Why my votes matters - A dialogue with Minister Mentor
-
Davinder Singh and Tan Soo Khoon, David Lim and Dr. Tony Tan have stepped down as MP in the coming election.Originally posted by antoh:do you think will there be another susan long to find out about what government's secret? like TT durai
If the ideas of those MPs with differing views are listened and implemented, will we be worse off. Our system is too autocratic to be competitive, creative or motivational.
Many MPs who spoke up on differing views tend to be marginalised. I don't know what happened to ST journalist Lee Han Shih (who exposed the HDB multi-million losses leading retrenchment of HDB staff and their receiving 45 month golden handshake) and Susan Long. Minister of national development who could not do anything to bring up HDB issue escaped the axe.
The invisible hand of control is pervasive. It seems that any one with differing views might face the axe or be marginalised. -
Will be a great idea if the P.M. marginalised MM Lee too! -
I remembered that he said that his ministry was also partly responsible for the whole issue. that is only in the letter not the spirit.Originally posted by robertteh:Strong backing or not, Ministry of Health must have the ability and competency to oversee NFK under the rules governing charity. To that extent Minister Khaw has to take responsibiliy if not for himself for the predecessor minister. If predecessor minister did not wish to comment, he should be pointed out to the public as the minister who has caused the problem or resign for the sake of rule of law accountability and transparency.
The way Temasek is being run is also quite unaccountable and not transparent. People have sent in petition but there is no reply. MM Lee has not solved many problems but still want to give the impression every aspect of running the country is in good order or good hand. This rhetorical approach is not very competitive or creative for new-age Singapore now.
-
PM Lee releases PAP's election manifesto with slogan [b]"Staying Together, Moving Ahead"
By S. Ramesh, Channel NewsAsia
[/b]
SINGAPORE : "Staying Together, Moving Ahead" - that's the election slogan of Singapore's governing People's Action Party (PAP) for the coming polls.
Announcing this in the party's manifesto on Saturday, PAP Secretary General and Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong left no doubt the nation's unity remains a top priority as Singapore forges ahead.
He called on the people to vote for the party that delivers and the team they can trust to realise the vision of a better life for all.
In his message in the manifesto, Mr Lee says when he became Prime Minister in 2004, he had promised to make Singapore a land of opportunity where everyone belongs.
But there are major challenges even as opportunities are opening up in the world.
He is concerned about less-skilled Singaporeans whose jobs and wages are under pressure - and also for older Singaporeans living on their own, and taking care of their own medical and daily expenses.
The Prime Minister says he was also troubled that a terrorist attack will sow suspicion and discord among Singaporeans.
He urged Singaporeans to respond boldly and creatively to opportunities and challenges.
He feels the young must be imbued with the same can-do, never-say-die Singapore spirit that has brought the nation where it is today.
So, while he is confident Singapore will move ahead, he says the people must also stay together.
This means even as each person strives for himself, all must care for one another.
As Prime Minister, Mr Lee says he will devote all his energy to this effort but he cannot succeed alone.
He needs the full support of the people and a strong team of Ministers and MPs to help him.
Hence his call to Singaporeans to give him and his team the strong mandate to:
* create opportunities for Singaporeans;
* give the young the best start;
* encourage every citizen to play a role;
* do more for lower income Singaporeans;
* help older Singaporeans to lead full and active lives; and
* provide affordable healthcare for all.
- CNA/de -
am watching the replay telecast, apparently the guy whom MM grilled (can't remember his name, will call him Gungho) didn't make statements of falsehood. when i first watched it, i didn't pay attention to the exact words Gungho used, only the meaning of his words, so when MM was adamant that he misrepresented the truth, even challenged him with a replay on tape, i thought since MM is a brilliant and accomplished lawyer, surely he must be right.
but when i see the replay again, paying close attention to the words Gungho used, i should say out of 7 or 8 times MM grilled him on the same issue, Gungho actually used the correct words. he said "we carried out a survey ...", "we interviewed 100 odd ...". so contrary to the accusations made by MM, he didn't say "i carred out ...", "i interviewed 100 ...". throughout the entire firing squad session, Gungho only made one slip which he promptly corrected himself.
so that's how the truth becomes distorted ... you can't help but wonder how much truth is there in the backruptcy cases of opposition candidates ... -
In the 1st place, it would be stupid to think that a person could be single-handedly doing all the survey work alone himself... And hence argued that ONLY 40 people were interviewed is a childish act... Did the PAP did a 100% survey to ask ALL CITIZENS that they would have given the mandate to PAP? Not to mention that the election doesn't even reflect the nation's free will...
