Party Whip Not Lifted: DEBATE UNTIL SO MUCH FOR WHAT???

[Vulcann]

To think that our nation's fate is in the hands of 21 men & women in the cabinet is really chilling to the bone.

 

And in extreme cases, it is down to 11 folks determining what happens to you, me, our future & our children's future if there is also a democratic system of majority-wins during their cabinet meetings.

 

How did I ever come to this assumption?

 

With a 82-2 overwhelming majority in parliament, whatever decisions/bills these 21 people comes out with WILL BECOME LAW unless the party whip is lifted.

 

And even if the party whip is lifted, there is no guarantee that the ruling party MPs will vote with their own conscience if there is actually a group think thingy going on or they vote for these bills simply out of fear of antagonising their party colleagues or superiors.

 

So regardless of what the background i.e. humble or otherwise, the potential i.e. minister-cailbre or otherwise or their stated convictions i.e. wanting to listen more, willing to change or otherwise, the present slate of eager & earnest newbies together with the existing batch of MPs will LL have to vote along the party line if the whip is not lifted.

 

The idea of 9 NCMPs provided after the amendments to our constitution sounds great on paper. They can debate all they can but plays absolutely no part in deciding our nation's fate as they are only pseudo MPs & cannot vote at all.

 

We are all pragmatic people & know the present government, despite all the apparently misgivings about transparency, accountability & dominance, is still functioning properly.

 

Who can say, however, few GEs down the road, that their substance will still be the same?

 

And if we are still relying on a A-Team formula, what happens if the gov of the day turns rogue then?

 

Will it be so simple as to some say, just vote them out?

 

Who is to stop these jokers from enacting bills to entrench them in perpetual control of the country?

 

Will our future generations need to do what many of the Middle East folks are doing now to get things back in order?

 

So my message is the same as what the ruling party is urging you now:

 

THINK CAREFULLY BEFORE YOU CAST THAT PRECIOUS VOTE COME MAY 7...

 

Just my 2 cts...

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Twnll]

Does the party whip applies only to P8P or other parties as well?

[Vulcann]

Does the party whip applies only to P8P or other parties as well?

 

Each party will have their own party whip.

 

So theoretically speaking there are 3 whips in parliament now because the latter comprises 3 political parties only.

[Vulcann]

To summarize:

 

Oppo KPKB oso bo bian in parliament bec ruling party lang jway & sami bills hum pu lang long zhong vote yes oppo oso LL.

Edited April 25, 2011 by Vulcann

[Sirjimmy]

the PAPaya whip had previously been lifted for votes... twice to be exact...

Jus shows they how "confident" they are of their perfect policies, even to their own members...

Edited April 25, 2011 by Sirjimmy

[Windwaver]

Does the party whip applies only to P8P or other parties as well?

 

Singaporeans have always been told to be competitive and I'm see the good effects of competition on our current administration because of this GE already. Why people are always on their toes on every 5 years? I want it everyday of the year to make my tax money worth

 

So I guess more whips are better than 1

[Twnll]

Doesn't the party whip runs counter to the idea that our elected representative represents the interest of the electorate rather than to their own party? IF an MP of any party feels otherwise, but is bounded to the party whip then isn't that his vote for any bill is in the interest of the party and not the people?

[Vulcann]

Doesn't the party whip runs counter to the idea that our elected representative represents the interest of the electorate rather than to their own party? IF an MP of any party feels otherwise, but is bounded to the party whip then isn't that his vote for any bill is in the interest of the party and not the people?

 

This is exactly what many of the like-minded folks are worried sick about.

 

Even if the bill runs counter to their own beliefs, convictions or even outright detrimental to the common interests of the people, the MPs have to toe the party line & vote for it.

 

Not sure what are the consequences but I guess they will face disciplinary actions, be sacked or have to resign if they vote against any bill from their party.

 

A very good example is the IR setting up.

 

Our dear 老主席even shed some tears on tv recently because he was against it initially but had to go along because they supposedly bring more jobs and that the benefits outweigh the negative effects.

 

 

[Darryn]

In other countries it is a bit different.

 

Taking my own experience it would be quite typical for Parliament to look like this:

Party A - 53

Party B - 42

Independent - 5

 

So if there was not a "whip" system, the "ruliing" party would not be able to implement any policy.

 

 

However with an 82 - 2 majority, I don't understand the need for a "whip" - as essentially each session of Parliament is like a caucus meeting (a caucus meeeting is private, and you would vote by conscience, with the policy decided then becoming "official" policy)

[Acemundo]

In other countries it is a bit different.

 

Taking my own experience it would be quite typical for Parliament to look like this:

Party A - 53

Party B - 42

Independent - 5

 

So if there was not a "whip" system, the "ruliing" party would not be able to implement any policy.

