What is the problem eatshitndie ?because @eatshitndie was not there for her.
-
IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here. The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.
Indranee to address Speaker Tan Chuan-Jin’s hot mic incident at next Parliament sitting
- Thread starter Hightech88
- Start date
OCS.
Knn ...
When some Khan created trouble, the whole parliament gang up and put WP leaders on trial, even go to court.
Now the speaker is in trouble.
Now you know why PAP is scared to go on live debate.
PAP MP earning good money and getting too comfy and lack self-restraint in their words and action. Praising the system sky-high.
I start to doubt the system of PAP brand meritocracy.
When some Khan created trouble, the whole parliament gang up and put WP leaders on trial, even go to court.
Now the speaker is in trouble.
Now you know why PAP is scared to go on live debate.
PAP MP earning good money and getting too comfy and lack self-restraint in their words and action. Praising the system sky-high.
I start to doubt the system of PAP brand meritocracy.
@eatshitndie 's expertise in comforting single women.
she’s sexperiencing deep thrust oops i mean trust issues.
https://politicalsophistry.wordpres...-week-for-parliament/comment-page-1/#comments
Point of order, Mr Speaker! An embarrassing week for Parliament
It has not been a very good week for the dignity of Parliament.
Speaker Tan Chuan-Jin had to apologise today (Jul 11) after footage of him using profanity to insult fellow MP Jamus Lim in Parliament was uncovered and circulated on social media. This follows a spat between Leader of the House Indranee Rajah and NCMP Leong Mun Wai just last week over the manner in which parliamentary proceedings were conducted and the neutrality of the Deputy Speaker, which resulted in Mr Leong having to apologise.
DIGNITY OF PARLIAMENT
Parliament is a sacred institution that sits at the apex of our political system. It represents all Singaporeans. Therefore, the conduct of parliamentarians must comport to the dignity of the institution. Responsibility for this falls squarely on the shoulders of the Speaker of Parliament, who is charged with presiding over parliamentary sittings and enforcing parliamentary rules, above all in a fair and impartial way.
Yet the failure of the Speaker to demonstrate basic civility to a Member of an opposing party suggests that he is unsuited to carrying out this important duty. This incident should not be brushed off as just another isolated lapse of judgement. Rather, it is part of a worrying pattern of behaviour, symptomatic of a culture of mean spiritedness that has permeated Parliament of late. This is a culture unworthy of the dignity to which Parliament aspires, and for which the Speaker, as presiding officer, bears ultimate responsibility.
Politicians are more than capable of holding their opponents to account. What is exponentially more difficult is holding themselves and their allies to the same high standards. Where politicians are unable or unwilling to do so, more independent oversight and greater transparency become necessary to preserve the dignity of Parliament and the credibility of our political system.
SORRY, OR SORRY HE GOT CAUGHT?
The profanity used by the Speaker at the centre of this deeply embarrassing episode does not bear repeating. Suffice to say, he referred to his colleague as a ‘(expletive) populist’, following a speech made by the latter about poverty.
This is not acceptable behaviour in any professional setting, much less in Parliament. But what is especially egregious is the fact that this incident took place on 17 April 2023, nearly 3 months ago. In his apology, the Speaker accepted that he ‘should not have expressed (his private thoughts) aloud or in unparliamentary language’. So clearly he knew what he did was wrong. Why then did he not immediately correct himself? Why did he wait until the clip was circulating online to apologise?
Perhaps he felt it was acceptable to make such comments so long as nobody hears them. He noted that these were ‘private thoughts’ which he had ‘muttered to (himself) and not to anyone’. Of course, there is nothing illegal about holding one’s political opponents in contempt, or to ascribe malicious or even dishonest motives to them in private. But is this the kind of attitude that should be held by the Speaker of Parliament, whose explicit duty it is to be impartial?
His private thoughts give us a rare glimpse into his attitude towards fellow Members, a factor that no doubt informs his behaviour. Given that leadership sets the culture of any organisation, one seriously wonders what kind of example the Speaker is setting for his Deputy Speakers and junior parliamentary officers behind closed doors, and what impact this has on parliamentary proceedings.
‘THAT’ VIDEO
The Speaker’s apology comes after another incident where the neutrality of the Deputy Speaker was called into question, this time in a video posted by the opposition Progress Singapore Party (PSP). It is not the intention of this article to relitigate that whole affair. Considering the PSP has itself apologised for the video, others can hardly be expected to defend it.
