[TorryJens]

WHAT transpires in court or in Parliament presumably is easily understood by lawyers and politicians, but the average citizen is sometimes left nonplussed.


Hence, we have MPs keeping watch on our behalf and to ask questions to obtain answers to enlighten us. The representatives in Parliament work for the greater good of the nation.


When Workers' Party chairman and MP Sylvia Lim raised the question of legal equitability with respect to the $1,000 fine for renowned plastic surgeon Woffles Wu, who got an elderly employee to take the rap for two speeding offences in 2005 and 2006, one would expect Law Minister K. Shanmugam to explain the matter calmly ("Heated or healthy debate?"; yesterday).


The minister's presentation would be for the benefit of all citizens, and not just Ms Lim's. It seems unnecessary that the question should have triggered a heated exchange.


We do not want a confrontational atmosphere in Parliament. We want to see that accountability is upheld.
Despite the shortcomings of the American electoral system, one must admire the way the two opposing presidential candidates debate. They remain gentlemanly to each other and shake hands at the end.


The days when two British parliamentarians debated at one sword's length from each other for safety should be over.


Dr Ong Siew Chey

[doctorzlo]

Mr Shanmugam, Ms Sylvia Lim debate Woffles Wu's case - 13Aug2012

[Big A]

Dr Ong SC is right. The pap, esp Shanmugam, has to grow up.

[Peptobismol]

Parliament Highlights - 13Aug2012

[MannoFr]

Confrontational debate is antithetical to the proud Sinkie culture of subservience and obsequiousness. Debate according to the OB markers of your masters or you'll end up throwing chairs and punches in parliament and property values will drop and your women will become maids in other people's countries, foreign workers. We can't have confrontational debate!

[Paul Bunyan]

They remain gentlemanly to each other and shake hands at the end.

Have you tried offering a handshake to the PAP? They will take your whole arm off ! And when you don't, they'll say you're destructive !

[PhillipHer]

what can we deduce abt a person that does not look u in the eye
when answering........???

[LottiFurmann]

what can we deduce abt a person that does not look u in the eye
when answering........???

Yes, good observation. I've noticed that about him as well.

[Ifroham4]

The PAP ministers can't answer questions without referring to notes; in short, they are incompetent. We should have the kind of question period as seen in the British Parliament. But we know that the PAP ministers will be shown off as more incompetent if that's the case. We have bookworms in government - people who don't know how to think and have lots of book knowledge with little understanding of the real world. Yet they are highest paid ministers in the world. Only in Sinkapore that we reward incompetents with million dollar salaries.

[PhillipHer]

The question raised by MP Sylvia Lim torches on the issue of "Dishonesty" of the well connected Woffles Wu in regard to his speeding offence and why was the Penal Code not thrown at him. It looks like Minister Sham misses the point and came out with 6 cases all dealing with how traffic offences were being dealt with which has no bearing on the issue of "Dishonesty" raised. There is clearly no meeting of the mind whether on purpose or otherwise or is it the case of Minister Sham missing the the issue of "Dishonesty" at law raised by MP Sylvia Lim. I think Minister Sham was trying to muddle the issue of "Dishonesty" so as to avoid answering it outright which he has no answer for it. Now the public has to form it's own conclusion as to how Woffles Wu escape the hard sentencing under the Penal Code for dishonesty where the State is concerned. Minister Sham has failed to answer the boo boos of his Ministry.

[S.T.D.]

One simple question and complicated by this ah neh.

[NeroASERCH]

One simple question and complicated by this ah neh.

Even granting that Sylvia Lim was trying to score some political points with her question, the minister still has the duty to answer to the question as it is indeed a matter of public interest. The truth is that Sham knows very well that he does not have an answer that will not implicate the cock-up by AGC and the courts and hence tried to deflect the attention by intimidating Sylvia. He must still reply directly to the question and if he wants to allay any negativity of his Ministry he can question Sylvia of her motive but not before he actually answered that question. In this case he did not do so and everyone is left as mystified over the court decision as it was before Parliament addressed the issue. So Sham had failed completely though it's hardly surprising as we had all seen how incompetent he had been since becoming the Law and Foreign Affairs Minister. Even when speaking to reporters, he mumbles his way through without looking into the eyes of the journalists nor into the camera, a shifty character indeed with a lot of things to hide.

By the way, whenever PAP MPs asked questions they too are scoring political points. That's what Parliament is all about and the PAP cannot said that of the opposition each time they ask a question. It looks very much that the PAP is still a long long long way as to knowing what a true democratic parliament is and is still pretty stuck in its bullying ways so amply exemplified by the Old Fart for 50years.

[brraverishhh]

as it is indeed a matter of public interest.

The public are neither interested nor do they believe it's in their interests. Justice can't put food on the table. Equity can't buy iphones.

[Ifroham4]

The dynamics in parliament between opposing parties is naturally adversarial. But only people who are insecure and feel threatened will resort to a confrontational approach.