The three opposition MPs spoke an average of 435 times in the last 4 years. The average for the 11 PAP backbenchers was 131 times.
The clichéd question that comes to mind is, "Who gives you more bang for the buck?"
The most likely rejoinder from the PAP is, "Yes, but it's all scattershot." Perhaps that's true. But it's for voters to judge.
to read in full.
11 Apr 2006
The Serene Backbenchers
From YawningBread.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
that's the way it should be; no point in them all saying more of the same
The avg for PAP speakers should be lowered further. No one says anything contrary to the Party Whip anyway. So it's the same stand over and over again.
This is an interesting method but there are some problems with it. I don't pretend to be an expert on statistical methods at all but one should be as ethical as one can on issues like that:
1. You compared two different sampling size and then make their respective mean commensurable to reach a conclusion. Can we do this? If I would to take the three most vocal PAP MPs as a sample instead, the average is like 240 as opposed to 131. It is still lower, but significantly higher than your average by your method.
2. People speak up for different reasons-so to use the number of times people speak to reach a qualitative conclusion is specious in itself. It is at best an indicator of vocality but I don't think we can go beyond this. Furthermore, since there are always more PAP MPs than non PAP MPs in the Parliament, it is always certainly true that the non PAP MPs will be responding by speaking up more to the overall higher aggregation of questions directed at these 3, putting aside the default nature of their political stance by the term, 'opposition'.
3. A MP does his or her job in many different ways. Speaking up is a necessary but insufficient critierion to assess if a MP fulfils his or her duties as delegated. I certainly wouldn't want a MP who can speak like Cicero in the Parliament but who lags behind in responding to citizens' needs at the grassroot level.
But from observation, there are some who truly do nothing much and even some only know how to "curry favour" most of the time.
The best "bang" for buck as far as parliament house is concerned is to sack everyone and sell the property to someone like Li Ka Shing, who might have the good sense to turn it inot a low rise, super exclusive condo or entertianment venue, as an extention to old parliament house.
thanks, soci, for posting for me. I was too busy.
Thank you!
[url=http://jgwgveez.com/orqu/pvrx.html]My homepage[/url] | [url=http://mnxnhiuf.com/ugus/njae.html]Cool site[/url]
Well done!
My homepage | Please visit
Nice site!
http://jgwgveez.com/orqu/pvrx.html | http://yoymunmm.com/mpio/axrq.html
Post a Comment