Boris Johnson, the Foreign Secretary, is the third minister to have
resigned from the Theresa May’s cabinet. The other two were Brexit
Secretary David Davis and junior Brexit minister Steve Baker.
Within the May govt there are pro Brexit and anti Brexit ministers and
MPs and they are standing up for and against Brexit on grounds of
principles and ideas. In this issue May could not use the Whip to whip
them into a corner to agree with her. This is British democracy where
the MPs and ministers could take positions based on their beliefs and
principles that may be against the majority of the govt or the PM.
Could such events happen in the Singapore govt? Would our ministers or
MPs have the guts to stick to their principles and beliefs or the
interests of their constituents to go against the majority of the govt
or the PM? Unlikely as the Whip here is very strong and cannot be
challenged. Any MP or minister thinking of going against the Whip to
make a point would likely be asked to leave. The best they could do is
to hide in the toilet.
Another big factor that is preventing MPs and ministers from going
against the govt or PM is the big salary/income at stake. How many would
sacrifice the millions just on the ground of principles, disagreement
or to fight for their constituents against policies and decisions that
were contrary?
Would the British ministers be so gung ho if their salaries/income were
in the millions to resign like Boris Johnson and his two peers? It seems
that the high salary of our ministers and MPs has become a stumbling
block for ministers and MPs to act independently, to act on their
conscience and the interests of their people. Or maybe not as they all
agreed with the party and PM. So they are all in it together, for the
party, for the PM.
So it is safe to say that they have been acting according to their
conscience and beliefs and principles and the interests of the people by
supporting every policy and decision of the govt and PM? Can this be
the case? They all believe that all the govt policies and decisions are
good and aligned to their principles and beliefs and so have no reason
to vote against them or to resign?
What do you think? Is there a conflict of interest between high salary
and principles and beliefs? Or they bo bian because of fear of the Whip?
Or is it the loss of million dollar income?
Aiyo, One PAP MP voiced against them and have to take cover either pretend to lao sai in toilet or absent himself from attending to cast his vote.
ReplyDeleteWhere got guts???
They are like employees with no mind of their own to dare go against their Boss.
For going against means have to Resign or in the Black Book.
Where to have this 16K just allowance. More than a Jr Uni Lecturer.???
Outside have to driver food on PANDA Service. If cannot find job.
Even if the ministers have integrity to want to disagree, their wives would block them as too much money is at stake.
ReplyDeleteToday PAP ministers will sacrifice principles rather than money. The last time the MIW live up to their principles resulted in a split and the Barisan Sosialis was born. Mr Dhanabalan quit because he did buy the crap that the 22 detainees under Operation Spectrum were Marxists. Back then these MIW were not paid millions. Money is the root of all evils. It explains why ministers become unscrupulous. Better remain a Dishonourable Son than a poor one.
ReplyDeleteThe whip is very powerful lar and not the high salary as the whip can crack your ass. Just ask the prinsoners that Kena whipped.
ReplyDeleteThe Whip is just an excuse. If it is true democracy, one man one vote, there should be not Whip. The Whip is not different from an Emperor's Decree.
ReplyDeleteThe reality is that human beings are social animals. They exist as a herd of buffaloes or a pack of wolves. And in any herd, there is a collective herd mentality - group think. So, in a political party, the members are "educated" to think as a group rather than as an individual. And coupled with the indoctrination during the two-year period of the National Service, they tend to become "Yes Sir" men.
In addition, the high instant millionaire salary and many other perks such as bonuses, directirships, business opportunities, scholarship for their children, etc., those Men-In-Ehite turned black inside. They sold their soul.
So, they behave like zombies and robots. What is ethics, morals and CONSCIENCE to zombies and robots? Never heard of!
ReplyDeletehi 955am
good morning sir
imo, I think is the $M,0oo,0oo.00!
hahaha,,,,,,,,,,,
"What do you think? Is there a conflict of interest between high salary and principles and beliefs? Or they bo bian because of fear of the Whip? Or is it the loss of million dollar income?"
ReplyDeleteAdd one more because of the fear of losing the citizenship and then their job for those who come to the borrowed land, they are also bo bian need to support their borrowed land master.
Kena whip later go home eat whip cream? Never voice out is strawberry? Woo hoo. We got strawberry whip cream values in Singapore?
ReplyDeletePeople say serve army because we enjoy Singapore what benefit, this benefit, that benefit? What term is it call? If it is so, serve army for around $20 a day for 2 years or more, than we will get minimum wage of $5000 forever till die? So why so many benefit, that 2 years or more in army, cannot pay more? And cannot moon light? So money get from where? Be strawberry and take from parents?
And does all army camp have washing machine? So that the items bring home is clean and not other way round? Why must my family members smell my dirty clothes? It not even war time. What have PAP or LKY done? All the life I have, is because I work hard, no one owe me a living. Even if I want to thank, also thanks British, America or Dutch?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Winsemius
So go voting for what? Those party feed me? I capable, go overseas, the Singapore Overseas Unit still come find me and spend money in the overseas country? I think the overseas country will love me.
