Tikam tikam in Parliament

WP’s Sylvia Lim is so lucky. After 3 times of failing to speak in

Parliament this time her bid to speak was balloted. She wanted to ask the

PM on the basis for deciding who should be considered as the first elected

President from which the latest EP election was counted as due this year.

Everyone knows that the first EP was Ong Teng Cheong. Somehow Wee Kim Wee

term as the president was counted as the first EP. Sylvia Lim is asking in

Parliament whether the counting process is a legal matter or a policy

matter.

 

Is this an important question? It concerns when to hold an election for a

minority EP and the difference is as good as 5 years. And if the question

is so important, why should it be decided on a ballot, like a lucky draw?

It means if Sylvia Lim is unlucky, this question could not be asked for the

next 1000 years.

 

According to the newly promoted Speaker of Parliament, Tan Chuan Jin,

 

‘“Just balloted for tomorrow’s adjournment motion (3 Oct 2017). Sylvia

Lim’s motion has been picked. She was present for the draw, as she had been

the previous round. Vikram Nair’s motion would have to be deferred again

for the fourth time. His topic is on the future of NS.

 

It is important to note that apart from the adjournment motion, we also do

have a Private Member’s Motion that doesn’t require it to be balloted.

Christopher de Souza is in fact tabling one tomorrow and will see quite a

number of MPs speaking on it.

 

There are various platforms for every individual MPs to surface issues that

concern them. Do make full use of these opportunities.’

 

I dunno what is the difference between an adjournment motion and a Private

Member’s Motion, but I do know that a MP is a people’s representative and

has all the right to speak in Parliament and this right should not be

curtailed or be subjected to tikam tikam. What is an MP if his right to

speak is not a right but a lucky draw?

 

Funny isn’t it? First world politics or first world political game aka

tikam tikam.

 

Now Sylvia Lim must count herself so lucky to be balloted on the third

time. Heng ah! The right to speak in Parliament is like striking lottery.

And to be sure that her question is being put into the ballot box, she had

to be present every time they conduct a ballot. Really BTH. Uniquely

Singapore.

 

Sylvia Lim’s question on whether the decision on the changed EP for

minority is a policy or a legal matter has been answered by Shanmugam in

Parliament. What came out of Parliament is that the govt can make a policy

decision to override what is in the Constitution. Or the govt, by saying

that it is making a policy decision can interpret the Constitution the way

it thinks will suit the policy decision. Tiok boh? So, what is bigger, a

govt policy or the Constitution?

 

My layman’s thinking, the Constitution is law, is sacred, cannot anyhow

suka suka interpret to one’s liking. No? The govt is above the Constitution

or the govt’s policy decision is bigger than the Constitution? Like that

can or not? Any big time learned one out there, can enlighten or not? Law

big or policy big?

 

‘Bo how seow boh kong’ or ‘limpeh kong’ so what you want to do? Singapore’s

lawyers’ thinking and interpretation of the law is world class, super first

class, unbeatable, unchallengable, at least in Singapore.

 

How many of you want to challenge Shanmugam’s explanation in Parliament? I

am sure no lawyer in Singapore would dare to challenge his interpretation

of the law. Case over. When Shanmugam, the Minister of Law, opens his mouth

to talk about Singapore’s law, ‘bao tiok’ one. Who knows better about the

law of Singapore if not the Minister of Law? Laymen cannot anyhow talk one

talk two because laymen dunno, but the lawyers will know and therefore

agree in silence.

 

Respect, respect.

 

PS. The whole truth and nothing but the truth is the advice in the letter

by AGC to the PM.

Spot the liar