Why my votes matters - A dialogue with Minister Mentor
-
FUNNY... When did they take your contact number from you...? You mean they even need to have your contact number to make an arrest on you...? For what...?Originally posted by norey:
Three Cheers for everyone here in this beautiful caht line!
I wish I was that smart and clever thinking..I would stand for election thirty years ago!!
However, I am thinking of going to visit my daughter in Canada, during the period and election date since she's graduating in April.. however, if I can vote I will stay and vote.
The obvious reason is because I wrote , and they had visited me. One of the GRC MPs at AMK with a big party came to my door, and I warmly shook his hands, and after that the plain cloth police officer hand me a crime prevention flyer as an excuse asking for my telephone numbers. I check with my neighbours and none were asked for their telephone numbers!
I am never afraid of going to court, police station or jail or wahtever but just asking would you have any courage to stand against all these liars in the garmen?
goto seehttp://www.sgwiki.com/wiki/Political_white_lie
This is an election to speak out and stand for the people's right!
The next general election will be years away! I probably won't be around!
Never vote for your own pockets or upgrading, it's so demeaning!
-
Originally posted by norey:
Maybe you got lot of variable in your house, which worried them.. -
I can't help but agree with the comment from a commentator on radio who was present during the dialogue that although we sees the younger generation were bold with the questions in the dialogue, it seems that nothing was acheive.
The questions were raised and the replies were equally strong but there was no real achievement as nothing came outof it. The journalist were eager with their questions but they lack continuity to the questions or did not offer an alternative or a solutions to their queries
MM replies were prompt but did not acheive its goal as he was unable to convience the journalists who had already an idea of their own.
Maybe its because of the censor and maybe its because of the short period of time in the dialogue
-
Originally posted by LinYu:
HAHA, their "manifesto" looks more like election advertising... WP's is so much more specific...
[b]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
[/b] -
since when were them not advertising themselves?
-
i could not understand y they gotta re draw e constituency every election as well... its a clear cut way of telling pple dat hey tis area wun vote 4 me...
i was wondering y no one during e session brought it up? -
it may b true dat u wld not do tinks 2 accomodate ur opponents but like wat some other forumers noted... dun tell me if we dun vote 4 e ruling party we not singaporeans, cannot enjoy upgrading n such?
so wat if we really like our opposition mp n continue 2 vote 4 him 4 many elections 2 come... so does it mean that as other parts of singapore advances, e opposition constituency degrades into a slump? talk abt doing it 4 e nation! -
The CNA kept repeating and resulted I kept seeing over and over again. Finally, I concluded MM very important.
-
My inside news is that Voting Day will be on 6 May 2006.
My hunch is that if PAP ever wins back Hougang and Potong Pasir, the election boundaries will be redrawn in such a way that no opposition will ever win it again.
Your vote matters. -
Giving 9-10 days for campaigning.. this will mean that parliament will be dissolved either on next wednesday or thursday?Originally posted by Rock^Star:My inside news is that Voting Day will be on 6 May 2006.
My hunch is that if PAP ever wins back Hougang and Potong Pasir, the election boundaries will be redrawn in such a way that no opposition will ever win it again.
Your vote matters. -
Someone previously mentioned that MM uses the "fear" tactic and also how he can still garner 60% of the votes from his own supporters who have been through those tough times..Originally posted by LinYu:I can't help but agree with the comment from a commentator on radio who was present during the dialogue that although we sees the younger generation were bold with the questions in the dialogue, it seems that nothing was acheive.
The questions were raised and the replies were equally strong but there was no real achievement as nothing came outof it. The journalist were eager with their questions but they lack continuity to the questions or did not offer an alternative or a solutions to their queries
MM replies were prompt but did not acheive its goal as he was unable to convience the journalists who had already an idea of their own.
Maybe its because of the censor and maybe its because of the short period of time in the dialogue
seeing hw the questions were being fired during the show.. i feel that the fear tactic is losing its resonance amongst the young.. you can see that they, and frankly even myself, are not really convinced totally by his arguments of how taking away measures like abolish grassroots and hdb racial quota is going to throw singapore back into the old days or racial violence and tension..
this election.. ok say the full 60% will still swing to deliver PAP its mandate.. next election? and the one after next? hw will this % change? what kind of "fear" is the next guy throw at us so that we will vote PAP back into power? all these "back in those old days" talk will wear out soon.. if not this... probably the next election.. when the majority of the population delinks itself from the experience of the less civilised days..
seeing how MM argues his point on maintaining the controls as a necessary way to maintain the racial cohesion, it compels me to feel that if these controls are still in place, it also points out that the divide has not been overcomed... after all these years and tat these (controls/measures) are forcefully suppressing such a divide and artificially holding the various races together?