MM even openly admitted that he is not giving a 'fair' ground for the oppositions.. That could be GOOD for the future of Singapore...? Isn't UNFAIR PLAYINGs the GROUND of FRAUD PLAYs...? Is that also indirectly suggesting SUCH is ACCEPTED or perhaps even ENCOURAGED within Singapore...? And if that is so, is that also an indirect way form of encouraging CHAOs and CORRUPTIONs...?
Not giving Singapore more choices for ideas and diversions, and depriving Singaporeans of their rights (by unfairly depriving oppositions of their chance to go for elections) is for the GOOD of Singapore's future...?
There were also mentioned that there ain't bribery and corruptions within the gahment... 2 points to note...
1. Given the kind of salary they're drawing, might 'corruption' even be necessary...?
2. As mentioned, there're no checks on the gahment....
And despite the fact that there have been constant mentions of what the gahment have done for the people and what the oppositions have not done for the people... Not recognising the fact that the oppositions have been deprived of the fair chance to do good for their consitutents because the ruling party wishes to hold on to a strong gahment at the expense of the citizen's deserved priviledges...? Even if those people have not voted for them, I must say must fairly that they've also contributed to the wellness of the country....
If no opposition is given a fair play, and a possible chance of governing... HOw do we know they can't possibly be doing a better job...? We don't even do a compare... How do we even know that the ruling party is really 'good'...? Or a 'better' choice...? Not knowing so, what makes the ruling party thinks that voting would be 'meaningful'...?
The ASSUMPTION that if no one wants to come forward to vote for election means that they're HAPPY and SATISFIED...
So can we PRESUME that if a child does not talk to his / her parents or make complaints, then he / she is having a HAPPY LIFE...??
How can a gahment be checked and fair if not EXTERNAL (foreign) nor INTERNAL (local) parties can intervene and do enough questionings and 'diggings'...?
And there were constant mentions of "pls give evidence for what you say...." May I know how can there be 'evidence' when there is a system where no one can check on the gahment...?
Note also how MM tends to STOP a person's chance of speaking up even very much before they start... INDEED very TOPICAL of a LAWYER..... -
I am afraid the crux of the issue does not lies in 'We' or 'I' that interviewed the odds. MM may have make a slight mistake there but that is certainly not the crux of their dialogue.Originally posted by snow leopard:am watching the replay telecast, apparently the guy whom MM grilled (can't remember his name, will call him Gungho) didn't make statements of falsehood. when i first watched it, i didn't pay attention to the exact words Gungho used, only the meaning of his words, so when MM was adamant that he misrepresented the truth, even challenged him with a replay on tape, i thought since MM is a brilliant and accomplished lawyer, surely he must be right.
but when i see the replay again, paying close attention to the words Gungho used, i should say out of 7 or 8 times MM grilled him on the same issue, Gungho actually used the correct words. he said "we carried out a survey ...", "we interviewed 100 odd ...". so contrary to the accusations made by MM, he didn't say "i carred out ...", "i interviewed 100 ...". throughout the entire firing squad session, Gungho only made one slip which he promptly corrected himself.
so that's how the truth becomes distorted ... you can't help but wonder how much truth is there in the backruptcy cases of opposition candidates ...
Reporter Ken indeed make an assumption based on the survey conducted, labelling the people interviewed 'fearful' of voting when in fact their take on the survey were only 'no comment' in nature. This was swiftly overturned by MM, before it get falsely broadcasted. Nothing wrong in my opinion.