However, the incident is noteworthy because of Leader of the House Indranee Rajah’s response. Instead of engaging in good faith and considering the possibility that there is a substantive difference between a debate and the asking of clarifications (whatever the merits of that argument may be), she pivoted to attack the motivations of Mr Leong, alleging that the video ‘was intended to cast aspersions on the manner in which parliamentary proceedings were conducted, and to suggest that the Deputy Speaker was not carrying out his duties neutrally or fairly or in a proper manner.’ She did not pause to consider if there were genuine questions about the conduct of the Deputy Speaker, specifically how Mr Leong was the only one chided for referring to proceedings as a debate despite the fact that several other Members including the Prime Minister did so as well.
While the PSP clearly attempted to frame events to suit a particular narrative, given the lack of explicit falsehoods it is difficult to see how a fair minded person could conclude that the video rises to the level of a ‘perverted report’ as required by the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act.
A PATTERN OF MEAN SPIRITEDNESS
If this was an isolated occurrence, it would not be so concerning. But it is part of a pattern of personal attacks, partisanship and general mean spiritedness that has come to characterise Parliament. Examples include the now infamous ‘what is the point of the question?’ statement by then Minister for Trade and Industry Chan Chun Sing in response to a simple request for employment data, and the ‘he’s illiterate’ and ‘lousy school’ comments by Minister for Foreign Affairs Vivian Balakrishnan.
Such statements are not at all in the spirit of parliamentary democracy. Indeed, Standing Order 50(6), clearly states that ‘no Member shall impute improper motives to any other Member’, and Standing Order 50(4) states that ‘it shall be out of order to use offensive and insulting language about Members of Parliament’.
Even though these rules do not apply to so-called hot mic moments, the fact that some Members felt confident enough to make such statements within earshot of their colleagues, points to a cavalier attitude regarding treating others with respect, and a workplace culture where civility and good sportsmanship are subordinate to partisanship and political expediency.
CONCLUSION
It is hard to believe that those who have the privilege of holding high public office speak so crudely and recklessly behind closed doors. But even more worrying than the lack of judgement on display is the fact that the very individual charged with maintaining decorum is the one now responsible for breaching it.
This is why live streaming parliamentary proceedings was absolutely the right decision. It was only through greater transparency that serious cultural deficiencies could be exposed. Steps must now be taken to restore Parliament to its rightful state. At minimum, this means abolishing the ridiculous rule that allows the Speaker to retain his political affiliation (Mr Tan remains part of the ruling People’s Action Party’s Central Executive Committee) and perhaps even appointing an explicitly non-partisan Speaker as is currently the case with Nominated Members of Parliament (NMPs).
If it has not been made clear enough by now, Singaporean politicians are no different from politicians anywhere else in the world. Without proper independent oversight they simply do not have the necessary incentives to regulate their own behaviour.
------------
Point of order, Mr Speaker! An embarrassing week for Parliament
It has not been a very good week for the dignity of Parliament.
Speaker Tan Chuan-Jin had to apologise today (Jul 11) after footage of him using profanity to insult fellow MP Jamus Lim in Parliament was uncovered and circulated on social media. This follows a spat between Leader of the House Indranee Rajah and NCMP Leong Mun Wai just last week over the manner in which parliamentary proceedings were conducted and the neutrality of the Deputy Speaker, which resulted in Mr Leong having to apologise.
DIGNITY OF PARLIAMENT
Parliament is a sacred institution that sits at the apex of our political system. It represents all Singaporeans. Therefore, the conduct of parliamentarians must comport to the dignity of the institution. Responsibility for this falls squarely on the shoulders of the Speaker of Parliament, who is charged with presiding over parliamentary sittings and enforcing parliamentary rules, above all in a fair and impartial way.
Yet the failure of the Speaker to demonstrate basic civility to a Member of an opposing party suggests that he is unsuited to carrying out this important duty. This incident should not be brushed off as just another isolated lapse of judgement. Rather, it is part of a worrying pattern of behaviour, symptomatic of a culture of mean spiritedness that has permeated Parliament of late. This is a culture unworthy of the dignity to which Parliament aspires, and for which the Speaker, as presiding officer, bears ultimate responsibility.
Politicians are more than capable of holding their opponents to account. What is exponentially more difficult is holding themselves and their allies to the same high standards. Where politicians are unable or unwilling to do so, more independent oversight and greater transparency become necessary to preserve the dignity of Parliament and the credibility of our political system.
SORRY, OR SORRY HE GOT CAUGHT?
The profanity used by the Speaker at the centre of this deeply embarrassing episode does not bear repeating. Suffice to say, he referred to his colleague as a ‘(expletive) populist’, following a speech made by the latter about poverty.
This is not acceptable behaviour in any professional setting, much less in Parliament. But what is especially egregious is the fact that this incident took place on 17 April 2023, nearly 3 months ago. In his apology, the Speaker accepted that he ‘should not have expressed (his private thoughts) aloud or in unparliamentary language’. So clearly he knew what he did was wrong. Why then did he not immediately correct himself? Why did he wait until the clip was circulating online to apologise?
