- Joined
- Oct 26, 2008
- Messages
- 5,208
- Points
- 63
About time more and more S'poreans stood up to them. Show the TAIWANESE Parliement we S'poreans HAVE LUMPARS.
<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr class="msghead"><td><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tbody><tr class="msghead"><td class="msgF" align="right" width="1%" nowrap="nowrap"> </td><td class="msgFname" width="68%" nowrap="nowrap">CPL (kojakbt22) <nobr>
</nobr> </td><td class="msgDate" align="right" width="30%" nowrap="nowrap">2:13 am </td></tr> <tr class="msghead"><td class="msgT" align="right" width="1%" height="20" nowrap="nowrap">To: </td><td class="msgTname" width="68%" nowrap="nowrap">ALL <nobr></nobr></td> <td class="msgNum" align="right" nowrap="nowrap"> (2 of 9) </td></tr></tbody></table></td></tr><tr><td rowspan="4" class="msgleft" width="1%"> </td><td class="wintiny" align="right" nowrap="nowrap">23345.2 in reply to 23345.1 </td></tr><tr><td height="8">
</td></tr> <tr><td class="msgtxt">In other words, the ruling party has the rights to overrule the will of the people and impose their own people in a constituency as well as give them certain executive responsibility. Which part of our constitution allows this?
Reply
SeenItAll
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Are PAP-appointed advisors in the opposition wards under the government's payroll? If they are only volunteers, how can they be held accountable to do a proper job? At least the elected MPs are accountable to their consitutents.
It would be better for town counciles to lead the upgrading programmes, e.g. LUP, as they are already responsible for the management of the common property of HDB estates and carrying out the minor improvement projects. This results in better coordination and avoids duplication of resources.
Furthermore, lift upgrading projects are not national progammes, but rather local improvement projects!
Reply
pappy
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Opposition mps are also answerable to the govt cos govt represents the people. Opposition mps are not answerable to the papa. Please get this straight, Mr Lim, you work for the people, not the papa.
Reply
luvmibizz
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
More of the same sludge to just pound in the singular idea that the PA is not partisan and has no independence of mind, and thus is just a mere passive instrument of the PAP government. Simply said, like it or not, the PA works for the PAP and not the people.
That is the legacy of Singapore's great mentor.
Reply
augustus_cesar
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
s. I note that Mr Lim has sidestepped my own comments about the disingenuous divide between the grassroots advisers, and a constituency Member of Parliament.
If the MP is responsible through his position and $160,000 salary paid for by the Government, why is he also not responsible for the LUP programmes. To declare he is not answerable to the Government is outrageous or insincere at best. I think Mr Lim has mistaken the difference between the Government and the People Action Party, blurring, as many have done previously the difference between the two.
I'd like to see which part of the constitution allows the Government to use the grassroots advisers for the benefit of the PAP. Are these advisers paid, like MPs, by the Government? Than on what contractual or employment relationship are they accountable? Mr Lim has not made this clear.
Should ,for example, the Opposition ever form the next Government, would the advisers then be answerable to them? It is time for the PAP-led Government to come clean over this issue as to whom the advisers and grassroots movement serve, a political party that is in power, or the Government, in a non-partisan way.
As a citizen, I feel the use and leverage of the grassroots movement created by one party to play politics under the guise of service to the people repugnant.
Reply
davelim8850
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“Opposition MPs cannot be appointed advisers, because they do not answer to the ruling party. They have no constitutional or legal obligation to carry out national programmes on the Government's behalf. Nor can the Government hold them to account if they perform this role unsatisfactorily.”
“Let me re-emphasise that the LUP is not a town council programme. It is a national programme which receives most of its funding from the Government.”
I am shocked that Mr Lim continues to imply that the government is PAP. This is the fundamental difference in why the PAP sees the situation so differently from the man on the street. The opposition and ruling party MPs make up the government. Apparently this is not what the PAP believes. PAP wants the citizen to think that the government is PAP. What we have is a PAP led government which has performed very well if I may add.
The suggestion that opposition MPs do not answer to the government is silly. The government of the day is determined by the people. If an opposition MP does not perform, he/she will fail to be part of the government in the future. Town council and upgrading is directly related. Its so silly for Mr Lim to suggest otherwise. Doesn’t the town council end up inheriting maintenance responsibility of the upgraded assets? The same people who voted for the MP and for LUP are the same. Who voted for the grassroots adviser?
I think Mr Lim is doing PAP a huge disfavor by making this suggestion. The discerning public wants to see a clear separation between government and political party. Yet what Mr Lim has done is a huge step backwards. This continued exchange will damage the PAP’s image. A clear opportunity to show magnanimity has been changed to make the ruling party look petty – all thanks to this Mr Lim.
Reply
Concerned_Citizen2009
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The oppositions has just won my vote not because they are good, but because the ruling party is getting too arrogant and unreasonable. This is not the government I want.
Reply
Unfairleh
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"They have no constitutional or legal obligation to carry out national programmes on the Government's behalf."
Clearly, the laws and constitution need to be changed.
"Nor can the Government hold them to account if they perform this role unsatisfactorily."
That's ok, the vote will see to that. No need for undue worry on that score.
The word 'disingenuous' has been used to describe the official response on this issue. A very appropriate word I must say.
Reply
NYJC4
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Opposition MPs cannot be appointed advisers, because they do not answer to the ruling party. They have no constitutional or legal obligation to carry out national programmes on the Government's behalf. Nor can the Government hold them to account if they perform this role unsatisfactorily."
Hi,
If I remember vividly, the last letter mentioned that the government don't play with words but carry out actions, then why this high ranking official still dwell on this issue?
