Are you ready for 7 million people on tiny Singapore?
-
Just relax:
Hello, I was wondering why some PAP MPs are not favorable about the white paper but still vote for it. Only found that they can't vote against it. Not that I reject this white paper as I had already declared that I had self-interest. In general, not specified to this White paper policy, why can't a PAP MP vote against how the Govt intends to govern if they strongly feel that the Govt is heading to the wrong way?JannettLee:
Just realized that PAP MPs can't vote against his/her own party if the Whip is not lifted by PM!
Why would this be relevant? The White Paper is the Govt. position on the challenges faced by Singapore and how the Govt. intends to tackle it. How can a PAP MP vote against how the Govt intends to govern? That is not logical as then if that is the case then the MP has to resign from the PAP.
It will be very interesting if PM has lifted the Whip! Just wonder what will it turn out? -
sinoboy:
Just realized that to vote no just be absent. Perhaps the White Paper is not the position of all MPs. See the relevance?Just relax:
[quote=\"JannettLee\"]Just realized that PAP MPs can't vote against his/her own party if the Whip is not lifted by PM!
Why would this be relevant? The White Paper is the Govt. position on the challenges faced by Singapore and how the Govt. intends to tackle it. How can a PAP MP vote against how the Govt intends to govern? That is not logical as then if that is the case then the MP has to resign from the PAP.
[/quote] 
:evil:
-
sinoboy:
Just realized that to vote no just be absent. Perhaps the White Paper is not the position of all MPs. See the relevance?Just relax:
[quote=\"JannettLee\"]Just realized that PAP MPs can't vote against his/her own party if the Whip is not lifted by PM!
Why would this be relevant? The White Paper is the Govt. position on the challenges faced by Singapore and how the Govt. intends to tackle it. How can a PAP MP vote against how the Govt intends to govern? That is not logical as then if that is the case then the MP has to resign from the PAP.[/quote]Not turning up to vote means nothing to me if I do not know your views. The MP who did not vote may have had a doctor's appt, urgent surgery, urgent work etc. What am I supposed to make of the absence :? :scratchhead:
I hope Singaporeans are not so shallow to think like that :xedfingers: -
JannettLee:
Hello, I was wondering why some PAP MPs are not favorable about the white paper but still vote for it. Only found that they can't against it. Not that I reject this white paper as I had already declared that I had self-interest. In general, not specified to this White paper policy, why can't a PAP MP vote against how the Govt intends to govern if they strongly feel that the Govt is heading to the wrong way.[/quote]It is because Singapore has a Westminster type of government, where it is the collective responsibility of the party in power as to how it governs. You can disagree on a particular policy and if the Whip is lifted you can vote against a particular policy but where you have a vote on how to govern you cannot vote against such a collective position because that is why you are an MP in such a party. You agree with the collective position of your party of how your party is governing the country.Just relax:
[quote=\"JannettLee\"]Just realized that PAP MPs can't vote against his/her own party if the Whip is not lifted by PM!
Why would this be relevant? The White Paper is the Govt. position on the challenges faced by Singapore and how the Govt. intends to tackle it. How can a PAP MP vote against how the Govt intends to govern? That is not logical as then if that is the case then the MP has to resign from the PAP. -
JannettLee:
GST is an essential part of revenue generation for MANY governments in the world, including Scandinavian ones that we all seem to love so much.Benefits of good growth of GDP are not cascaded down to many Singaporean but everyone got hit by the high costs of living/inflation.
I believed GST is one of the main problem. Whoever is running a business in Singapore will know that 7% GST is added for every changing-hand and hence there are a few times (changing hands) of 7% GST are compounded and factored into the costs and they price their goods accordingly. Consumer would have to foot the bill. Though they can claim back the GST by not adding the GST into the price, but the administration of claiming GST has found to be very cumbersome and some has given up to claim back GST and some really don't know that they can claim back. Some middleman worried that they may not be able to claim back GST and still charge GST anyway (aiya, you know Asean!) and this GST has also created an opportunity for some businessman to take advantage to use GST as one factor to formulate their price and then transfer the burden to consumer. -
concern2:
There is nothing to celebrate. It is merely a statement of a view of the challenges that SG faces, and steps the gment wishes to take, dealt with in a honest manner, that's all.
You must be celebrating the passing of the White Paper. Sorry, won't be around to celebrate with you.
Is the protest still on? -
JannettLee:
Just realized that PAP MPs can't vote against his/her own party if the Whip is not lifted by PM!
You get voted in on a party ticket, so you jolly well vote on party lines. You think LLL would have succeeded in PE if she were not part of WP? -
3Boys:
The flip side is WP MPs also can't vote against his/her own party.....JannettLee:
Just realized that PAP MPs can't vote against his/her own party if the Whip is not lifted by PM!
You get voted in on a party ticket, so you jolly well vote on party lines. You think LLL would have succeeded in PE if she were not part of WP?
-
Just relax:
Traditional family structure is certainly not the only kind of family structure that existed. There are other kind of structures in different cultures in tribes an groups of people in history.I don't think the argument that only a traditional family structure is the only structure to produce well adjusted high functioning children is necessarily correct.
The non-traditional family structure has only recently taken root and is still small in number. There does not appear to have been any large scale study done of children raised by same sex couples or unwed couples to determine if children raised in such non-traditional structures are disadvantaged.
Nevertheless the instinctive gut reaction of traditionalists is that such non-traditional structures are damaging to the children when they see other families with a father and mother as a married couple.
I am not so sure that such a view of the child being damaged is necessarily true as the children of today are exposed peers and close friends who are from families with a single parent, or families with parents who have remarried and therefore one parent is a step-parent, (such families already are non-traditional).
So although it appears like a sound argument based on what has happened in the past that the traditional structure is the best to raise a child, it may not necessarily be the only structure.
As for sexual conservatism, it is just definition. I am not against man having sex with man, I against oral sex, I am not against recreational sex as long as they satisfy some criteria of creating harm to a third part. Am I still conservatism. I am open to other family structures that may work equally well as traditional family structure, so am I trying to tear down traditional family values? Do we need to penalise non-traditional family structure in the name of protecting traditonal family values? All examples that 3boys gave in fact says that they are not mutually exclusive. -
Just relax:
while I can understand the concept of the party whip, it makes a mockery of debate if the govt choose not to listen to dissenting views or even addressing them. The opposition MPs can disagree with the White Paper, the citizens can disagree with the white paper and argue till we're blue in the face, but if the govt choose not to listen, and cracks the whip, then what can we do ? what can the opposition MPs do ? .....nothing....what will be will be.....till the next election...
It is because Singapore has a Westminster type of government, where it is the collective responsibility of the party in power as to how it governs. You can disagree on a particular policy and if the Whip is lifted you can vote against a particular policy but where you have a vote on how to govern you cannot vote against such a collective position because that is why you are an MP in such a party. You agree with the collective position of your party of how your party is governing the country.
In the end, it is all a power play. The ruling party calls the shots, period. The debates, the Conversations are all \"soft touches\" to sweeten a policy that is already cast in stone.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better š
Register Login
Online Users
Statistics
Popular Topics
