| Originally Posted by bettersingapore (14-04-2011, 08:16 AM)  Preferential Treatment for PAP Wards? our PM was reported to have said that he firmly believes preferential treatment should be given to wards won by PAP. http://www.asiaone.com/News/AsiaOne%...13-273291.htmli am amazed he is still towing this line hasnt he learnt after all these years since JBJ won Anson and CST won Potong Pasir doesnt he know the electorate vehemently disagree with him? i am overseas now and asked a local if their President will ever say such a thing his reply... only when the President has gone mad by taking this stand, he further alienates PAP from the people i did not vote for him...but note I still say he is our PM i did not vote PAP... but note....I still say it is our govt is he and his ministers paid by all our taxes...including those who did not vote for PAP? i am sad such a seemingly intelligent man should talk like this |
No surprise that gangster school doesn't teach the concept of Separation of Powers ('Separation of powers' [wiki]) between the executive, the legislative and the Judiciary.
The whole problem with the Singapore Parliament is that the Executive (i.e. Ministers/ Civil servants) is the hierarchy running the show. The MPs are just puppets, coat-tail MPs deployed to have a good time and maybe become gangster Ministers too one day.
Even when the body of MPs enact laws (statute), the Minister simply ignores them and proceeds as he wishes in support of his partisan hegemonic objectives ('Town Council Act (CAP 329A) states clearly that Govt must work with Town Councils (run by MPs) to implement LUP' [TR, 29Oct2009][alt link]).
Even if it were claimed that "Civil servants under the constitution hold their allegiance to the president" ('Civil servants– no longer politically neutral?' [TOC, 27Feb2011]), it may be argued that the office of the President of Singapore is a weak, complicit and rubber stamping one, how else could the blatantly partisan appointments within the Peoples Association ('‘Adviser over MP’ raises many questions' [ST, 22Oct2009][alt link]) paved/ sponsored much of PAP's meddling in various civil service ministries have been conducted but for the tacit consent of our smiling president?
Indeed, 'Grassroots Organizations should stay non-partisan' [TR, 03Nov2009][alt site]: "Using the PA as a vehicle for PAP candidates as grounds to gain political capital so that they may fight their next battle with more goodwill, the governmental risks costing itself the position of Singapore as a Parliamentary Democracy; and put Singapore in par with communist states like Cuba, China and North Korea." Perhaps Singaporeans can look forward to Presidential elections to return integrity to the Singapore Civil Service, or perhaps such corruption is so entrenched in the Singapore political system that no Presidential election can eradicate such partisan meddling.
And then the hard truth of having set up a government on "par with communist states like Cuba, China and North Korea" sets in. Singapore is damaged, the future is bleak.
~ "The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.'"-- Matthew 25:40 (NIV)
End-notes/ references:
- 'Separation of powers' [wiki]: "The separation of powers is a model for the governance of a state. The model was first developed in ancient Greece and came into widespread use by the Roman Republic as part of the unmodified Constitution of the Roman Republic. Under this model, the state is divided into branches, each with separate and independent powers and areas of responsibility so that no one branch has more power than the other branches. The normal division of branches is into an executive, a legislature, and a judiciary. ..."
- 'Town Council Act (CAP 329A) states clearly that Govt must work with Town Councils (run by MPs) to implement LUP': "It is a joke that for some strange reasons or another, Mr Shanmugan’s ministerial colleague has refused to obey the Town Councils Act by choosing not to work with Hougang Town Council and even has the audacity to TWIST the facts by claiming that 'it is the role of the grassroots advisers to implement the LUP' through his press secretary when it was stated NOWHERE in the Town Councils Act that the LUP has to be carried out by the grassroots advisers! From beginning to end, there was no mention of the words 'Grassroots advisers', 'People Association' or 'PAP losing candidates' and so how did Mr Eric Low come into the picture at all? " [TR, 29Oct2009][alt link]
- 'Civil servants– no longer politically neutral?': "On the Public Service Division’s website, it says: 'The Civil Service works under a Code of Conduct based on the principles of incorruptibility, integrity and propriety... Civil servants under the constitution hold their allegiance to the president. The symbolism that is attached to that is we actually serve at the pleasure of a politically neutral institution. It is one of the values of the civil service that we are politically impartial.. What then should one make of Mr Lee’s involvement with the PAP, a political party, considering that he still is a civil servant with the Ministry of Law?.. The Public Service Division should explain to the public its stand on the matter so that there is clarity – and that the civil service is not and has not become a partisan political player." [TOC, 27Feb2011].
- '‘Adviser over MP’ raises many questions': "PAP MPs are appointed as advisers to the grassroots organisations in their wards by the People’s Association (PA). In the two opposition wards, the PA picked the PAP candidates who contested but lost in the wards in the last two polls as the grassroots advisers." [ST, 22Oct2009][alt link]
- 'Grassroots Organizations should stay non-partisan': "By appointing PAP candidates as grassroots advisers in Opposition held wards, the government is effectively bringing partisan politics into governmental institutions. Using the PA as a vehicle for PAP candidates as grounds to gain political capital so that they may fight their next battle with more goodwill, the governmental risks costing itself the position of Singapore as a Parliamentary Democracy; and put Singapore in par with communist states like Cuba, China and North Korea." [TR, 03Nov2009][alt site]
================
At/ related:
A1forum:
15Apr2011: Re: Preferential Treatment for PAP Wards?
No comments:
Post a Comment