-
The evident remarks by MM Lee shows the way he always beat an opponent by pointed arguments...this is his trait , he admit his ruthless pursuit to down a defeated opposition, so we sometimes follow such tactics,Originally posted by TooFree:I am afraid the crux of the issue does not lies in 'We' or 'I' that interviewed the odds. MM may have make a slight mistake there but that is certainly not the crux of their dialogue.
Reporter Ken indeed make an assumption based on the survey conducted, labelling the people interviewed 'fearful' of voting when in fact their take on the survey were only 'no comment' in nature. This was swiftly overturned by MM, before it get falsely broadcasted. Nothing wrong in my opinion.
However, in real life we must willing to forgive and forgets: such misdemeanour
only make us all animals = the fittest survive!
In Singapore even Mr. Lee Kuan Yew also affirmed there is no level playing field for opposition or left winger politicians: So they made the rules and decides whenever it fitted their fancies to change it.. This is the kind of high-handed minds of the garmen. The people: their rights? Forgotten lah!
Thus they accused their political opponents of “without talented people to serve”. Why should we suffered such intimidations and threats, Perhaps if you are talented and feel worthy enough to be called to serve your Country, please read my article on Tiger and join those worthy people to serve the Country by standing for the 2006 general election. If the garmen can field 24 young adult people among Singaporeans. I don’t see why others who are just as capable cannot step out to serve the Country.
The underlying reason is “fear” and who want to be thrown into the arena sacrificing all that they have?
I watched MM Lee on TV and was impressed by his demeanor and artistic mellowed & rationale explanations and then I asked myself: why cannot someone like him think in terms of eternity? And I marvel at the wisdom of the world without God, they have to be ruthless to be winners just like the fittest survive in this jungle of wild animals
The question is: would all Singaporeans perferred to be treated just as animals without such or any human dignity? -
Hmmm, how exactly do you know?Originally posted by av98m:Despite my unhappiness with the ruling party, I can tell you that the above does NOT happen. Your friends are scaring themselves. And the party benefits from this fear. -
Talking about the fairness level of playing field, I used to think that it will be equally fair to have a competition among two parties. However, I do shared and agreed with what MM said that ' No imcumbent party wil render help to the opposition' Think of it this way. Who will diversifiy, diminish or share their power. I am afraid no political party in this world does that. - Face the fact. This is reality.Originally posted by norey:The evident remarks by MM Lee shows the way he always beat an opponent by pointed arguments...this is his trait , he admit his ruthless pursuit to down a defeated opposition, so we sometimes follow such tactics,
However, in real life we must willing to forgive and forgets: such misdemeanour
only make us all animals = the fittest survive!
In Singapore even Mr. Lee Kuan Yew also affirmed there is no level playing field for opposition or left winger politicians: So they made the rules and decides whenever it fitted their fancies to change it.. This is the kind of high-handed minds of the garmen. The people: their rights? Forgotten lah!
Thus they accused their political opponents of “without talented people to serve”. Why should we suffered such intimidations and threats, Perhaps if you are talented and feel worthy enough to be called to serve your Country, please read my article on Tiger and join those worthy people to serve the Country by standing for the 2006 general election. If the garmen can field 24 young adult people among Singaporeans. I don’t see why others who are just as capable cannot step out to serve the Country.
The underlying reason is “fear” and who want to be thrown into the arena sacrificing all that they have?
I watched MM Lee on TV and was impressed by his demeanor and artistic mellowed & rationale explanations and then I asked myself: why cannot someone like him think in terms of eternity? And I marvel at the wisdom of the world without God, they have to be ruthless to be winners just like the fittest survive in this jungle of wild animals
The question is: would all Singaporeans perferred to be treated just as animals without such or any human dignity?
However, MM was kind enough to elaborate on the strategem opposition can tackle. By securing single ward first.
In my opinion, opposition should instead focus on recruiting able-men with integrity who can better served their party motto, and apply strategy to secure their entry into parliament since the level of fair play cannot apply in politics. No point whining on that.
