Parliamentary debate is not schoolboy debate

How so? What is the difference between a parliamentary debate and a schoolboy debate. Let me figure. In the case of a school boy debate, the opposing teams will debate for or against an issue. And they stood by their positions. If they were to vote, both sides will vote accordingly. In a parliamentary debate, you can have opposing sides debating until their faces turned red or green. But when comes to voting, all can vote for one side. Then one starts wondering, why? There were two parties arguing and strongly believing in what they said. Then how come when they have to take sides, all took only one side? This is what parliamentary debate is all about. You just debate for the sake of debating, but they don't mean a thing. One can say no but vote yes. So I say, parliamentary debate is not schoolboy debate.

Let's be honest, its schoolboy debate

There were many clever arguments in Parliament yesterday in particular over the issue of NCMPs. The media lauded it as brilliant debate. I scratch my head and say, huh? Shanmugam told Sylvia Lim, Let's be honest, that the WP was afraid that their arguments in the election campaign could not last the scrutiny of a one day cooling period. I was waiting for Sylvia to say, Let's be honest, if the PAP could not convince the electorate after seven days of campaigning, one day of cooling would not help either. Let's be honest, for those who have made up their minds, one day of cooling period will not make any difference. And if it is really for people to think through carefully after what were said during the campaign, would one day be sufficient? Why not 3 days or 7 days? But I am going down to the level of schoolboy debate. And let's be honest, how many voters would really sit down and review what were said and take out a piece of paper to jot down the points before deciding who to vote for. Let's be honest, I do not see what is the dif with or without the one day cooling off period. No need clever arguments and going to Parliament over something that is so arbitrary. Let' be honest I can't find anything clever in the whole debate.

A remarkable comment

'...more Opposition voices might not improve the quality of Parliamentary debate.' With the standard of debate so high, not necessary really. I can agree with that. But I can't agree with the suggestion that the time given to NCMPs for debates be limited. What, NCMP cannot debate or not good enough to debate? How can a Parliamentary debate be meaningful if the NCMPs are not given the same time to debate with other MPs? Ok, NCMPs don't represent anyone so should not be given too much time. This sounds more reasonable. Let's give them enough time just to ask questions. That should be good enough. Aren't the purpose of NCMPs be that they be there to give an alternative voice? They can't vote and the only thing for them to do is to speak. Limiting their time to speak defeats the whole purpose of them being there. Wall flowers?

What problem is this?

‘This govt is truly hopeless. Not only has it squandered billions and billions on stupid schemes it has now allowed the property market to rise to unsustainable levels and create a disastrous lack of availability of homes. It has been aware of the DRAMATIC increase in overseas investment in residential property but wanted to shaft all those ignorant sheeple aka 'working families' even further. It's time to contact your local senator and demand they put an end to the rest of their mad plans. No more looking after foreigners before Australians. No more overseas property investors when Australians can not even purchase homes. No more large unskilled migration when Australians can not find work. No more supporting welfare shopping asylum seekers when Australian pensioners can barely afford food. ENOUGH IS ENOUGH.’ The above was reported in news.com.au. There is an uncanny similarity in what is happening in the Australian property scene and what is happening here. But the difference stops right there. The Australians are really facing a serious problem and they are very unhappy with the govt. On the contrary, we don’t really have any problem. If there is any problem, it is a happy one. The people are all laughing to the bank and inviting more foreigners to invest in our properties here. It is a win win situation. The foreigners speculate and make money from their property speculations. The Singaporeans are all happy that their properties are gaining in value. There are no losers. This is the big difference and the quality of the govt shows. We are so fortunate to have a good govt that could turn an otherwise bad situation into a happy one. Thumbs up to the govt, especially Mah Bow Tan, for making so many Singaporeans rich and happy, and to the property speculators too, both foreign and local. The Australians need to send a team of their govt officials to study how we did it.

It was fun and good for a laugh

Several PAP MPs spoke strongly against the principle behind NCMP and NMP. They ridiculed it as a backdoor entry to Parliament, elected by nobody, representing nobody and speaking for nobody. Basically they opposed the scheme. So did Low Thia Khiang and Sylvia Lim who opposed it for basically the same reasons. The inconsistency and contradictory stand of the opposition MPs were picked up by Kan Seng who questioned Low Thia Khiang on his inconsistent stand. Why opposing a scheme and still support it? Ya, how silly for people to oppose an issue on grounds of principle and support it still. Low Thia Khiang stood his ground and said he would resign if his party wants him to take up a NCMP position if he lost his election. And all the MPs had a good laugh. It was all fun, and wayang I supposed. Well at least Low Thai Khiang stood to his principle. This is something that is hard to come by. What about the NCMPs and NMPs who were lambasted for being backdoor entrants? The criticisms thrown at them were unkind and rude in many ways, lack of credibility and speaking for nobody except themselves. Did the NCMPs and NMPs stand up to defend their pathetic positions? Or did they allow the attacks to go on and accept that the criticisms were valid, that they don't really have any right or business to be there? Actually they were not the only ones to get in by the backdoor. Many got in in the same way and crowed like a cockerel that they were more equal than the NCMPs and NMPs. In reality they were there, by back door or front door, because of the system. It is the system that puts them there. And who voted for the system, the same cocks and hens who criticised the system. Is this also a joke or another wayang?