What is the role of a MP?

The role of an MP is about law making, about national issues and policies, about running the country, about serving the people. It is definitely not about running a Town Council. A Town Council, or whatever you choose to call it, must be a public service not different from other govt services. The people did not vote an MP to run Town Councils and be involved in the nitty gritty details that he has no time for more important matters like attending in Parliament. An MP can head a Town Council, to give it direction, to make sure it run well to serve the people. But the operations of the Town Council must be managed by a team of professionals, not a mix match team to be brought together after an election without continuity.

The MP can be there to ensure that the Town Council serves the people fairly and equally. He should be out of the administrative role, to take the Town Council to task if it does not serve the people and not be taken to task as an administrator of the Town Council. It would be very tough it the MP, a politician, may he be a lawyer, a doctor, a vet, a singer, a soldier, or whatever, be made to run a Town Council as his primary duty.

An MP’s primary duty is in the Parliament. If he cannot be in Parliament, he should not be a Member of Parliament. If he is absent from Parliament most of the time, if he his bogged down by the routine of running a Town Council, how can he serve effectively as a Member of Parliament? You don’t call an MP a Town Council Chairman or Manager, but a Member of Parliament. The people did not go to the polling station to elect a Town Council Manager. They went to the polls to elect their representatives to the Parliament.

The PAP has a different view on this. They want an MP to be first a Town Council Manager, to be able to run a Town Council, as a test to eventually run the country. I quote Boon Wan, ‘…the Town Councils Act has a wider strategic objective of testing parties aspiring to form the national government, by running a town council to first prove their competency.’ This is like telling everyone that he needs to get a degree as a test of his ability to be successful in life or to run the country as a national leader. Is this a logical argument and expectation?

WP said they are not going to form the govt. So can they be excuse from running a Town Council when there is no aspiration to be the govt? So are many independent candidates that would not even dream of running a govt as an individual. Chiam See Tong has wasted more than 20 years of his time running Town Council, an impediment that prevented him from devoting fully to law making when he cannot dream of forming the govt.

What is the primary duty of an MP? Running his clinic, running his law firm, running his business, be directors here and there, running Town Councils and neglecting his duties in Parliament or no time even to attend Parliament that sat for a few days a few times in a year?

What is happening? Running Town Council as a pre requisite to be an MP necessary? I can’t help it when my head keeps shaking. National leaders are not necessary the kind of people that are good at running town councils, running sports associations, running clan associations or trade unions, definitely not necessary to be a successful lawyer or doctor. National leaders are people that have a passion to want to serve the people, to give the people a better life, people with a vision and a political will to make the ministries work towards that goal. What they need is a clear vision, to see the bigger picture of country and people, not about running town councils or squabbling over petty issues. They should be looking at national issues, at problems that involved hundreds of millions or billions, not a few dollars. They must have the helicopter ability, the bird’s eye view of things and not be bogged down by the daily grind of administrative procedures of a town council. The heart must be in the right place, and a really big and good heart with a passion to serve the people.

What do you think? Should an MP be turned into an administrator instead of a law maker, instead of a Member of Parliament? If he is so busy with Town Council matters, with his own business, where got time to be in Parliament to tackle national issues and law making? It is a joke that after paying the MPs such a big sum of money they could not find time to attend Parliament sessions.

A politician/MP's role should be as a check and balance on the govt and all the govt agencies. A politician/MP should not be put in a position to be checkmate in an administrative role.

100 Serangoon residents signed petition against AHPETC

According to an article in TRE, a Chinese paper reported that a petition demanding the WP to explain the loss of funds by AHPETC was signed by 100 Serangoon residents. The matter must be real serious. The PWP only got a miserable 5,000 attendance at Hong Lim Park, the remisier’s petition to Tharman only had a pathetic 1,200 signatures, and my polls here even had more than 150 signatures.  They better approach Raymond and he could easily double the number of signatures with a few phone calls.

The article is receiving a lot of negative comments in TRE and they are all pointing their fingers in one direction and sneering at the 100 signatures in a GRC of more than 200,000 residents. They smell a rat immediately. The stink is spreading.

Actually they could easily get 10% of the 40% who voted against the WP to sign and that would be 8,000 signatures.  No need to be shy, walk the ground and get more signatures to prove a point, that the residents have turned against the WP and would vote the WP out in the next GE. Would they? Or have more voters starting to see the goodness of the WP and sympathise with their plight and starting to cross over to the WP camp?

This 100 signature petition is very meaningful. Read in between the lines and it will reveal many things that cannot be transparent, cannot see light, and no one would come clean on why there is such a petition and who is behind it, and many more things waiting to be revealed.