My problem still not solve leh. Which party want to sponsor me money sue government all the way? How about Lee family because there is LKY Iron Fist? Which party sponsor 6 smoke bomb Dom Lee mother sue all the way? Or LKY Iron Fist sack 6 smoke bomb? Strawberry Whip Cream?
Bananas only think angmoh good because angmoh tua kee, gave them jobs and food on the table. They cannot remember angmoh robbed and looted their parents' motherland, made them so poor that they had to run here to be fed by the angmohs with crumbs.
ReplyDeleteThey did not know why India, China and other Asian countries became so poor and angmoh became so rich. Like that how, angmoh very good.
Many years ago, sinkies were like aussies, lived in landed houses and drove cars. Then came the papies and spinned that sg land not enough. Put people in tiny flats and only rich can have cars.
ReplyDeleteThen papies spinned some more that foreigners will bring good jobs for sinkies and let many foreigners in even if sg land not enough.
Then they spinned some more that the people must cut their spending and there will be “increasing unemployment, stagnating wages, astronomical costs of living” NDP2018 although people were told foreigners will bring good jobs for sinkies.
But people still believe papies. Maybe they cannot think critically anymore.
The question is: Is Singapore really a democracy? Democracy should not follow the whip!
ReplyDeleteDemocracy in name, no one can argue about that, but looking deeper it is no better than a country of one party rule, crafted over many years to come to this stage, so much so that no one is able put a handle as to why it has not been called a dictatorship or at best an autocracy, in the mould of China or N Korea.
Compare democracy in Taiwan or South Korea. Compare even Hong Kong's one country two systems under China's communist undemocratic rule.
Singapore was declared as a
ReplyDeleteThe Socialist Republic of Singapore initially in 1965.
As kids in school, we were each issued a little red book that contained the National Anthem, the Pledge and a few other things. On the cover of the little red book was printed clearly: "Socialist Republic of Singapore".
That was the very first issue of the little red book. For subsequent issues of the little red book the word "Socialist" was magically missing from its cover.
That means from the onset, Singapore leaders had intented to run independent Singapore as a Socialist State (along China's model).
Somehow, due to fear of antagonizing Western Powers, the British "Parliamentary Democracy" was adopted because of the WHIP, that forced Total Obedience into the party cadres and MPs of same Political Party.
Therefore, today you find that Singapore's System is a hybrid of a mixture of Parliamentary Democracy, Socialism, Communism, Capitalism and Legalism - all curved out by one man (LKY). In short you can call it LEEGALISM!
@ RB
ReplyDeleteThings would probably not be so bad (PM May is terribly inept) if bloody Boris accepted the prime ministership post-Brexit. Boris is not the typical politician-type. He is actually a "doer". When he was Mayor of London, that place was pumping like a precision machine. And he doesn't need the job lah. Plus he's a solidly principled chap.
WRT the PAP...the question is will some of the ministers/ MPs stick up for their principles instead of towing the party line? Tough question. Usually in the party room, members agree not to go against party policy.
>> This is British democracy where the MPs and ministers could take positions based on their beliefs and principles that may be against the majority of the govt or the PM. <<
The British conservative, American republican and Australian liberal parties are predominantly right-wing, conservative, which occasionally lean libertarian. In other words, their core values are based on the sovereignty and autonomy of The Individual, which means each person is guided by their own conscience, not the "collective" will of the party. These "individualistic" politics tend to also hold suspicion to authority, as often mentioned in their political doctrines.
The more left-leaning, social democrat types are all COLLECTIVIST. That means the individual is bound by the consensus of the majority...what the group decides is not to be dissented against. Members must support. Authority of the party and the hierarchy will not be challenged.
PAP is definitely COLLECTIVIST. Actually they are the most powerful legal organised racketeers in the land, and they stick together. (pakat)
However, in every collectivist "commune", even in the most extreme "communist" group, there are bound to be INDIVIDUALS who will step up if they disagree strongly enough.
So yeah, I reckon there will be PAP members who will discard their nice salaries because they are strongly principled and opposed to certain policies. Of course it is impossible to tell who they are and what might cause them to rebel and resign...but suffice it to say, just by probability alone, there will be the odd one now and then.
The ones who would likely stand up to voice his conscience would likely be one whose stake in the PAP's Money-Making Self-Enriching Machine is negligible and he could have already amassed his wealth before joining the PAP.
ReplyDeleteBasically, as have been repeatedly implied by LKY, when he was alive, ULTRUISM IS DEAD in this modern materialistic dog-eat-dog world.
The papies ministers will not resign because if they resigne, they are not in a position to outsource lucrative gov contracts to their mates and indirectly offshore bank accounts.
ReplyDeleteThey do not resign, unless they committed serious offences like Teh Cheang Wan and Wee Toon Boon.
ReplyDeleteThey stayed on for a minimum tenure to qualify for the pensions too. Or wait to be appointed Directors of Government linked entities.
That is the usual route of PAP horses laid to pasture.
They will not resign. Nor will they commit suicide, as revered Goh Keng Swee is no longer around.
ReplyDelete