finance organisations like the IMF to some degree. He is an isolationist.

IMF is the lender of last resort for countries at risk of defaulting on their international debt obligations. Notice how the IMF has lent very little to EU despite their woes. It must not have escaped you that the IMF has a political angle. A commitment made to the IMF is another way of getting into Uncle Sam's good books. To what ends, may I ask? It all seems unnecessary to me, and then I remember Tharman was recently made chairman of the International Monetary and Financial Committee, a feather on his cap if I may say so myself. Are these two events related? It is hard not to be skeptical with the timing of such things.

 

[metalmickey]

Good in what sense? You must have practical ideas about international relations.

KJ's contention was not about the IMF, although there are a lot of things that you could say about the IMF: if you understand that they're basically the bankers of the world, you would be as suspicious about them as you would GIC or Temasek.

KJ is arguing for more parliamentary oversight for big money decisions. But it is understandable that you'd not notice because he's such a bad speaker. The point is the process: if you can lend money to outsiders without any checks, regardless of good or bad, why would you do it differently for other loans?

The same point was made in an equally inept fashion by Chee Soon Juan 10 years ago when he confronted Goh Chok Tong in a hawker centre over the loan to Indonesia. Of course, many of our big money decisions are in the hands of GIC and Temasek. It is also true that they would rather blow a few billion dollars here and there on lousy investments than to help the poor.

 

[steffychun]

IMF is the lender of last resort for countries at risk of defaulting on their international debt obligations. Notice how the IMF has lent very little to EU despite their woes. It must not have escaped you that the IMF has a political angle. A commitment made to the IMF is another way of getting into Uncle Sam's good books. To what ends, may I ask? It all seems unnecessary to me, and then I remember Tharman was recently made chairman of the International Monetary and Financial Committee, a feather on his cap if I may say so myself. Are these two events related? It is hard not to be skeptical with the timing of such things.

IMF needs to have some degree of financial contributions from shareholders to function. Singapore presented the least amount.

 

[steffychun]

KJ's contention was not about the IMF, although there are a lot of things that you could say about the IMF: if you understand that they're basically the bankers of the world, you would be as suspicious about them as you would GIC or Temasek.

KJ is arguing for more parliamentary oversight for big money decisions. But it is understandable that you'd not notice because he's such a bad speaker. The point is the process: if you can lend money to outsiders without any checks, regardless of good or bad, why would you do it differently for other loans?

The same point was made in an equally inept fashion by Chee Soon Juan 10 years ago when he confronted Goh Chok Tong in a hawker centre over the loan to Indonesia. Of course, many of our big money decisions are in the hands of GIC and Temasek. It is also true that they would rather blow a few billion dollars here and there on lousy investments than to help the poor.

IMF is not a Bank. wrong again.

Chee's claim was nothing at all. Have you not heard of official development assistance?

 

[mojito]

Singapore presented the least amount.

It was proportional to our economy, I should think. No reason why we should contribute more. Singapore is not known for its caritas.

 

[ChaoPappyPoodle]

I think you need to understand that the parliament is pretty much a useless show as long as the PAP holds at least the 67% of the seats. It doesn't matter whether you have a super duper eloquent fiery orator speaker that totally trashes the PAP in the debates, as long as the PAP wields the whip, they will push through any motion they want and vote out any motions they don't like.

How then, can the parties convince the government to do the right thing?

Do you remember what happened immediately after GE2011? Ministers were retired. The ministerial salaries were reviewed, and eventually their salaries were cut by up to 50%. A lot more flats were reviewed. Work permits and permanent residence quotas were tightened. For the first time in a long while, the government actually listened to the people instead of increasing GST right after a GE. How did this happen?

The answer of course, is in Worker's Party winning the Aljunied GRC. This was the first time ever that the PAP learn about fear. To fear the people.

In order to work together for a better Singapore, we need to work together on this. We need the parties to work the ground to win the votes so that the PAP will continue to lose GRCs. On our part we need to help get these parties elected by voting for them. Parliamentary debates? Screw those, they don't do shit.

