Why WP MPs are not First World parlimentarians

In Political governance on 23/11/2012 at 6:45 am

Last week, two WP MPs, Sylvia Lim and PritamS made impassionate pleas against the amendments the govt was proposing to the law on the mandatory death penalty for drug trafficking. They said the amendments were wrong morally wrong and not logical and did not do justice. So I was surprised when I read that they voted for the bill. Stupid me because this isn’t the first time that the WP has “wayanged”.: grandstanding against the govt but then quietly supporting the govt, when the spot lights have moved on.

DPM Teo told us in the Hougang by-election campaign that the WP had voted in favour of the Budget earlier this year. I had assumed because of the criticism that the MPs had been making, that they had voted against it or abstained.

(And I will be not surprised if I learn that GG had voted in favour of the ministerial salary changes, despite criticising the changes).

They have promised to be First World Parliamentarians. But they don’t even behave like honourable men and ladies. And in the UK and US, when the Opposition voices unhappiness with govt bills, its legislators vote against the bills, not for them. At worse, they abstain.

The WP Mps are like PAP MPs who speak out against policies and then vote for the measures they juz spoke against. They do so because party discipline (the whip) requires that of them. Netizens and others sneer at this behaviour but are accepting of the WP MPs’ behaviour.

Given this hypocrisy by WP MPs, no wonder the party forgave Stag Yaw when he admitted after the 2006 election that despite standing against PM in AMK GRC, he voted for the PAP. He was later anointed by Low to be his proxy in Hougang. It’s in the WP’s genes to talk bad about the govt, but then support it. Remember Show Mao’s analogy of the WP wanting to like an adviser to the emperor? Well to stretch the analogy, the official would publicly criticise the emperor for an action, and then privately assure the emperor that the emperor was right.

A member of the Communist-dominated parliament in Vietnam has in a rare show of dissent told PM Nguyen Tan Dung that he should resign for his mistakes in handling the economy, it was reported last week. Bet you a WP MP will never ever ask the PM to do this. Remember Low refused when challenged by the PM to say that Wong Kan Seng should resign when a Muslim “terrorist” escaped.

But what do you expect when a party ignores its Manifesto twice:

— on the nationalisation of public transport: and

— on what to peg ministers’ salaries to.

The “W” in WP stands for “Wankers”, “Worthless” or “Wayang”: anything but “Workers'”

Sorry JJ, if there is no change in this behaviour, next time I won’t vote WP, even though I voted WP all my life, and even though I think you are doing a good job in parliament, questioning the govt’s education policies. And if Charles Chong, is still my MP, I’ll make sure I’m not in S’pore on election day. (Charles Chong is worse than VivianB when it comes to sneering at the needy, even though he ain’t as rich and high-class as VivianB.) Join the SDP, JJ.

I gave the WP MPs in the last parliament a lot of slack because Low’s strength is not being a parliamentary speaker or debater. He is a backroom fixer and organiser. And Auntie was new. And there were only two of them. Hey but now there are 6 MPs and two NCMPs. And the PM is moving in the right direction, even if the PAP has yet to shed its old ways. But the WP MPs are juz taking the money, and looking after their own interests so that they get re-elected.

  1. I agree with your assessment. WP needs to step up or they will lose support from the 40%.

    In the 2004 U.S. presidential election campaign. John Kerry tried to explain his vote for an $87 billion supplemental appropriation for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan by telling the crowd, “I actually did vote for the $87 billion, before I voted against it.” That pretty much did him in.

  2. […] – Thoughts of a Cynical Investor: Why WP MPs are not First World parlimentarians […]

  3. Still will vote for them over the alternative.

  4. I thought about what the opinions of this article and I disagree with its content.

    WP is playing ‘small target’ politics. Oppose a bill and the government will use its overwhelming parliamentary and media strength to squash WP. Agree to a bill despite its contentious issue neutralises it. The Australian Labor Party used this strategy to great effect in its 2007 national elections, finally winning government after 11 years in the opposition wilderness.

    Also, this strategy is targetted at the non-political aligned citizens. WP’s strength is in its grassroots activities, winning the votes of the middle, politically disengaged ground. I believe WP will be more active in challenging the PAP in parliament when they are larger; already they are speaking out more often in parliament than when it was just LTK and SL.

    • Don’t object voting on things they agree with. I object to objecting in public and then in the privacy of lobby voting in favour of things they object against. At least abstain leh.

    • You cannot compare a party that has never been in govt power before, with one that has already had experience as a govt (ALP). ALP’s strategy worked because they had already had the foundation and backing, the trust and loyalty, so a lot of people could see past the duality of their actions. For a political party with no such foundation, the duality will be first and foremost seen as just saving your own skin for another day. If WP has no intention of forming the SG govt one day, then what is the point of saving your skin? Or is that statement also double talk?

  5. Here Wussy Wussy… Party…. ~ let me reconsider my vote in 2016.

  6. […] – Thoughts of a Cynical Investor: Why WP MPs are not First World parlimentarians […]

  7. I found an interesting comment online in response to your article: “Nowhere did Pritam and Sylvia Lim say the amendments were morally wrong. In fact no part of their speeches used the word “moral” or “not logical” as this writer falsely claims.”

  8. “Go read the parly speeches and decide who is right.”

    I did. Indeed I can’t find the words “moral” or “logical” or “justice”, as much as I want to support you (because I agree WP can speak up more). They started out by saying that the amendments were a step in the right direction. While I agree WP can speak up more, I cannot support you if you had your facts wrong.

    • Why you so literal minded? I was summarising what they said. LOL.Are you saying I can’t do this? Now go read it again with what I said in mind.

      • This has nothing to do with summarising or being literal. I pointed out that there were 3 obvious terms that you have used that were not used by Pritam or Sylvia, not even close to any words they have used. They also supported the amendments at the beginning of their speech contrary to “impassionate pleas against the amendments”.

        3 words do not make the text so long that you need to “summarise” using different and unmentioned words.

      • Oh so despite reading their speeches, you think that they supported the amendments? They may have said that but the rest of their comments contradict that assertion, in my view. I analyse what they say, not accept what they say on face value. I leave that kind of stuff to ST.

  9. I believe that WP is on a secret mission,LOL.Although I like to speculate why WP is doing waht it is doing,my respect suppress my unhappiness.

Leave a Reply to jdjdjd Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: