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.