I thought opposition MPs in fact don't answer to the ruling party but to the people and the government formed. Is there a misconception on his or her side? Once the opposition members are elected as MPs, why are they not given constitutional powers? If they are given constitutional rights, why can't they have legal obligation to carry out national programmes on the Government's b...[Message truncated]</td></tr> <tr><td colspan="2" class="msgVFM" align="center">View Full Message</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr class="msghead"><td><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tbody><tr class="msghead"><td class="msgF" align="right" width="1%" nowrap="nowrap"> </td><td class="msgFname" width="68%" nowrap="nowrap">CPL (kojakbt22) <nobr>
</td></tr> <tr><td class="msgtxt">In other words, the ruling party has the rights to overrule the will of the people and impose their own people in a constituency as well as give them certain executive responsibility. Which part of our constitution allows this?
Reply
SeenItAll
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Are PAP-appointed advisors in the opposition wards under the government's payroll? If they are only volunteers, how can they be held accountable to do a proper job? At least the elected MPs are accountable to their consitutents.
It would be better for town counciles to lead the upgrading programmes, e.g. LUP, as they are already responsible for the management of the common property of HDB estates and carrying out the minor improvement projects. This results in better coordination and avoids duplication of resources.
Furthermore, lift upgrading projects are not national progammes, but rather local improvement projects!
Reply
pappy
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Opposition mps are also answerable to the govt cos govt represents the people. Opposition mps are not answerable to the papa. Please get this straight, Mr Lim, you work for the people, not the papa.
Reply
luvmibizz
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
More of the same sludge to just pound in the singular idea that the PA is not partisan and has no independence of mind, and thus is just a mere passive instrument of the PAP government. Simply said, like it or not, the PA works for the PAP and not the people.
That is the legacy of Singapore's great mentor.
Reply
augustus_cesar
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
s. I note that Mr Lim has sidestepped my own comments about the disingenuous divide between the grassroots advisers, and a constituency Member of Parliament.
If the MP is responsible through his position and $160,000 salary paid for by the Government, why is he also not responsible for the LUP programmes. To declare he is not answerable to the Government is outrageous or insincere at best. I think Mr Lim has mistaken the difference between the Government and the People Action Party, blurring, as many have done previously the difference between the two.
I'd like to see which part of the constitution allows the Government to use the grassroots advisers for the benefit of the PAP. Are these advisers paid, like MPs, by the Government? Than on what contractual or employment relationship are they accountable? Mr Lim has not made this clear.
Should ,for example, the Opposition ever form the next Government, would the advisers then be answerable to them? It is time for the PAP-led Government to come clean over this issue as to whom the advisers and grassroots movement serve, a political party that is in power, or the Government, in a non-partisan way.
As a citizen, I feel the use and leverage of the grassroots movement created by one party to play politics under the guise of service to the people repugnant.
Reply
davelim8850
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“Opposition MPs cannot be appointed advisers, because they do not answer to the ruling party. They have no constitutional or legal obligation to carry out national programmes on the Government's behalf. Nor can the Government hold them to account if they perform this role unsatisfactorily.”
“Let me re-emphasise that the LUP is not a town council programme. It is a national programme which receives most of its funding from the Government.”
I am shocked that Mr Lim continues to imply that the government is PAP. This is the fundamental difference in why the PAP sees the situation so differently from the man on the street. The opposition and ruling party MPs make up the government. Apparently this is not what the PAP believes. PAP wants the citizen to think that the government is PAP. What we have is a PAP led government which has performed very well if I may add.
The suggestion that opposition MPs do not answer to the government is silly. The government of the day is determined by the people. If an opposition MP does not perform, he/she will fail to be part of the government in the future. Town council and upgrading is directly related. Its so silly for Mr Lim to suggest otherwise. Doesn’t the town council end up inheriting maintenance responsibility of the upgraded assets? The same people who voted for the MP and for LUP are the same. Who voted for the grassroots adviser?
I think Mr Lim is doing PAP a huge disfavor by making this suggestion. The discerning public wants to see a clear separation between government and political party. Yet what Mr Lim has done is a huge step backwards. This continued exchange will damage the PAP’s image. A clear opportunity to show magnanimity has been changed to make the ruling party look petty – all thanks to this Mr Lim.
Reply
Concerned_Citizen2009
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The oppositions has just won my vote not because they are good, but because the ruling party is getting too arrogant and unreasonable. This is not the government I want.
Reply
Unfairleh
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"They have no constitutional or legal obligation to carry out national programmes on the Government's behalf."
Clearly, the laws and constitution need to be changed.
"Nor can the Government hold them to account if they perform this role unsatisfactorily."
That's ok, the vote will see to that. No need for undue worry on that score.
The word 'disingenuous' has been used to describe the official response on this issue. A very appropriate word I must say.
Reply
NYJC4
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Opposition MPs cannot be appointed advisers, because they do not answer to the ruling party. They have no constitutional or legal obligation to carry out national programmes on the Government's behalf. Nor can the Government hold them to account if they perform this role unsatisfactorily."
Hi,
If I remember vividly, the last letter mentioned that the government don't play with words but carry out actions, then why this high ranking official still dwell on this issue?
I thought opposition MPs in fact don't answer to the ruling party but to the people and the government formed. Is there a misconception on his or her side? Once the opposition members are elected as MPs, why are they not given constitutional powers? If they are given constitutional rights, why can't they have legal obligation to carry out national programmes on the Government's b...[Message truncated]</td></tr> <tr><td colspan="2" class="msgVFM" align="center">View Full Message</td></tr></tbody></table>