YOu farking moron! Base salaries were cut by up to 35%. Did your mother's chee bye whisper into your elephant ears that it was 50%? Did your grandmother's chee bye whisper into your arse hole that part of the salary review ensured easy bonuses up to 21 months? KNNPCCB!

Idiots like you fark up the country. Without idiots like you the PAPzis will not have ruled so long. Please wake up from your pukimati PAPzi brain and use your brain to think and research and think and research again before you post KNNPCCB thoughts which only a sinkified PAPzi servant is capable of.

 

[metalmickey]

IMF is not a Bank. wrong again.

Chee's claim was nothing at all. Have you not heard of official development assistance?

When did I say that IMF is a bank? I said that they look after the interests of banks. They are controlled by bankers.

I'm tired of repeating this over and over again, the question is not whether the money should have been lent out. The question is how this decision was made.

 

[steffychun]

When did I say that IMF is a bank? I said that they look after the interests of banks. They are controlled by bankers.

I'm tired of repeating this over and over again, the question is not whether the money should have been lent out. The question is how this decision was made.

They are not controlled just by the banks.

The decision was a joint decision amongst shareholders.

 

[6000kmApart]

It is also true that they would rather blow a few billion dollars here and there on lousy investments than to help the poor.

So it seemed. Recall Vivian's 3 meals in the hawker centre, food court or restaurants; and town council fiasco in lehman bro mini bond saga...

 

[6000kmApart]

When did I say that IMF is a bank? I said that they look after the interests of banks. They are controlled by bankers.

I'm tired of repeating this over and over again, the question is not whether the money should have been lent out. The question is how this decision was made.

Precisely the point. It is not the charity that people are opposed to, rather how the decisions are made. PAP-controlled parliament just rubber stamping every decisions without betting an eyelid.

then again, LKY said you voted for them once every 5 years, they have the people's mandate to do as they seem fit in all those intervening years. Is this what we want?

 

[wwabbit]

IMF is the lender of last resort for countries at risk of defaulting on their international debt obligations. Notice how the IMF has lent very little to EU despite their woes. It must not have escaped you that the IMF has a political angle. A commitment made to the IMF is another way of getting into Uncle Sam's good books. To what ends, may I ask? It all seems unnecessary to me, and then I remember Tharman was recently made chairman of the International Monetary and Financial Committee, a feather on his cap if I may say so myself. Are these two events related? It is hard not to be skeptical with the timing of such things.

This is the full context of things which will give you the insight you need to evaluate your position
http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/survey/so/2012/NEW042012A.htm

 

[metalmickey]

They are not controlled just by the banks.

The decision was a joint decision amongst shareholders.

The IMF is a lender of last resort. What sort of organisations lend money? There are only banks and governments. And when you're a lender of last resort, it usually happens when the governments are already fucked.

 

[Rumpole]

Strange indeed. I wake up to find that this thread has morphed into one about KJ and his IMF saga.

Am I being paranoid or are the PAP IBs gunning for KJ so that he will take away some votes which might otherwise have gone to the only Opposition party that stands a chance of winning in this BE? Helping the arse doctor by "helping" the former hedge fund manager?

You be the judge.

When thinking "National", perhaps Punggol voters should compare what the PAP had promised during GE 2011 and what they have delivered so far. A mid-term assessment.

In other words, they might want to do a mental audit of promises made versus progress, if any, towards the delivery of those promises. And if they believe that there has been a material shortfall, then vote for the Opposition party that has the best chance of unseating PAP in this BE. They will have their chance to vote for SDP, RP, SDA, etc at the next GE. Like many liberal minded professionals, I have my reservations about WP, but if I had the chance to vote in this BE, my vote will still go to WP. Not because I think they have been doing a great job so far, but in order to send a message to the PAPzis and their already very busy arse doctor. It might also send a message to SDP, RP, etc that working the ground is just as important as having credible alternative policies - you too can win seats if you had played your cards right.

 

[6000kmApart]

WP just play by the rules PAP set, thus they were able to penetrate Aljunied.