Perhaps he felt it was acceptable to make such comments so long as nobody hears them. He noted that these were ‘private thoughts’ which he had ‘muttered to (himself) and not to anyone’. Of course, there is nothing illegal about holding one’s political opponents in contempt, or to ascribe malicious or even dishonest motives to them in private. But is this the kind of attitude that should be held by the Speaker of Parliament, whose explicit duty it is to be impartial?
His private thoughts give us a rare glimpse into his attitude towards fellow Members, a factor that no doubt informs his behaviour. Given that leadership sets the culture of any organisation, one seriously wonders what kind of example the Speaker is setting for his Deputy Speakers and junior parliamentary officers behind closed doors, and what impact this has on parliamentary proceedings.
‘THAT’ VIDEO
The Speaker’s apology comes after another incident where the neutrality of the Deputy Speaker was called into question, this time in a video posted by the opposition Progress Singapore Party (PSP). It is not the intention of this article to relitigate that whole affair. Considering the PSP has itself apologised for the video, others can hardly be expected to defend it.
However, the incident is noteworthy because of Leader of the House Indranee Rajah’s response. Instead of engaging in good faith and considering the possibility that there is a substantive difference between a debate and the asking of clarifications (whatever the merits of that argument may be), she pivoted to attack the motivations of Mr Leong, alleging that the video ‘was intended to cast aspersions on the manner in which parliamentary proceedings were conducted, and to suggest that the Deputy Speaker was not carrying out his duties neutrally or fairly or in a proper manner.’ She did not pause to consider if there were genuine questions about the conduct of the Deputy Speaker, specifically how Mr Leong was the only one chided for referring to proceedings as a debate despite the fact that several other Members including the Prime Minister did so as well.
While the PSP clearly attempted to frame events to suit a particular narrative, given the lack of explicit falsehoods it is difficult to see how a fair minded person could conclude that the video rises to the level of a ‘perverted report’ as required by the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act.
A PATTERN OF MEAN SPIRITEDNESS
If this was an isolated occurrence, it would not be so concerning. But it is part of a pattern of personal attacks, partisanship and general mean spiritedness that has come to characterise Parliament. Examples include the now infamous ‘what is the point of the question?’ statement by then Minister for Trade and Industry Chan Chun Sing in response to a simple request for employment data, and the ‘he’s illiterate’ and ‘lousy school’ comments by Minister for Foreign Affairs Vivian Balakrishnan.
Such statements are not at all in the spirit of parliamentary democracy. Indeed, Standing Order 50(6), clearly states that ‘no Member shall impute improper motives to any other Member’, and Standing Order 50(4) states that ‘it shall be out of order to use offensive and insulting language about Members of Parliament’.
Even though these rules do not apply to so-called hot mic moments, the fact that some Members felt confident enough to make such statements within earshot of their colleagues, points to a cavalier attitude regarding treating others with respect, and a workplace culture where civility and good sportsmanship are subordinate to partisanship and political expediency.
CONCLUSION
It is hard to believe that those who have the privilege of holding high public office speak so crudely and recklessly behind closed doors. But even more worrying than the lack of judgement on display is the fact that the very individual charged with maintaining decorum is the one now responsible for breaching it.
This is why live streaming parliamentary proceedings was absolutely the right decision. It was only through greater transparency that serious cultural deficiencies could be exposed. Steps must now be taken to restore Parliament to its rightful state. At minimum, this means abolishing the ridiculous rule that allows the Speaker to retain his political affiliation (Mr Tan remains part of the ruling People’s Action Party’s Central Executive Committee) and perhaps even appointing an explicitly non-partisan Speaker as is currently the case with Nominated Members of Parliament (NMPs).
If it has not been made clear enough by now, Singaporean politicians are no different from politicians anywhere else in the world. Without proper independent oversight they simply do not have the necessary incentives to regulate their own behaviour.
------------
She will suffocate u with her tua liap nee.
Let's see whether Indranee will take these actions..
From ChatGPT:
From ChatGPT:
A siasuay week for Parliament ?
Let's see whether Indranee will take these actions..
From ChatGPT:
Frankly, I hope of the Leader of the House would NOT take any action. This will create "Parliamentary Precedent" that can be exploited by Leong Mun Wai in the future.
What a waste of time, energy and money dealing with such crap. Go to court and hash it out, not in the parliament.
Then every MP will jitao fark here fark there fark fark fark under hot mic, whole farking parliament become a zoo how?
Come here lagi siong.... everyone fuck and swear here.... no fuck and swear I worry...
Let's see whether Indranee will take these actions..
From ChatGPT:
...
if laidis, dat woman burger wil cum out n say ... oredi done option 1, honest mis take, letz mov on ...
Similar threads
