For advertisement

Sample

2/02/2012

Why the Whip?

Why was the Whip not lifted during the debate on Ministerial Salary? If the PAP believes so strongly in its philosophy and policy on high pay for public service, should not all the MPs and ministers also believe in the same ideology? Or was the rumour of a split on this issue true, that some MPs and ministers were not agreeable with the policy of high pay?

How serious was the divide? Could the against faction be more than the for faction? If so, then the majority in the party is being overruled by the minority. But this is highly unlikely given the passion they exhibited in supporting this policy. Or could it be the MPs versus the ministers as the MPs are not the real beneficiary of the policy?

Hypothetically, if the Whip is lifted and more MPs and ministers were to speak against it, then it can become embarrassing. Or it could be the MPs speaking and voting against the ministers.

When that happens, the hypocrisies will be difficult to bear. It will clearly show the self interest of those in favour of high pay defending their high pay. Another form of hypocrisy that could be exposed will be MPs speaking against it and voting for it. And if that happens, it will be very awkward for PAP MPs to lash out at other political parties for hypocrisy.

Now that the debate and voting are over, no one will be wiser or have the good fortune to know what it could have been. It is just a speculative thought though. Who knows, all the MPs and ministers could come out with their guns firing in support of the recommendation. Then again, given the need to impose the Whip, perhaps this is an unlikely scenario.

Another hypothetical and disastrous ending, if the Whip was not imposed, would see the recommendation defeated by PAP MPs voting against it. That will be a real shocker.

The Whip is very effective in such a vital policy debate, and with an absolute majority, the phrase, ‘let’s vote for it’ is really an insult on the daft Sinkies. But this is democracy at its best, with a little aid from the Whip.

The other big question is whether the high salary bill is an issue of national interest or a matter of conscience. The advocates claimed that it is national interest with the red herring that it is all about the greedy politicians in the future, nothing to do with the present bunch. Well, how many would take this bait? If it is an issue of conscience, then it is not proper to impose the Whip as it will taint every MP and Minister in the same smear of colour.

Is this issue water under the bridge?

13 comments:

Anonymous said...

Dear redbean
Straits Times, 2 Feb. Front Page news. "$20 million from boss".

Australian bus owner sells his bus company. And rewards his loyal workers with a big bonus.

Don't you wish our PAP government will sell Singapore (oh sorry, maybe they already have sold it, ha ha) and reward the citizens for 45 years of daft (I mean loyal) votes?

Matilah_Singapura said...

Alamak. You still belly aching about minister salary? And now hoo hah about parliamentary process?

I wonder what it is that you seek from all of this. ...And then I forget it and go about my day ;-)

Matilah_Singapura said...

anon 1024:

One data point out of a large number of Aussie bosses, many of whom are just like bosses everywhere: certifiable CUNTS -- which is why most businesses fail.

Chua Chin Leng aka redbean said...

Matilah, I am a Sinkie and this is my country. I pay the ministers with my money even if it is 1c, it is my money.

Tax payers money is the people's money and every cent must be accountable even if they want to put Olympic swim suits on Stamford
Canal or buy a $124m topo map.

Anonymous said...

It is impossible for them to lift the whip on this salary issue.If the whip is lifted, it will come down hard on the buttocks of lky & woody goh & company ; u know like the way the whip is lashed on the buttocks of those convicted of serious crimes.Vandalism is punished by whip/cane.This is worse than vandalism

Anonymous said...

Sinkies must be aware of what is happening to their country. Quitters no need to. They come here to sponge.

Sinkies must take charge of their own country and own well being.

Anonymous said...

whip = insecurity & kiasuness. Some small core of people have already decided on "what's best", so cannot leave anything to chance that might be dissension and worse still be seen within the lesser ranks.

jjgg said...

Aiya Rb...even without the whip....do you really think that the present bunch of bootlickers will dare do any different or vote their conscience in any issue? I don't see a Toh Chin Chye or Goh Keng Swee or Ong Pang Boon seating there but I do see a lot of ex soldiers who's use to taking orders and lots who's so totally out of their depth..

jjgg said...

Aiya Rb...even without the whip....do you really think that the present bunch of bootlickers will dare do any different or vote their conscience in any issue? I don't see a Toh Chin Chye or Goh Keng Swee or Ong Pang Boon seating there but I do see a lot of ex soldiers who's use to taking orders and lots who's so totally out of their depth..

Anonymous said...

The Alternative Party Elected Members also rubber stamped the Pay Revision. Why and how Singaporeans think that lifting the WHIP will make any difference is more difficult to understand than why the whip was not lifted.

Anonymous said...

Oh no...the whip...you gonna get matilah sexcited

Anonymous said...

Sinkies were deprived the chance of knowing those with conscience and those who don't.

Now if the party splits because of a conflict in values, you won't know who to vote for.

Anonymous said...

It is pointless to 'debate' an issue if the Whip is not lifted. Not lifting it literally means a PAP vs WP score. Since we are very clear what the numbers are, why debate? Waste of parliamentary time.

Stephanie