'Fear' is an assumption here. How do you explain the PAP new candidates, men and women who are of upmost calibre. Arent they standing out to serve the nation. The root of the problem lies in the party recruitment campaign, manifesto and long term goals set by the party. It seem PAP do have an edge in these areas to attract men of talent. Perhape opposition might like to work on that. I too wish to see an equally formidable opposition party to rise but their entry to parliament should be by merit. -
I try to read all posts in this thread with an open mind. I sense that most want to see fireworks, regardless of the outcome. At any given day, I would have joined in and set some off myself. However, election is a serious matter.Originally posted by TooFree:Talking about the fairness level of playing field, I used to think that it will be equally fair to have a competition among two parties. However, I do shared and agreed with what MM said that ' No imcumbent party wil render help to the opposition' Think of it this way. Who will diversifiy, diminish or share their power. I am afraid no political party in this world does that. - Face the fact. This is reality.
However, MM was kind enough to elaborate on the strategem opposition can tackle. By securing single ward first.
In my opinion, opposition should instead focus on recruiting able-men with integrity who can better served their party motto, and apply strategy to secure their entry into parliament since the level of fair play cannot apply in politics. No point whining on that.
'Fear' is an assumption here. How do you explain the PAP new candidates, men and women who are of upmost calibre. Arent they standing out to serve the nation. The root of the problem lies in the party recruitment campaign, manifesto and long term goals set by the party. It seem PAP do have an edge in these areas to attract men of talent. Perhape opposition might like to work on that. I too wish to see an equally formidable opposition party to rise but their entry to parliament should be by merit.
Fireworks are good for any occasion, but they are not going to shoot down enemy bomber. The threat of sliding down a slippery slope is cliché but a very real one.
I have grown up. I can do what I want, when I like and how I like it. This is the freedom enjoyed by any Singaporean. Confuse it not with the responsibility in voting enjoin by all Singaporeans.
A good politician, to me, is one who can understand my problem, my anxiety and my needs. He is one who can lead me out of confusion, provide good and clear policies for me and my fellow countrymen. At the least, he is a role model for me and my children, at the next level, he leads a few thousand and at the ultimate, commands a few million.
Save a rare few, opposition partiesÂ’ candidates pop-up during election time with no track record. If we do not place our money to fund managers with poor track record, what is the logic for us to vote for candidates with iffy background and capability?
Incumbents have the upper hand and opposing candidates are underdogs. This is true everywhere. Cognisant of an unbalanced playing field, I am sure, is basic of any politician worth his salt. Extra effort is thus required of the underdogs. Which brings me to the question of what PAP underdogs in Hougang and Potong Pasir have done over the years and what Opposition partiesÂ’ underdogs have done in GRCs and single wards?
If and when I am called upon to vote, I will be looking for “politician of life” (if I may be allowed to paraphrase Minister Mentor Lee). I will be looking for a politician, with passion and conviction, who can organise all of us to battle for a better tomorrow. -
we see PM dialogue...MM dialogue. I really wish to see the opposition has thier own dialogue session on tv too. Like the presidential debate in the states...it would be cool... but i doubt the gov will let tat happen...
-
Please convey to your thai supplier, in as delicate a manner as possible for I do not wish you to loose your business, we are sugar canes not in a "little" red dot but sugar canes in a "lethal" red dot. We produce juice when we want to but when outsider tries to cut one of us down, you can bet (an honest bet) that the rest of the canes will rotan (cane) the fellow big time.Originally posted by SG,LauBaiXing:Snow Leopard, Li Ao don't really hurts me with his remarks because I know our peoples is not stupid at all, his hidden agenda is directing to our peoples for unable to stop the ruling party in perpetuating governance.
Infact most of our peoples just care for their own living and does not bother what do politicians can effect our living, they're not realising the situations is now like "boiling frogs with cold water!" till it's too late to leap away !
One of my Thai supplier make a remark about our peoples really did hurting me deeply enough with tearing eyes.
He said that "Singaporeans is like Sugar Canes", never be planted together always apart with each other, easily chop down one by one, easily be squeezing juices
-
Let he who lives in a glass house not cast the first stone.Originally posted by robertteh:Strong backing or not, Ministry of Health must have the ability and competency to oversee NFK under the rules governing charity. To that extent Minister Khaw has to take responsibiliy if not for himself for the predecessor minister. If predecessor minister did not wish to comment, he should be pointed out to the public as the minister who has caused the problem or resign for the sake of rule of law accountability and transparency.
