Prof Jayakumar reprimanded Sylvia Lim for conspiracy theory

Arapahoe SG

another brain dead singaporean. we keep loosing sight of what we lost we will loose it all the way.

anonymouscoward SG

It's time to make them loose their "so-call" heavy-weight. Honestly, I don't see any heavy weights in the current generation and if I get a chance to vote, I'm not going to vote in some young elite punks who sneak their way in through the sleeves of other ministers.

sir sickolot II SG

however u might feel and whichever perspective you subscribe to...

for the betterment of singaporeans and for those years that you might, probably, still be staying in Singapore...... urge you to never forget what has happened.

For when election comes.. the carrots are all too good to be true... and our judgement will once again be clouded.

Lest we forget.....

qlqq9 SG

Singaporeans, especially majority of the old people will be taken in and then cast their votes to them. Some of the folks don't look beyond the surface, heard a couple of them talking about the gahmen are so good to give them $$$$. I give up on them, really!

mancha SG

Parliamentary privileges should not be abused.
As a lawyer herself, she should know that.
Anyway she is safe from punishment, but don't forget Prof Jayakumar also can say what ever he likes, and that includes ticking off Slyvia.

The integrity of the judiciary should be protected.
Slyvia Lim as a lawyer, should know that.
As a lawyer and also as a person having the privilege of speaking in Parliament, she should know that what ever she wants to allege must be backed by evidence. Parliamentary privileges aside, she cannot just say that the executive will interfear with the judiciary, and leave it at that. Where is the support for the assertion?

By the way, if she has proof, she knows that she can bring it out in Parliament with immunity. If she is a coward, and fears reprisals, thats her own doing.

AndrewPKYap SG

Please answer this question that Silvia asked: "Why must the PM personally appoint two "gang members" of his choice if not to influence the judiciary?"

He thinks the PSC is incompetent? The thinks that the PSC appointees will not be impartial?

maurizio13 SG

Proof? Proof like these are equivalent to proving political alignment in subversive communist elements. If you think that she is able to provide proof such as these, then they should be able to prove subversive communist elements and repeal the Internal Security Act altogether.

Acts such as these form tacit collusion, though no money is exchanged, but the very act of appointing candidates to high position based on one's power, holds these very candidates beholden to the appointer.

Cowards are those that shroud the system to prevent more transparency.

mancha SG

Laughing

Slyvia Lim is not a layperson, she knows the protocol.

Slyvia Lim was admitted to Parliament on a technicality.

Fear? What can you do about someone elses fear.

PM chooses for the people. Remember he was voted in. How he is voted in? that's another issue. Most of this forum has been on this subject.

LazerLordz SG

She never said will, she said the chance remains.

robertteh SG

Problem is not with Sylvia who would probably want to comply with all necessary procedures like checking up on facts etc before she speaks but problem may be the ministers are not willing to let MPs speak freely reserving their half-conceived right of reply by throwing mud back at the MP whenever any criticisms are not to their liking.

Everyone will start respecting all procedures of parliaments when leaders like tghe ministers are willing to be accountable and answer to criticisms without treating the MPs as adversarial. There is a larger perspective and larger duty expected of our ministers as leaders which they probably up to now still do not understand.

Problem is that although MPs are elected or presumed elected due to no contest under the GRC gerrymandering, and are given the right to speak on any issues and problems brought up by citizens even if rightly or wrongly believed, ministers who have a higher duty to investigate and answer queries are not being accountable believing that they could find fault with MPs instead with their other half-conceived right which they really do not have in the larger perspective.

If ministers refuse to discharge the higher duty and respect such rights of MPs when speaking in parliament then the whole system will break down with parliament becoming a facade for ruling party to do whatever they like as the ministers could easily find a fault with MPs instead of conscientiously carrying out their higher duty to citizens and country as ministers.

Ministers could then easily avoid accountability by threatening MPs with such intimidations of holding commissions of inquiry whenever they cannot defend certain actions or unable to stand up to scrutiny.

