- Joined
- Aug 19, 2008
- Messages
- 38,563
- Points
- 113
Why opposition MPs should be advisers to grassroots bodies
LAST Saturday's letter by Ms Ooi Hui Mei of the People's Association stated that the PA does not take part in party-political activities ('PA explains rationale for choosing advisers').
However, the fundamental point remains that People's Action Party MPs form more than half of the PA's board of management, with no other political party represented. This, in itself, suggests that the statutory board is partisan, compounded by the PA's track record of appointing only PAP MPs as advisers to grassroots organisations (GROs), even in constituencies where the public has voted in an MP from another political party.
Ms Ooi also states that opposition MPs cannot help the Government to explain, implement or improve government policies. This suggests that they oppose policies for the sake of opposing, which oversimplifies what opposition MPs do.
Criticising policies and offering alternatives, as has often been done in Parliament, ensure broader and robust policy debates, which can help improve government policies. MPs, whether from the PAP or from an opposition party, work with their constituents at the grassroots level, and are in the best position to understand their needs and suggest policy improvements.
Opposition MPs may oppose certain government policies in Parliament as per their party manifestos, but that does not mean they are at liberty to go against existing policies at the grassroots level. In practice, MPs are unable to go against policies even if they are from opposition parties.
For example, referring to Ms Ooi's specific examples, opposition MPs cannot relieve their constituents of paying the goods and services tax, nor would they be able to offer alternative forms of welfare to divert their constituents from ComCare initiatives, even if they oppose these particular measures.
It is therefore conjecture to assert that opposition MPs cannot be effective GRO advisers.
The role of the MP is to be a bridge between the community and the Government by hearing the concerns of their constituents and representing them in Parliament. Ms Ooi seems to suggest that MPs cannot conduct their duties if they come from a party other than the PAP. If this is the case, it is the electorate who should be the judge, not the PA.
Shanta Danielle Arul (Miss)
LAST Saturday's letter by Ms Ooi Hui Mei of the People's Association stated that the PA does not take part in party-political activities ('PA explains rationale for choosing advisers').
However, the fundamental point remains that People's Action Party MPs form more than half of the PA's board of management, with no other political party represented. This, in itself, suggests that the statutory board is partisan, compounded by the PA's track record of appointing only PAP MPs as advisers to grassroots organisations (GROs), even in constituencies where the public has voted in an MP from another political party.
Ms Ooi also states that opposition MPs cannot help the Government to explain, implement or improve government policies. This suggests that they oppose policies for the sake of opposing, which oversimplifies what opposition MPs do.
Criticising policies and offering alternatives, as has often been done in Parliament, ensure broader and robust policy debates, which can help improve government policies. MPs, whether from the PAP or from an opposition party, work with their constituents at the grassroots level, and are in the best position to understand their needs and suggest policy improvements.
Opposition MPs may oppose certain government policies in Parliament as per their party manifestos, but that does not mean they are at liberty to go against existing policies at the grassroots level. In practice, MPs are unable to go against policies even if they are from opposition parties.
For example, referring to Ms Ooi's specific examples, opposition MPs cannot relieve their constituents of paying the goods and services tax, nor would they be able to offer alternative forms of welfare to divert their constituents from ComCare initiatives, even if they oppose these particular measures.
It is therefore conjecture to assert that opposition MPs cannot be effective GRO advisers.
The role of the MP is to be a bridge between the community and the Government by hearing the concerns of their constituents and representing them in Parliament. Ms Ooi seems to suggest that MPs cannot conduct their duties if they come from a party other than the PAP. If this is the case, it is the electorate who should be the judge, not the PA.
Shanta Danielle Arul (Miss)
