For advertisement



The praising continues

The praising continues Alvin Tan wrote an article on the exemplary MPs in Parliament, praising them sky high, that they have done a great part in fighting for their constituents. And of course the opposition MPs failed miserably. This elicited a response from a Jeth Lee who said that for that they said, it is all about debate and saying something in Parliament. And Jeth quoted Tan Cheng Bock saying that for as much as he spoke against an issue, he still would have to vote for it. The issue that is in question is whether the MPs should put the party's interest first or the people's interest first? In a bi party system when there is a strong opposition, taking sides with the opposition is unthinkable. But in a near monopolistic position, when PAP MPs are speaking for themselves and not the opposition, taking a stand that is different from the party cannot be seen as for the opposition. It would be seen by the people that the MPs are speaking up for them or for a position that they strongly believe in. There lies the difference in a one party system, or an almost one party system. The ruling party MPs actually have more leeways to vote for their own convictions without being seen as anti party. And the party will be seen as being objective, open and not obsessive of domineering over opposing views within the party.


Anonymous said...

You chose avery appropriate word there redbean, Lee-way - the only way.

Anonymous said...

Very disturbing logic. The MPs have a party whip. They may speak out on some policies they disagree with, but they would not likely vote against it.

Even the parliament site does not list who voted on what bills.

redbean said...

this is just party rules and the primacy of party interest over electorate interest.

Anonymous said...