 

 

However with an 82 - 2 majority, I don't understand the need for a "whip" - as essentially each session of Parliament is like a caucus meeting (a caucus meeeting is private, and you would vote by conscience, with the policy decided then becoming "official" policy)

 

agree. that's why i see their policy always more skewed towards making it easy for the party to govern rather than making it open to accepting good but different views/ideas.

[Nlatio]

If no whip... later some Mps gets too hot and start to NBCCB... li kong smi LJ.....

 

So must have the whip, just like skool discplinary master.... NBzz only... shoosh... onto the buttock....

[Vulcann]

the PAPaya whip had previously been lifted for votes... twice to be exact...

Jus shows they how "confident" they are of their perfect policies, even to their own members...

 

Lifted during the HOTAS debate right?

 

Another one can't remember Liao...

[Vulcann]

In other countries it is a bit different.

 

Taking my own experience it would be quite typical for Parliament to look like this:

Party A - 53

Party B - 42

Independent - 5

 

So if there was not a "whip" system, the "ruliing" party would not be able to implement any policy.

 

 

However with an 82 - 2 majority, I don't understand the need for a "whip" - as essentially each session of Parliament is like a caucus meeting (a caucus meeeting is private, and you would vote by conscience, with the policy decided then becoming "official" policy)

 

In NZ maybe yours is really a 2-party system so understandingly the whip can't be suka suka lifted because the nos. are quite closely stacked up.

 

Here with such an overwhelming bao jia majority these folks are still so paranoidal about it & dare not lift the whip even occasionally when there are controversial bills such as the setting up of the 2 IRs.

 

For the record I am dead set against the IRs but that just me.

 

Anyway, it's water under the bridge now so we just have to hope that someone is actively monitoring the adverse effects of gambling plus any spillovers from it & taking action to counter them.

 

Hope they mean it.

[Vulcann]

agree. that's why i see their policy always more skewed towards making it easy for the party to govern rather than making it open to accepting good but different views/ideas.

 

Kiasi, kiasu, reluctant to change, we are always right or you are always wrong, we know better, we are the only ones able to govern, etc...

 

With such characteristics exhibited by these elites, even with all 12 SMCs & one or two GRCs won by the oppo guys this coming GE, I fear that nothing much will change for the next 5 years but I believe if people open up their eyes to see what really is going on, then there is still hope.

 

If not this GE, maybe the next GE we can see the difference.

 

If not, the one after next.

 

I believe if we tried hard enough & the incumbents do not try to enact some funny rules to apparently obstruct free elections, then we still have a future....

 

[Darryn]

In NZ maybe yours is really a 2-party system so understandingly the whip can't be suka suka lifted because the nos. are quite closely stacked up.

 

Here with such an overwhelming bao jia majority these folks are still so paranoidal about it & dare not lift the whip even occasionally when there are controversial bills such as the setting up of the 2 IRs.

 

For the record I am dead set against the IRs but that just me.

 

Anyway, it's water under the bridge now so we just have to hope that someone is actively monitoring the adverse effects of gambling plus any spillovers from it & taking action to counter them.

 

Hope they mean it.

 

This is exactly my point. With such an overwhelmiing majority, I think EVERYTHING should be a conscience vote - what does it matter?

[Peqasus]

agree. that's why i see their policy always more skewed towards making it easy for the party to govern rather than making it open to accepting good but different views/ideas.

Assuming alternative views are for SG interest n not party interest. Else more time will be spent fixing alternative views.

[Acemundo]

Assuming alternative views are for SG interest n not party interest. Else more time will be spent fixing alternative views.

 

well it is not entirely just an assumption.

 

our argument now centered on the party whip for pap.

 

if some of the pap mp goes against the party whip, it must diff from what their top honcho thinks. it is easier for him to follow the top rather than disagre to it.

 

to disagree to it, definitely he must be seeing something the top don't see.

 

unless he is an incapable pap mp, why would seeing a different thing from their top man be views that extend the party interest?

[Twnll]

well it is not entirely just an assumption.

 

our argument now centered on the party whip for pap.

 

if some of the pap mp goes against the party whip, it must diff from what their top honcho thinks. it is easier for him to follow the top rather than disagre to it.

 

to disagree to it, definitely he must be seeing something the top don't see.

 

unless he is an incapable pap mp, why would seeing a different thing from their top man be views that extend the party interest?

 

 

In this case, even an MP sleeping also can bo chap and vote along party lines, then WTF?

 

I believe every MP irrespective of party affiliations must vote with their concience for their electorate and not for the party's interest. Otherwise I only see the same thing happening irresepctive who is voted into power.