The way Temasek is being run is also quite unaccountable and not transparent. People have sent in petition but there is no reply. MM Lee has not solved many problems but still want to give the impression every aspect of running the country is in good order or good hand. This rhetorical approach is not very competitive or creative for new-age Singapore now.
I have been partially and sometime totally responsible for failed projects, heng ah... no one ask me to resign yet.
I wonder if anyone has been asked to resign to take responsibility for failed project
Actually hor, think better to recognise that we all can fail and will fail one time or another. Those who get up, clean up, persevere and fight on hor are the ones that will succeed.
Just my 0.5 cents at 3am in the morning... -
Originally posted by Devil1976:
In the 1st place, it would be stupid to think that a person could be single-handedly doing all the survey work alone himself... And hence argued that ONLY 40 people were interviewed is a childish act... Did the PAP did a 100% survey to ask ALL CITIZENS that they would have given the mandate to PAP? Not to mention that the election doesn't even reflect the nation's free will...
yeah i also found it strange that he should take issue with a non-issue as 40 / 100 ... and worse still shut someone up with that ...
MM even openly admitted that he is not giving a 'fair' ground for the oppositions.. That could be GOOD for the future of Singapore...? Isn't UNFAIR PLAYINGs the GROUND of FRAUD PLAYs...? Is that also indirectly suggesting SUCH is ACCEPTED or perhaps even ENCOURAGED within Singapore...? And if that is so, is that also an indirect way form of encouraging CHAOs and CORRUPTIONs...?
come to think of it, he is contradicting himself when he said that contest is necessary to prevent PAP from becoming corrupted yet at the same time he said, there is no level playing field (and therefore the PAP need not be subjected to full contest). what is he saying? -
but it wasn't "no comment". specifically, Ken said that some of his respondents told him "i better not say, in case ..." before Ken could complete his statement, MM cut him off. if Ken were allowed to complete his statement, it might have sounded like "i better not say, in case i get into some form of trouble ..." if that is not fear, what is that?Originally posted by TooFree:I am afraid the crux of the issue does not lies in 'We' or 'I' that interviewed the odds. MM may have make a slight mistake there but that is certainly not the crux of their dialogue.
Reporter Ken indeed make an assumption based on the survey conducted, labelling the people interviewed 'fearful' of voting when in fact their take on the survey were only 'no comment' in nature. This was swiftly overturned by MM, before it get falsely broadcasted. Nothing wrong in my opinion.
furthermore, MM himself insinuated things that he himself cannot prove too. he said the opposition is gunning for the reserves. where is his proof? throughout this year's campaigning, i have yet to come across any statement by the opposition to touch the reserves ... -
i feel Singaporean should think twice before making your votes.
If you say during the building of Singapore, i do agree with you MM Lee has done a good job so does Mr. Goh.
However I am not confident MM Lee's son, can take up a good job what his father did.
However at times, when i look at the Oppositions, their manifesto really makes me have a second thought.
They are still not as strong as PAP. if Oppositions are strong, why not we give it a shot -
but in this case there was misgovernance and misuse of funds for self-enjoyment, this is a moral failing in a supposedly moral organisation that needs disciplining.Originally posted by Blue Dolphin:Let he who lives in a glass house not cast the first stone.
I have been partially and sometime totally responsible for failed projects, heng ah... no one ask me to resign yet. I wonder if anyone has been asked to resign to take responsibility for failed project
Actually hor, think better to recognise that we all can fail and will fail one time or another. Those who get up, clean up, persevere and fight on hor are the ones that will succeed.
