Chitchat Eloquent Shan Easily Refutes Sylvia Lim's Childish Questions On Elected PE!

[zhihau]

I thought it was one of Sylvia's best speeches in Parliament.

I was re-examining the way swords are crossed, Sham is shredded in tatters, almost naked and vulnerable. Kudos to Sylvia Lim Jeh Jeh~! Phee-u-weet!

 

[bhoven]

I was re-examining the way swords are crossed, Sham is shredded in tatters, almost naked and vulnerable. Kudos to Sylvia Lim Jeh Jeh~! Phee-u-weet!

Shan resorted to smearing Sylvia with his side remark about the only MP chided by the courts for misleading. But it did not work

 

[MyMother]

I thought it was one of Sylvia's best speeches in Parliament. The arguments she put up and the manner in which she organized her arguments were airtight. Shan had to thank God that it was an adjournment motion, not a parliamentary debate. Otherwise, NMP and WP MPs would have taken him on from there.

You could see the worrying expression on the faces of PM, DPM and KC, struggling to hide their embarrassment. If Shan was good, he wouldn't have had to resort to snide remarks such as "you are lawyer, you should know" in what seems to be a desperate attempt to thumb his opponent down. In other words, Shan was resorting to authority, not reasoning.

Now the matter is no longer an issue of policy or legal decision. Shan has effectively turned it into a linguistic decision.

A snake doing what he does best.

 

[rambo22]

PM, DPM Teo and Kee Chiu should have stood up and defended their own statements, not Shan.

stood up and defend ?

u can see their eyes and body languages

machiam like "jit pai siao liao"

 

[Leckmichamarsch]

Shan kept repeating his own stance that "PM was clear ... PM was very clear .... the Court Appeal agreed etc." without tackling the "contradictory" statements made by DPM Teo and Kee Chiu.

Shan made reference to a speech he made previously. Unfortunately, what he said previously was irrelevant. Even if he had made the correct point about it being a policy decision as opposed to legal interpretation, it didn't absolve DPM Teo and Kee Chiu for stating the opposite.

PM, DPM Teo and Kee Chiu should have stood up and defended their own statements, not Shan.

NOW I UNDERSTAND WHY SHANMU WAS BROUGHT INTO PAP... HATCHET MAN & FIGHTER FOR PAPIG LOST CAUSE..... TO BLEACH BLACK INTO WHITE; TO BETRAY PRINCESS LEE AS PUSSY OF UNSOUND MIND.......&& TO CONTINUE KICKING A DOWN N OUT WP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
THIS IS PLAIN COWARDICE WHICH CAN WIN CASES AS SC IN KANGEROO COURT. BUT NVR IN COURT OF PUBLIC OPINION - THIS MAN IS HEREBY STRIPPED OF HIS SC-SHIP

 

[bobby]

Clearly PAP is in damage control.

They assume the 70% are fools and the 30% are idiots...

 

[Bonut]

[QANSUOTE="]

He added: "Why would I go and say it's a policy matter if I thought it was a pure legal issue?"

http://www.straitstimes.com/politic...bate-reason-for-govts-decision-on-counting-of

The adjournment motion is not about what Shan said during a dialogue session; it's about what PM Lee said in Parliament; what DPM Teo echoed in Parliament; and what CCS too claimed in Parliament.

What Shan said in that dialogue session was completely irrelevant to the motion.

 

[Bonut]

SHANMUGAM: GOVERNMENT HAS ALWAYS BEEN CLEAR
Mr Shanmugam replied that PM Lee said "the next elections will be reserved for a Malay President and we have taken advice from the AGC".

PM Lee had been clear about that, which the Court of Appeal also acknowledged, said Mr Shanmugam.

What did the Court of Appeal acknowledge ? Shan didn't mention.