Are ministers willing to make the first move by setting good example of themselves and showing willingness to uphold the whole parliamentary system including allowing MPs to speak freely with immunity without any such threats.

If our ministers want to build a more cosmopolitan and inclusive society, they ought to change their mindset by leading by examples. If ministers instead of following the decorum of parliamentary proceeding insists that they too have the equal right to sling mud at MPs then this is not what Ministers are employed for according to codes of conduct for ministers.

So the constant reliance on issuing threats and intimidation of MPs for many years even for speaking on issues of great public concern with commissions of inquiry when MPs are merely raising issues and feedbacks rightly or wrongly believed should stop.

Ministers are not perfect as seen in the ministers' salary benchmarking and NKF issues and should be made accountable going forward. Being not perfect they should not be allowed to exert such undue authority as if they are perfect.

They should listen intently to all areas of shortcomings and should lead the MPs being being accountable before they could ask MPs to comply with every parliamentary rules or conventions.

If ministers want to uphold law and order there must not be two sets of laws one for minister and another for MPs. The law and order advice to citizens will not be respected if ministers refuse or are unwilling to take a lead to show their own accountability to the whole parliamentary system in this light.

Ministers have been ignoring MPs' role to question and ask for accountability of the ministers in many matter.

That is why under our system we have many problems left unsolved like the NKF despite years of feedbacks because ministers could shut the whole issue by telling less, not telling or issuing threats to the MPs to hold commissions of inquiry.

AndrewPKYap SG

Cowards will always take the side of the rich and powerful instead of taking the sides of truth and justice.

That TT Durai won a few court cases before a thorough transparent exposure of all his dealings show clearly why these people demand proof while hiding behind opacity.

wisefool83 SG

Interestingly, why is the "rich and powerful" seen as the direct opposite of "truth and justice"? Why can't the rich and powerful also be the truth and justice? But I'm taking your words at face value and if the words are used metaphorically, then please ignore the post.

mancha SG

Sorry for this post, he made and amendment instead of contuning where he left off.

Sagara SG

x2

We are essentially paying them to follow and agree with the 'boss'.

With a potential million dollar paycheck, who would dare to risk incurring the wrath of the 'emperor' ?

AndrewPKYap SG

I meant, take the sides of they rich and powerful when the rich and powerful are against truth and justice.

AndrewPKYap SG

Nobody dares to answer this question right?

and I wonder if it is tied to the ongoing FEER suits... (BTW whats happening in that case?)

Calvin86 SG

Hi Mancha,

As robert teh had mentioned, you are proposing two sets of law for the parliament.

When a PAP MP threatens opposition, its alright because its protected in the parliament.

When an opposition speaks up, it is abusing privileges.

So who decides who is abusing privileges? PAP again?

I can repeat whatever you said and say jaya is abusing his privileges by threatening Silvia and Silvia is protected by the law to speak up in the parliament.

maurizio13 SG

Instead of voting with a conscience, they vote where the money lies.

If you have monkeys, then peanuts is one of the incentives to keep them happy.

maurizio13 SG

If "truth and justice" does not serve the "rich and powerful". There is no reason for them to pursue it.

mancha SG

This cuts both ways.
It is for the ruling party as well as the opposition to respect parliamentary procedures, so that the whole system do not break down.

Will we have nothing to say when our Parliament degenerate to those like in Nepal, where ministers smash the parliament seats in disgust, or like in Taiwan where fist fights are not uncommon?

Mr Chiam See Tong, took on tenaciously the then PM LKY, on the so called subsidised HDB homes, he wasn't intimidated.
Neither was JBJ, intimidated when he brought out this issue of executive interferance in the judiciary.
Further more, a Commission of Inquiry is not a weapon of intimidiation, it is a tool to ascertain the facts.
It is how Chee Soon Juan was exposed telling lies in Parliament, and indirectly, to the people.

The opposition should not expect to be treated like they are handicapped. They should not have this attitude: "We are weak, be kind to us."

Prof Jayakumar wants to put his agenda through, he wants to succeed. Of course.
Slyvia Lim should also want to succeed.

« Previous Page Next Page »