Recently a woman politician was demanded to apologize in....
-
it seems that our government are unable to accept criticism. they are like a small kid, must be pampered. How to improve like that?
I rather our government are like Taiwan's (although quite chaotic, but everyone can have a say). -
Singapore govt will become the butt of international jokes, from nanny upgraded to prudish nanny.
-
Singapore has the uncanny knack of missing the point.
Missing the wood for the trees, missing the target by a mile. Going off on a tangent.
Like trying to create artificial competition in a controlled and monopolized market.
Like trying to engineer creativity in a cooker pressure school environment
Like trying to invoke passion in an environment where expression stifled and throttled.
In this episode, assuming that NMP Dr. Ong used those words during the debate and was therefore made to apologize, each of us has to question himself / herself this:
Whether Parliament, being a setting where the ruling cabinet is held accountable to an assembly of people's representatives, should be a place for robust questioning or should it be a place where curtsies and polite language ranks higher in importance?
Like as they say in the army "donÂ’t be a gu(1) niang(1)"
If the paramount object of MPs sitting parliament is to display courtesy, I think all of us can do away with a parliament and do better with the surplus acting talent we have in after the Mediacorp merger.
We could set up a stage for good acting talents to display extremely good language and curtsies plus. That will do the job with less hassle, risk and unpleasantness and at a lot cheaper price too.
This does not cover the situation where NMP Ong made those remarks to herself in which event, need anybody raise their eyebrows? -
Substance of debates and objectivity should rank higher than propriety and decorum. In fact if propriety or decorum is extended to citizens in solving and not grossing over of problems there will be plentiful propriety and decorum extended to parliament, speakers, judges and the collective leadership. This is a 2-way process to be cultivated by MPs and the house speakers as a true spirit of parliament. May be he should explain this matter in the next sitting so as to give a more balanced view of the hushed remarks of Dr. Ong which should not be quickly a matter for censor.Originally posted by Chia Ti Lik:Singapore has the uncanny knack of missing the point.
Missing the wood for the trees, missing the target by a mile. Going off on a tangent.
Like trying to create artificial competition in a controlled and monopolized market.
Like trying to engineer creativity in a cooker pressure school environment
Like trying to invoke passion in an environment where expression stifled and throttled.
In this episode, assuming that NMP Dr. Ong used those words during the debate and was therefore made to apologize, each of us has to question himself / herself this:
Whether Parliament, being a setting where the ruling cabinet is held accountable to an assembly of people's representatives, should be a place for robust questioning or should it be a place where curtsies and polite language ranks higher in importance?
Like as they say in the army "donÂ’t be a gu(1) niang(1)"
-
Freedom of expression... how about suggest PM Lee to dance on the table top to celebrate budget surpluse, Mr Low karate chop on the wooden fence to express agitation, and we can all learn from Taiwan, get Ms Olsen to tear Ms Penny's hair or Mr Hawazi throwing paper planes with Mr Chiam...
Then the world will find our parliament more exciting than soap opera, and instead of drooling in day dreams, MPs'd be eye big big ready for more such sorts of freedom of expressions...
Maybe that's for parliament is for, for some funny people...
The thinking of Singaporeans... -
I think u are going to the extreme,no one here is suggesting what u have suggested above.....And besides,freedom of expression doesnt mean ministers have to do karate chop or any other monkey show,just more room for tolerance n freedom of speech in this case.Originally posted by Elfred:Freedom of expression... how about suggest PM Lee to dance on the table top to celebrate budget surpluse, Mr Low karate chop on the wooden fence to express agitation, and we can all learn from Taiwan, get Ms Olsen to tear Ms Penny's hair or Mr Hawazi throwing paper planes with Mr Chiam...
Then the world will find our parliament more exciting than soap opera, and instead of drooling in day dreams, MPs'd be eye big big ready for more such sorts of freedom of expressions...
Maybe that's for parliament is for, for some funny people...
The thinking of Singaporeans... -
i support Drawer's opinions.
-
Where freedom of expression is concern, it includes freedom of speech and gestures. I doubt this is more of freedom of speech than freedom of expression in your sense, Drawer.Originally posted by drawer:I think u are going to the extreme,no one here is suggesting what u have suggested above.....And besides,freedom of expression doesnt mean ministers have to do karate chop or any other monkey show,just more room for tolerance n freedom of speech in this case.
I was obviously teasing.
If freedom of speech whereby issues could be raised, Dr Ong is not denied that in this case.
Whereby when freedom of speech is the manner the speech is expressed, why should SM Goh stand and speak instead of not dancing on table-top with MM Lee.
Let's not just lump freedom of speech of issues and the freedom of speech of expression together. There's on infamous nick in YPforum known for 'kanninia'... I personally don't see how freedom of speech is respected here.
Nothing extremist. Just as I'd discuss with you, you claimed I extremist given your understanding, but should I say 'lin-lao-hia, Drawer what the shitz talking rubbish he doesn't know...'?
I don't really see how hard it's to understand what I am saying. -
Speaker's Corner.
The fact that we need a speaker's corner is fact enough something is amiss.
The second fact that we need to moderate speeches show yet another defect.
Defect at birth of nation is cause of pains and blames.
This state of affairs is unhealthy.
The least to do is sometimes to be natural and see what happen.
Image all these problems, there will be only more problems.
I believe we need more liberalization and openness.
With liberalization and openness, people will stop shooting off their mouths. Try it. It will work. -
ENSHRINING BASIC RIGHTS OF CITIZENS IN CONSTITUTION..
Solutions to problems under consideration found within the following few sacred words:
(1) One Man One Vote,
(2) Protection of citizen against wrongful prosecution.
(3) Basic rights of citizens spelt out and enshrined in constitution.
(4) Rule of law, fairness and equity, non-interferences with election or constitutional rights of citizens.
(5) Investigation of constitutional infringements by independent sub-court open to observers from UN agencies.
(6) Independent Investigation of reported conflict of interests
(7) Non prosecution of political opponents.