SDP have a knack of pushing alternative policies as evident in their Housing and Healthcare policies.

While many would want a voice in parliament to speak up against rising costs, FT issues, CPF, HDB prices, failing transport, minimum wage, public health fund, GIC investment funds, however, they are not prepared to vote along these lines.

They would rather go for the candidate/party that would best take care of their local needs. why should they not? this is the classic what i call the i-want-it-but-not-in-my-backyard mentality.

Most people can't see the difference between local issues vs national issues; town councillors vs members of parliament; the integration of these two is the greatest scam PAP have devised to keep opposition parties out of parliament.

food for thought : you want parliament to debate about AIMgate saga, Ministers' salaries, CPF increasing minimum sums, nationalising transport, HDB rising prices, FT and population issue; more than those about blocked toilets, birds problem, dirty corridors and noisy neighbours which should be tackled competently by town councillors outside parliament house, no?

 

[metalmickey]

Strange indeed. I wake up to find that this thread has morphed into one about KJ and his IMF saga.

Am I being paranoid or are the PAP IBs gunning for KJ so that he will take away some votes which might otherwise have gone to the only Opposition party that stands a chance of winning in this BE? Helping the arse doctor by "helping" the former hedge fund manager?

I am talking about KJ's political future and his role in the opposition ecosystem. This is not a plea for him to stay in Punggol East where he can be fucked upside down in the polls but rather to do the opposite, just merge his party with some other group, go campaign under some other banner, not as Sec Gen, make himself useful to the opposition in some other place. Go join the CEC of some other party and give advice, shape policy. Go run in GE 2016 and make himself useful. Now this is political suicide. He's behaving like a suicide bomber, like "vote for me otherwise my political career is over". Behaving extremely unwisely.

Just because some people have good things to say about KJ it doesn't mean that they support his Punggol East campaign. Similarly, just because some guy called Rumpole writes overly erudite critiques of the PAP from the standpoint of a lawyer, it doesn't mean that he is Tey Hsun Hang.

 

[Rumpole]

I am talking about KJ's political future and his role in the opposition ecosystem. This is not a plea for him to stay in Punggol East where he can be fucked upside down in the polls but rather to do the opposite, just merge his party with some other group, go campaign under some other banner, not as Sec Gen, make himself useful to the opposition in some other place. Go join the CEC of some other party and give advice, shape policy. Go run in GE 2016 and make himself useful. Now this is political suicide. He's behaving like a suicide bomber, like "vote for me otherwise my political career is over". Behaving extremely unwisely.

Just because some people have good things to say about KJ it doesn't mean that they support his Punggol East campaign. Similarly, just because some guy called Rumpole writes overly erudite critiques of the PAP from the standpoint of a lawyer, it doesn't mean that he is Tey Hsun Hang.

Please don't get so touchy. I wasn't even suggesting that it was you.

I detect the presence of Steffychun, a well known PAP IB, here. It is just possible that the scenario is this: somebody raises IMF and KJ as an example of a national issue, which indeed it is; PAP IB picks this up and chips in to drive the discussion in that direction; other forummers take the bait and by and by it becomes a discussion about KJ. As you mentioned before in another thread, comments placed in this forum are really directed at the bystander. And I fully agree with your astute observation and am sure PAP IB shares the same view.

Was just trying to bring the discussion back to the main point for the benefit of bystanders who will or might have friends or relatives who will vote at this BE. IMF commitment made without Parliamentary oversight is indeed a national issue, but I suspect average Joe is not too concerned about this and KJ's work on this is not going to gain him favour with average Joe who has one vote, same as a hedge fund manager.

By-elections in other countries are watched closely, because they offer the electorate a rare chance to signal their displeasure to the incumbent party. Also, the fear factor is gone - electing LLL into Parliament will not result in a change in government, the Cabinet will not henceforth be led by LTK.

This BE would be an ideal opportunity to give PAP an "F" mid-term report card based on non-delivery of promises made in GE 2011 and the best way to do this is to vote for the opposition party that has the best chance of winning.