Eliminating the function of Parliament

Indonesia
January 23, 2011 7:37am CST
We have to pay so many trillions to hold legislative elections. then we select the candidates who did not we know his personal capacity (except a handful that we know it was not possible to vote for him). we finally speculative based on existing faces in the photographs of candidates. ok, finally finished the legislative elections. legislators elected to represent us in the DPR / DPRD. we pay them, we'll give facilities (car, home, pocket money, laptops, drivers, toll-hp, tickets, etc.) which are all intended for smooth our representatives in performing their duties to oversee the government in fulfilling our rights in the country this sovereign. is not we who love directly, but the government is managing wealth and our property tax levy that made their facilitation (representative of the people). Instead it seems excessive. but if our representatives had been working for us? we have been wasting money for nothing. if I do not need a representative in this country. especially in the era of information technology without limits as now. we no longer need a legislative role. we no longer need to mock the party founded by the opportunists who seek power in order to dredge the wealth of our country. press, students, mass organizations and NGOs to directly supervise the administration. them is the mirror the diversity of the people of our country, not a mock party. so we can use the budget the House and his election to education, subsidies, and development / empowerment of Indonesian society completely press, students, mass organizations and NGOs to directly supervise the administration. them is the mirror the diversity of the people of our country, not a mock party. so we can use the budget the House and his election to education, subsidies, and development / empowerment of Indonesian society completely.
1 person likes this
4 responses
@rifnee (1713)
• Indonesia
26 Jan 11
NOT AGREE Because even if members of Parliament only a few people we know personally close. but we do not see in general. House members generally did as you mentioned, BUT NOT all like that. so do not conclude that we DO NOT need a dpr, we actually need because we are not likely to be taking a direct representation system like those in ancient greece. it's because our region wide, and shaped the island nation and the people are not all technological literacy so very difficult to implement after all, where there is a country without a board? even if no it means including state tyranny or authoritarian. though very few dpr role that we see but I think the House Permanent necessary and IMPORTANT. and if not there, it means changing the order listed in the 1945 Constitution. lama2 our country can be destroyed slowly
• Indonesia
25 Jan 11
No way. In modern politics, the House serves as the legislative body, which is making laws. president as the executor of laws (executive) and the Supreme Court as custodian of the implementing legislation (Judiciary) Indonesia's parliament power is too large, so they can at will and whim.
@nakula2009 (2325)
• Indonesia
24 Jan 11
Concerning the elections to choose representatives of the people, which became the main beam is the case represented, namely to conduct any activity representation agreement is executed. In other words, whether the activities of the people's representatives were in accordance with Islamic law or not. If in accordance with Islamic sharia wakalah then it may be done. Conversely, if it does not fit the wakalah the vanity and therefore forbidden to do.
@gengeni (3308)
• Indonesia
24 Jan 11
I'm sure your opinion is because the sense of pessimism towards the conduct of those who "he" is representative of the people. Low level of public confidence towards legislators reflecting weak public confidence in this institution. Various highlights of a number of cases involving members of the House during the last five years seem pessimistic nuanced impact on the new House members will be appointed. Lack of public expectation was mainly aimed at the moral aspect and the mentality of members of parliament. Public doubts proved. A long line of moral corruption until scandal. Public attitudes also show apatis by not putting much hope on members of Parliament.