Parliament
WHAT IF (WORKERS' PARTY LEADER LOW THIA KHIANG) VS WHAT WORKS (PAP MP INDRANEE RAJAH)
Of snakes & rats and one-legged ducks
By Ng Tze Yong
May 28, 2009
TNP ILLUSTRATION: SIMON ANG
HIS was an impassioned, if animal-inspired, speech about political freedom.
Hers was a lawyerly, scholarly response, with touches of sarcasm.
In Parliament on Monday, Workers' Party leader Low Thia Khiang paid the PAP a back-handed compliment, saying it was 'not a nest of snakes and rats'.
But later in the same speech, he compared Singapore's democracy to a 'one-legged duck'.
Rebutting him yesterday, Tanjong Pagar GRC and PAP MP Indranee Rajah called Mr Low's references as impolite, and made jibes at his animal metaphors.
In a speech powered by razor-sharp logic, MsRajah, a lawyer by training, could nonetheless barely hide her sarcasm.
'He (Mr Low) noted that some believe the ruling party will be able to check itself and it was 'not a nest of snakes and rats' - not very polite - and even if it were to break up, the remaining half could still run the country...' she said.
'He also called Singapore democracy a 'one-legged duck' - more animals.'
Here is the Low versus Rajah - 'what if' versus 'what works' - in a nutshell, though with more MPs set to weigh in before Parliament ends later this week, we can expect answers to the third question: What next?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MR LOW: The PAP is not 'a nest of snakes and rats', so it may be able to check itself. Even if it breaks up, the remaining half can still run the country.
But it is only an elected opposition that can provide effective checks and balances.
This is because the PAP dominates the House, can amend the Constitution freely.
MR LOW: What if, one day, the PAP were to abuse its powers, trample on people's rights or become corrupt? What can the people do then?
MR LOW: Singapore's political system has yet to undergo the real test.
Can it survive the kind of political crises which Indonesia and the Philippines went through?
With few Singaporeans willing to join the opposition, Singapore's democracy resembles a 'one-legged duck'.
MR LOW: How can the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB) play an effective role, if it is under the purview of the Prime Minister's Office (PMO)?
MR LOW: Losing opposition candidates can still be appointed Non-Constituency MPs but this is not enough, as the role of the opposition is 'not merely to reflect views and feelings of its people'.
The PAP's argument that it is not responsible for helping the opposition grow smacks of a 'winner takes all, loser is a bandit' mindset.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MS RAJAH: This is not just a simplistic view; it is an incorrect one. How do you explain the many countries which have a strong opposition, but which struggle with corruption too?
By Mr Low's logic, the S'pore Government, made up mostly of MPs from a single party, should then be the most corrupt. That's not true.
Since there are only two elected opposition politicians, the fact that there is a honest Government cannot be attributed to the opposition. It has to come from somewhere else - the value system and the high degree of accountability it has set for itself.
MS RAJAH: If that day comes, the people are at liberty to vote out the PAP - and they should do so.
What Mr Low is saying is this: Singaporeans should vote for the opposition, just in case the PAP becomes corrupt.
But by the same token, we can say that just in case the opposition becomes corrupt one day, we should vote PAP now.
The argument doesn't make sense.
Mr Low seems to be suggesting that people should vote on the basis of speculation.
But it is track records, not speculation, that counts.
MS RAJAH: The democracy which Singapore has today is what Singaporeans have voted for and what they have helped to shape.
Leaving aside the fact that it is impolite to call the choice of Singaporeans a 'one-legged duck', Singaporeans should be given more credit than what Mr Low has suggested.
Singaporeans know what they vote for. If they disapprove of something, they will have no hesitation of showing their disapproval, as in the NKF and Aware sagas.
MS RAJAH: The very reason why the CPIB was put under the PMO is so it can be effective.
Unlike other agencies, it doesn't have to go through any ministries; the CPIB goes straight to the top.
This enables it to carry out its duties without fear or favour.
MS RAJAH: If the opposition wishes to have a geographic constituency, they must work for it and earn it. It must take responsibility for its own growth.
Ultimately, the opposition seems to be saying: The PAP is doing a very good job, there's not much the opposition has to do at the moment, but join us anyway, because just in case the PAP becomes corrupt, you can be a member of the second team.
But why would we encourage people to join a stand-by team instead of being in the first team?
Do we have so much talent that we can afford to do that?
It truly does not make sense.