Just my 0.5 cents at 3am in the morning...
in any case, i think putting blame on Khaw for the wrong doings of Durai is not a very smart strategy. you ask anybody, they are unhappy with Durai only, they have nothing against Khaw. want to seek redress for wrong doing, better find the right perpetrators ... otherwise it would be a case of shooting their own foot again ... -
at times i rather them touch the Reserves then spending on unnecessary projects like Suzhou and etc.Originally posted by snow leopard:but it wasn't "no comment". specifically, Ken said that some of his respondents told him "i better not say, in case ..." before Ken could complete his statement, MM cut him off. if Ken were allowed to complete his statement, it might have sounded like "i better not say, in case i get into some form of trouble ..." if that is not fear, what is that?
furthermore, MM himself insinuated things that he himself cannot prove too. he said the opposition is gunning for the reserves. where is his proof? throughout this year's campaigning, i have yet to come across any statement by the opposition to touch the reserves ... -
that's why we should all look upon the opposition not as a replacement to the govt but as a voice for us to prevent ourselves from being held ransom ...Originally posted by antoh:i feel Singaporean should think twice before making your votes.
If you say during the building of Singapore, i do agree with you MM Lee has done a good job so does Mr. Goh.
However I am not confident MM Lee's son, can take up a good job what his father did.
However at times, when i look at the Oppositions, their manifesto really makes me have a second thought.
They are still not as strong as PAP. if Oppositions are strong, why not we give it a shot -
Dear Antoh and All,Originally posted by antoh:at times i rather them touch the Reserves then spending on unnecessary projects like Suzhou and etc.
The problem is late Ong Teng Cheong and everyone of us don't have any idea of the balance and accountability.
Do you think what he said mean anything's to you ?
AS he use to boast about his PAP members and himself ? -
Originally posted by Blue Dolphin:
I try to read all posts in this thread with an open mind. I sense that most want to see fireworks, regardless of the outcome. At any given day, I would have joined in and set some off myself. However, election is a serious matter.
i don't agwee with your preception. we are not wanting to see fireworks for the sake of seeing fireworks. election is a serious matter and we cannot let any single party dictate our lives ...
Fireworks are good for any occasion, but they are not going to shoot down enemy bomber. The threat of sliding down a slippery slope is cliché but a very real one.
but a complete stranglehold by any single party, like the Nazis for example, could bring the country to destruction to satisfy the whims of a single person.
I have grown up. I can do what I want, when I like and how I like it. This is the freedom enjoyed by any Singaporean. Confuse it not with the responsibility in voting enjoin by all Singaporeans.
your portrayal of the electorate is completely off the mark and belittling. this is the sort of comments that put people off and convince them even more of the unreasonableness of the govt.
A good politician, to me, is one who can understand my problem, my anxiety and my needs. He is one who can lead me out of confusion, provide good and clear policies for me and my fellow countrymen. At the least, he is a role model for me and my children, at the next level, he leads a few thousand and at the ultimate, commands a few million.
a better politician, is one who confuses you, and makes you think he is milking you for your own good ...
Save a rare few, opposition partiesÂ’ candidates pop-up during election time with no track record. If we do not place our money to fund managers with poor track record, what is the logic for us to vote for candidates with iffy background and capability?
it is the same with the PAP candidates, popping up for the first time during election time. the incumbent fund managers are also performing poorly in recent time. so should we therefore change fund managers?
Incumbents have the upper hand and opposing candidates are underdogs. This is true everywhere. Cognisant of an unbalanced playing field, I am sure, is basic of any politician worth his salt. Extra effort is thus required of the underdogs. Which brings me to the question of what PAP underdogs in Hougang and Potong Pasir have done over the years and what Opposition partiesÂ’ underdogs have done in GRCs and single wards?
of course the incumbent would like to win any election unfairly. question is, do we as electorates allow it? allowing unfair elections, allowing 'mandate' based on unfair elections is to allow them complete free rein in running this country like they own it. when that happens, you know what will happen? their salaries would increase, bus fare will increase, this will increase, that will increase ...
what individual candidates can do has to do with the purse strings extended to them. in the case of the PAP, it's simply the nation's money, so if you're comparing who can do more, then i would say anybody, be it PAP or POP, that controls the nation's wealth, will be able to do more.