Online debate more balanced but political blogs more anti govt

This is the finding of the Institute of Policy Studies and appeared in the ST a couple of weeks ago. The IPS survey also assured the Govt that social media is not a Wild Wild West domain and discussions are quite balanced but political blogs are more anti Govt.

I would like to correct IPS on this, that political blogs are anti Govt. There is a world of difference between unhappy and critical of govt policies and being anti govt or more appropriately anti PAP. Just like the commentator ‘simple’ who called me pro China just because I wrote about the farce and hypocrisies of the West and Japan that he is probably more in tune with and agreeable. Exposing hypocrisies and telling the uncomfortable truth that happened to favour China is not necessary pro China. Speaking about the injustice against the Chinese civilization is not pro China but pro justice. If such a simple reasoning cannot be grasped then it is a waste of time trying to explain what it means.

There are many critics of govt policies. And this is not anti govt. There will be no or lesser criticisms of the govt if the policies are well received.  Citizens do not criticize the Govt as a past time, as a fad.  Is it wrong to speak up and disagree with govt policies that are seen as unreasonable or unacceptable or even foolish and against the people? Speaking up against bad policies is NOT anti govt. Hope IPS will be able to understand this subtle difference. Does IPS know what is the meaning of anti govt? Sure they know but the comment must have come about because of an obsession to see things in black and white.

Who would be hitting out against the Govt if the policies are good and well conceived and received? Neither is there a need to praise the Govt whenever good policies are made.  Only an insecure Govt needs to be praised daily. Unfortunately good policies are few and in between for a long time. You may disagree and feel otherwise. Anyway the Govt will be well rewarded when they made good policies by their self rewarding system that is one of a kind in the word. I don’t think there is any govt in the world that would reward themselves with 12 to 24 months of bonuses if they did well. A conflict of interest? Govts are expected to do well and their reward is to be reelected or be booted out if they failed.

Oops, I am criticizing another govt policy, so am I anti govt?

LKY in hospital since 5 Feb

In the news this evening, LKY has been hospitalised since 5 Feb for a severe bout of pneumonia. His condition has stabilised and doctors are monitoring his condition. He is supported by mechanical ventilation and remains in the ICU

Please do not speculate or make unnecessary comments on LKY's condition. Just take this as an important piece of news. During the CNY celebration let's be careful and discreet with what we say. It is always best to say good things about people during CNY than unpleasant things.

Spare the civil servants

Chee Hean reported that cases of abuse against civil servants are on the rise. Among the agencies affected are:

Agri-Food and Veterinary Authority (AVA), Central Provident Fund Board (CPFB), Housing and Development Board (HDB), Inland Revenue Authority (IRAS), Ministry of Manpower (MOM), Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF), National Environment Agency (NEA), Ministry of Health (MOH).

Why are civil servants becoming the target of public abuses? They are just carrying out their duties as officers of the ministries or govt? There could be many reasons, like people getting out of the bed from the wrong side, had a bad night’s sleep, losing money in gambling, losing their jobs, money no enough, and the list could go on and on. These reasons are not important. What is important is why the anger is being vented against civil servants.

There could always be the case of the individuals at fault, the abuser or the abused, a case of bad attitude. But to state that it is against civil servants, it meant something else. It implied that the abusers are angry with the govt and taking it out on the civil servants as an excuse.

Another major reason could be bad policies. When policies are bad, and hurt the people the wrong way, the people will be angry. But this does not lead to abuses unless it becomes a case of ‘beh tahan’.  When policies are badly thought out, contrived, when they got out of control and hitting the people badly, when the pain is unbearable, the docile and meek citizens would flare up as a last resort.

The other possibility is the politicisation of the civil service and civil servants. Are the civil servants carrying out their duties fairly and impartially or are they affected by political influence? This is difficult to determine as what is political or what is not is a matter of perception unless it is outright abuses. When the later, then anger will flow and the reaction of the people can be unpredictable, can be violent and can lead to lighting fire, causing bodily harm.

The civil servants must be spared from becoming the bogey man, becoming an excuse for abuses if it is not their fault. Spare the civil servants from getting into a compromising position, to compromise their integrity and objectivity. Remove whatever sources of conflict in their jobs and let them work objectively, fairly and honestly to serve the interest of the people and to serve the people, as civil servants.

Now, would there be a need to set up a committee to investigate this new development? Would the committee members be neutral people that could provide a neutral view and findings and a decent and workable solution to the problem? Spare the civil servants from being compromised or abused by all quarters. Let them carry out their jobs with dignity and respect that money cannot buy.