WHAT IF (WORKERS' PARTY LEADER LOW THIA KHIANG) VS WHAT WORKS (PAP MP INDRANEE RAJAH)
Of snakes & rats and one-legged ducks
By Ng Tze Yong
May 28, 2009
TNP ILLUSTRATION: SIMON ANG
HIS was an impassioned, if animal-inspired, speech about political freedom.
Hers was a lawyerly, scholarly response, with touches of sarcasm.
In Parliament on Monday, Workers' Party leader Low Thia Khiang paid the PAP a back-handed compliment, saying it was 'not a nest of snakes and rats'.
But later in the same speech, he compared Singapore's democracy to a 'one-legged duck'.
Rebutting him yesterday, Tanjong Pagar GRC and PAP MP Indranee Rajah called Mr Low's references as impolite, and made jibes at his animal metaphors.
In a speech powered by razor-sharp logic, MsRajah, a lawyer by training, could nonetheless barely hide her sarcasm.
'He (Mr Low) noted that some believe the ruling party will be able to check itself and it was 'not a nest of snakes and rats' - not very polite - and even if it were to break up, the remaining half could still run the country...' she said.
'He also called Singapore democracy a 'one-legged duck' - more animals.'
Here is the Low versus Rajah - 'what if' versus 'what works' - in a nutshell, though with more MPs set to weigh in before Parliament ends later this week, we can expect answers to the third question: What next?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MR LOW: The PAP is not 'a nest of snakes and rats', so it may be able to check itself. Even if it breaks up, the remaining half can still run the country.
But it is only an elected opposition that can provide effective checks and balances.
This is because the PAP dominates the House, can amend the Constitution freely.
MR LOW: What if, one day, the PAP were to abuse its powers, trample on people's rights or become corrupt? What can the people do then?
MR LOW: Singapore's political system has yet to undergo the real test.
Can it survive the kind of political crises which Indonesia and the Philippines went through?
With few Singaporeans willing to join the opposition, Singapore's democracy resembles a 'one-legged duck'.
MR LOW: How can the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB) play an effective role, if it is under the purview of the Prime Minister's Office (PMO)?
MR LOW: Losing opposition candidates can still be appointed Non-Constituency MPs but this is not enough, as the role of the opposition is 'not merely to reflect views and feelings of its people'.
The PAP's argument that it is not responsible for helping the opposition grow smacks of a 'winner takes all, loser is a bandit' mindset.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MS RAJAH: This is not just a simplistic view; it is an incorrect one. How do you explain the many countries which have a strong opposition, but which struggle with corruption too?
By Mr Low's logic, the S'pore Government, made up mostly of MPs from a single party, should then be the most corrupt. That's not true.
Since there are only two elected opposition politicians, the fact that there is a honest Government cannot be attributed to the opposition. It has to come from somewhere else - the value system and the high degree of accountability it has set for itself.
MS RAJAH: If that day comes, the people are at liberty to vote out the PAP - and they should do so.
What Mr Low is saying is this: Singaporeans should vote for the opposition, just in case the PAP becomes corrupt.
But by the same token, we can say that just in case the opposition becomes corrupt one day, we should vote PAP now.
The argument doesn't make sense.
Mr Low seems to be suggesting that people should vote on the basis of speculation.
But it is track records, not speculation, that counts.
MS RAJAH: The democracy which Singapore has today is what Singaporeans have voted for and what they have helped to shape.
Leaving aside the fact that it is impolite to call the choice of Singaporeans a 'one-legged duck', Singaporeans should be given more credit than what Mr Low has suggested.
Singaporeans know what they vote for. If they disapprove of something, they will have no hesitation of showing their disapproval, as in the NKF and Aware sagas.
MS RAJAH: The very reason why the CPIB was put under the PMO is so it can be effective.
Unlike other agencies, it doesn't have to go through any ministries; the CPIB goes straight to the top.
This enables it to carry out its duties without fear or favour.
MS RAJAH: If the opposition wishes to have a geographic constituency, they must work for it and earn it. It must take responsibility for its own growth.
Ultimately, the opposition seems to be saying: The PAP is doing a very good job, there's not much the opposition has to do at the moment, but join us anyway, because just in case the PAP becomes corrupt, you can be a member of the second team.
But why would we encourage people to join a stand-by team instead of being in the first team?
Do we have so much talent that we can afford to do that?
It truly does not make sense.
