As expected, he was countered with verbal ammunitions from the ruling party MPs, sparking exchanges from both sides of the online camp.
Without fail, those who supported the government or those who hates the opposition asked the same thing - why Mr Low offered no alternative solutions? This is the constant every time and the part I seriously do not understand.
Why must the oppositions provide alternative solutions if they oppose a certain scheme?
First of all, oppositions did offer alternative solutions before which were never taken up because they were 'not viable' according to the government.
Even if the solutions are good, would the ruling party take it up? Of course the official answer is yes. However that will never happen because it would mean that the whole lot of policy makers in the government is just a waste of money as they cannot come out with a better solution in the first place and had to wait for the opposition to tell them that.
Giving thumbs up to oppositions' idea as a no-no. So what's the point?
Secondly, why is it a must? If for example you chance upon someone who wants to commit suicide, would you go ahead and let them do it because you cannot offer them a better alternative to solving their problems?
The problem with the current government is that the ideas are never discussed in parliament. Everything is done back doors and only announced when it is decided upon. Even if a better solution if offered by the oppositions, taking them up would amount to embarrassment to the ruling party. Hence they have to stand their ground and activate their propaganda machines to make the idea look as the best there is.
Great ideas are never realised in an instance. It emerges through scores of criticisms - Azhar Khamis