While the Constitutional Commission is mulling over what they should do to prevent a rogue Elected President, there is now a more urgent task, to prevent rogues for entering the Parliament. The temptation of lust is just too great when powerful men are rich, adorable, lovable and touchable and easily accessible. How to prevent this oldest temptation of man to happen in our squeaking clean Parliament where everyone is as pure and clean as a priest or a monk, or immortal?
I can think of the principles behind the solution to prevent corruption. Pay them enough not to want to corrupt? Would this principle be applicable, workable or effective in keeping immortals from the temptation of the flesh? Give them enough to eat, just like the lions, once well fed, they would not want to hunt and to kill, until they are hungry again.
If this solution is not workable, then another Constitutional Commission may be necessary. The big question or problem would be the composition of the commission members? What kind of people would be suitably qualified to sit in such a morally righteous commission to pass moral judgement on what is acceptable and unacceptable and what should be done to keep man from sin?
Obviously we need the holy ones, the pious ones, the religious ones, to be up to it to execute such a task, to lay down the ground rules and regulations to protect the Parliament from rogue immortals. Just look around for people walking around with a halo on their heads. That would be a good start.
Should the govt order another Constitutional Commission for this, or apply the same principles and solution for corruption? This is also a kind of corruption isn’t it?
In the Today forum page, some forumers were asking for more transparency and details. They must have learnt from past public comments on how important it is to come out clean, to tell the truth and everything. This is the standard of political culture here when Yaw Shing Loong was exposed. Everyone wanted to know the juicy details in the name of transparency and ‘the right to know what exactly went wrong…’
Is that the way to go? Tharman had said the right thing. ‘I think he needs some private space now and that’s something for him to decide in the goodness of time. That’s something he’s already made a statement on and we’ve stated our position on it quite clearly as well.’ This must be the new official position of the PAP govt. I don’t think anyone in the PAP camp would be asking for more transparency and details again. And I think this position would also apply to opposition politicians when they are caught with their pants down in future.
Chan Chun Sing also had similar views about privacy. He ‘called for restraint, toi protect the children involved in the case.’ Not sure if this restraint would apply when there is no children involved.
Transparency for one and for all. Privacy for one and for all. This is only decent to do. No one upmanship like public figures must drop their pants to show everything. The opposition politicians can now breathe easier with this kind of position and precedence and standard set by the PAP govt.