and by even keeping all these practices alive.. it just makes people think why? and the purpose is hence lost and defeated by it own reason. you remind people of how the various races are still different and they have to be forced to mix and gel...
have the schools not been teaching us all these years.. have our own experience not been enriching enough to let us know that maintaining the peace by ourselves is of significant value? why are we kept under such controls as if we are so childish and unable to fend for ourselves? will the PAP believe that we will ever grow up? -
The issue of racial quota is just a form of legislation to prevent ethnic enclaves from forming. It is natural human nature to live next to people of the same skin colour, same ethnic group, speak the same dialect etc. But the downside is it eventually degrades into hotspots for trouble and more racial segregation. The moment we start living within our own race, we tend to lose focus with the goals of racial acceptance and become less tolerant of other races and their culture. So in this aspect, i agree with Lee Senior that the current controls should remain.Originally posted by Ecxentrique:Someone previously mentioned that MM uses the "fear" tactic and also how he can still garner 60% of the votes from his own supporters who have been through those tough times..
seeing hw the questions were being fired during the show.. i feel that the fear tactic is losing its resonance amongst the young.. you can see that they, and frankly even myself, are not really convinced totally by his arguments of how taking away measures like abolish grassroots and hdb racial quota is going to throw singapore back into the old days or racial violence and tension..
this election.. ok say the full 60% will still swing to deliver PAP its mandate.. next election? and the one after next? hw will this % change? what kind of "fear" is the next guy throw at us so that we will vote PAP back into power? all these "back in those old days" talk will wear out soon.. if not this... probably the next election.. when the majority of the population delinks itself from the experience of the less civilised days..
seeing how MM argues his point on maintaining the controls as a necessary way to maintain the racial cohesion, it compels me to feel that if these controls are still in place, it also points out that the divide has not been overcomed... after all these years and tat these (controls/measures) are forcefully suppressing such a divide and artificially holding the various races together?
and by even keeping all these practices alive.. it just makes people think why? and the purpose is hence lost and defeated by it own reason. you remind people of how the various races are still different and they have to be forced to mix and gel...
have the schools not been teaching us all these years.. have our own experience not been enriching enough to let us know that maintaining the peace by ourselves is of significant value? why are we kept under such controls as if we are so childish and unable to fend for ourselves? will the PAP believe that we will ever grow up?
His haughty retort of the WP's plan to abolish grassroots is understandable. While he will never admit it, grassroots is definitely a key area where the ruling party recruits potential candidates for elections and young PAP. In this regard, the grassroots committees are therefore NOT apolitical, as the ruling party continually maintains. WP sees it as a 'barrier to entry' for them to work efficiently in their town councils; on the other hand, WP is unlikely to replace it with a neutral committee and chances of it being politically-aligned are just as high.
On his remarks regarding the issue of fear and how he took Ken Kwek apart during his cross-examination, he is obviously stating his position: if you can't prove it, shut up.
The aura of induced fear is clearly evident, mostly in part due to the threat of high-handed defamation suits by any who are deemed to have crossed the OB markers of the govt (Catherine Lim nearly found herself in one but her articulate nature and non-confrontational style got her off), but at the same time near-impossible to 'prove' with any hard evidence.
The manner and conduct of polling stations is one example.
And his bold assumption regarding 60% confirmed support is based on a stagnant population content with his past achievements and not the current team. He needs to put his confidence (or overconfidence) into perspective. -
PLS BRING ME SOME WORTHY SMILES FOR THIS UPCOMING ELECTION...
A LOST IN BALANCE OF POWER IS NO JOKING MATTER....
WAKE UP BEFORE ITS TOO LATE PEOPLE... -
something i hope to seeOriginally posted by Devil1976:PLS BRING ME SOME WORTHY SMILES FOR THIS UPCOMING ELECTION...
A LOST IN BALANCE OF POWER IS NO JOKING MATTER....
WAKE UP BEFORE ITS TOO LATE PEOPLE... -
Tried and failedOriginally posted by judge&jury:I think for Singapore opposition parties to make some gain in this coming GE is by fielding only candidates at slightly more than 1/3 of the 84 constituencies. I think this is a better strategy because.
1. PAP will likely to win and return to power with a majority.
2. If PAP get a walkover of slightly more than half of the 84 seats then they already can form a government. Then the people would not need to worry about PAP not returning to power but focus more on voting in a stronger opposition.
With this strategy the opposition can consolidate their strenght and get the people to understand the need for a better opposition representation in the parliment and the danger of have just one party system.