If and when I am called upon to vote, I will be looking for “politician of life” (if I may be allowed to paraphrase Minister Mentor Lee). I will be looking for a politician, with passion and conviction, who can organise all of us to battle for a better tomorrow.
but don't you see? the passion occurs once every five years, after all the rhetoric and hoo har, we'd be back to this increase and that increase ... slow and unrelentless milking of us citizens ... -
Originally posted by TooFree:
Talking about the fairness level of playing field, I used to think that it will be equally fair to have a competition among two parties. However, I do shared and agreed with what MM said that ' No imcumbent party wil render help to the opposition' Think of it this way. Who will diversifiy, diminish or share their power. I am afraid no political party in this world does that. - Face the fact. This is reality.
yes the incumbent would try their best to hold on tight to power, by hook or by crook. but we as electorates stand to suffer even more when they have a complete stranglehold over our lives.
However, MM was kind enough to elaborate on the strategem opposition can tackle. By securing single ward first.
he actually started off by daring Chiam and Low to take on the GRCs. this is rather sly of him to appear to be offering gentlemanly advice but is in actual fact daring them to commit suicide.
In my opinion, opposition should instead focus on recruiting able-men with integrity who can better served their party motto, and apply strategy to secure their entry into parliament since the level of fair play cannot apply in politics. No point whining on that.
don't you see, it is not the problem with the opposition. it is with us. no one, having seen how Tang Liang Hong had to flee the nation, how JB got backrupted and Chee completely destroyed ... who dares join the opposition?
'Fear' is an assumption here. How do you explain the PAP new candidates, men and women who are of upmost calibre. Arent they standing out to serve the nation.
who would be afraid standing on the side of the powerful and the rulers?
The root of the problem lies in the party recruitment campaign, manifesto and long term goals set by the party. It seem PAP do have an edge in these areas to attract men of talent. Perhape opposition might like to work on that. I too wish to see an equally formidable opposition party to rise but their entry to parliament should be by merit.
frankly, PAP need not do anything and they would still have hordes of people sucking up to them, eager to bask in their limelight and share in the glory. that's the reality of most people, fair weather people ... -
i remeber once someone told me Mr. Ong was not an obdient president. this is because he is a really concern politician who really look into our Reserves.Originally posted by SG,LauBaiXing:Dear Antoh and All,
The problem is late Ong Teng Cheong and everyone of us don't have any idea of the balance and accountability.
Do you think what he said mean anything's to you ?
AS he use to boast about his PAP members and himself ?
However this move was stopped by the Government and soon he was replaced by our current President who dont have much rights in ruling the country. -
Of course lah...we are already being "squeezed" by our own people...if outsiders wanna join in, mana eh tahan...Originally posted by Blue Dolphin:Please convey to your thai supplier, in as delicate a manner as possible for I do not wish you to loose your business, we are sugar canes not in a "little" red dot but sugar canes in a "lethal" red dot. We produce juice when we want to but when outsider tries to cut one of us down, you can bet (an honest bet) that the rest of the canes will rotan (cane) the fellow big time.
What i think is, most singaporeans are already used to the same style of government for the past how many years, and are afraid of change. Voting PAP has become as normal for them as paying the bills, go market buy vegetables etc etc.
And even if the opposition becomes super strong, and gives us more reason to vote for them, come election day...who do you think most of the people would vote for? I remember in the show, one of the journalists said "we want to see political vibrancy" and i was fucking laughing at that statement. When MM Lee replied "i know you all are young, you want to see a fight" i couldnt help but agree. They all want to see "a level playing field". What use is a level playing field if the opposition got no defenders/goalkeeper? Why isn't there u say? Well there used to be, but they are either bankrupt or in some other country.
If you are in total power and control, would you risk it by giving some of it away? Some of those journalists should really start thinking with their heads and not their hearts. They keep on sounding the horn of change, but they don't know what kind of change they want. Agar agar got something new can liao. And when they decide that the new change was not what they really wanted they call for change again. Fucking typical.
In the movie V for Vendetta, V says "the people should not be afraid of their government, the government should be afraid of it's people". We can say the ruling party is "power crazy" and all that, but at the end of the day if we want to see something happen, it's US that have the power, not the government. So maybe we should look into ourselves first and not start pointing the finger, something which is damn typical of ALL singaporeans.