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