-
Originally posted by king108:
They must respected MM Lee for his contribution. Besides that he is already 80+, it will be inhuman of the opposition to contest with him. That will distrub his healthy living and early night off. Rallies and walk about is very tiring things to do although only every five years once. Besides that sometime may caught sickness while shaking unknown hands which is dangerous. We can't affort to lose such leader in singapore. At 80+, he is still serving singapore. I doubted we can find the second one in these World. -
Aiyah,u ppl only now how to talk nia end up PAP still return to power
-
oi.u guys gt so much calibre to join e opposition party lah
JOin lah.i will give u my sapport
Dont talk and no action lah
Typical singaporeans ,kiase -
Dear Chelzea,Originally posted by Chelzea:oi.u guys gt so much calibre to join e opposition party lah
JOin lah.i will give u my sapport
Dont talk and no action lah
Typical singaporeans ,kiase
If our systems is fair and favourable to anyone who want to contribute their very truely best to our peoples interest, then I think we Singaporeans are the ones who are better than USA and many other countries in terms of democracy.
Please allow these peoples to speak-up and eventually we will see more to help out in this present difficult situations. -
the number of people here is insignificant.Originally posted by Chelzea:Aiyah,u ppl only now how to talk nia end up PAP still return to power -
Unfortunately that is very true. I was disappointed with the WP manifesto as it did not give more details to support their plans but I am even more disappointed with the PAP manifesto. It contained a series of election pledges but no details whatsoever. It is certainly a nice sales brochure with lots of colourful photographs, but short on substance.Originally posted by pikamaster:HAHA, their "manifesto" looks more like election advertising... WP's is so much more specific...
Perhaps they have a more complete version somewhere? -
WP manifesto looks familiar, some parts read to me from one western country. Not applicable here.Originally posted by oxford mushroom:Unfortunately that is very true. I was disappointed with the WP manifesto as it did not give more details to support their plans but I am even more disappointed with the PAP manifesto. It contained a series of election pledges but no details whatsoever. It is certainly a nice sales brochure with lots of colourful photographs, but short on substance.
Perhaps they have a more complete version somewhere? -
Ok i saw this online.
-
Originally posted by robertteh:MM Lee's Q & A session with younger voters (CNA 12.4.2006 at 8.00 pm)
It does not look like he was prepared to answer to most of the questions as can be seen below (a sample)
Q: When are you retiring?
MM: When I am no longer useful.
(Contradicting his self-renewal pledge and policy older MPs must make way for the new blood) I was looking for something like this threads. When these youngsters are seeking some kind of democracy yet asked this question. It's really show that they don't understand the basic definition of Democracy. I do a bit of searching for the original version of democracy and hence please allow me to quote:
Definition of Democracy
Actually originating in ancient Greece to designate a government where the people share in directing the activities of the state, as distinct from governments controlled by a single class, select group, or autocrat. The definition of democracy has been expanded, however, to describe a philosophy that insists on the right and the capacity of a people, acting either directly or through representatives, to control their institutions for their own purposes. Such a philosophy places a high value on the equality of individuals and would free people as far as possible from restraints not self-imposed. It insists that necessary restraints be imposed only by the consent of the majority and that they conform to the principle of equality.
Hence, under these definition, MM can stand in election as long as he wanted and he wished. This basic definition also applied to anyone who think he can be be elected to serve regardless of his status or age.
I think it's really shame on them to waste MM's breath talking to them. -
You can't really expect too much from the forum youths. Most were in their mid-twenties and have limited experience.Originally posted by king108: I was looking for something like this threads. When these youngsters are seeking some kind of democracy yet asked this question. It's really show that they don't understand the basic definition of Democracy. I do a bit of searching for the original version of democracy and hence please allow me to quote:
Definition of Democracy
Actually originating in ancient Greece to designate a government where the people share in directing the activities of the state, as distinct from governments controlled by a single class, select group, or autocrat. The definition of democracy has been expanded, however, to describe a philosophy that insists on the right and the capacity of a people, acting either directly or through representatives, to control their institutions for their own purposes. Such a philosophy places a high value on the equality of individuals and would free people as far as possible from restraints not self-imposed. It insists that necessary restraints be imposed only by the consent of the majority and that they conform to the principle of equality.
Hence, under these definition, MM can stand in election as long as he wanted and he wished. This basic definition also applied to anyone who think he can be be elected to serve regardless of his status or age.
I think it's really shame on them to waste MM's breath talking to them.
As with the standard of journalism in SG, you can see their standard is very ordinary. When a follow-up question was beckoning, they did not oblige, leaving the answer from Lee senior hanging.
For example when Lee Senior was asked on the topic of GRCs and why they were needed, his answers were screaming for substantiation, especially on the minority representation issue.
Yet no one followed-up with an inquiry like: "In that case, 3 should be sufficient. Why is there a need for 5 or 6?"
But as always, the question remains unsatisfactorily answered and never pursued.