-
IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here. The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.
is NSP seeking revenge on WP for MK GRC?
- Thread starter commoner
- Start date
Get your facts right, opposition idiot. WP entered into 3 corner fight with SDA in Punggol, not with NSP.
With the ever-gerrymandering and name-changing, I can only speak for the constituency/division I'm living in.
GE 1968 -- Kallang - PAP walkover
GE 1972 -- Kallang - PAP 80% UNF 20%
GE 1976 -- Kolam Ayer - PAP 72.5% UF 27.5%
GE 1980 -- Kolam Ayer - PAP 80% UF 20%
GE 1984 -- Kolam Ayer - PAP 58% WP 42%
GE 1988 -- Jalan Besar - PAP 63% WP 37%
GE 1991 -- Jalan Besar - PAP walkover
GE 1997 -- Jalan Besar - PAP 68% SDP 32%
GE 2001 -- Jalan Besar - PAP 74.5% SDA 25.5%
GE 2006 -- Jalan Besar - PAP 69% SDA 31%
GE 2011 -- Moulmein-Kallang - PAP 59% WP 41%
NSP has never contested this area on its own. When it contested as part of SDA, they returned the lowest scores. WP has returned the top three highest opposition scores in this area. So NSP claim what? Avenge what?
GE 1968 -- Kallang - PAP walkover
GE 1972 -- Kallang - PAP 80% UNF 20%
GE 1976 -- Kolam Ayer - PAP 72.5% UF 27.5%
GE 1980 -- Kolam Ayer - PAP 80% UF 20%
GE 1984 -- Kolam Ayer - PAP 58% WP 42%
GE 1988 -- Jalan Besar - PAP 63% WP 37%
GE 1991 -- Jalan Besar - PAP walkover
GE 1997 -- Jalan Besar - PAP 68% SDP 32%
GE 2001 -- Jalan Besar - PAP 74.5% SDA 25.5%
GE 2006 -- Jalan Besar - PAP 69% SDA 31%
GE 2011 -- Moulmein-Kallang - PAP 59% WP 41%
NSP has never contested this area on its own. When it contested as part of SDA, they returned the lowest scores. WP has returned the top three highest opposition scores in this area. So NSP claim what? Avenge what?
Last edited:
Have to be fair that in 2001 and 2006, NSP was contesting under SDA. Also, MacPherson was an exchange for CCK with Sin Kek Tong.
My question in the other thread still stands - based on what standard principle does NSP think it is priority over Moulmein-Kallang. This is because NSP has raised the issue of MK more times than anything else. Whoever wants to reply for NSP is fine, but remember that it cannot be that they last contested there in 2006. They also feel they have the right to contest Nee Soon Central and now, Hougang. One might say Hougang is a counterreaction, but NSC?
My question in the other thread still stands - based on what standard principle does NSP think it is priority over Moulmein-Kallang. This is because NSP has raised the issue of MK more times than anything else. Whoever wants to reply for NSP is fine, but remember that it cannot be that they last contested there in 2006. They also feel they have the right to contest Nee Soon Central and now, Hougang. One might say Hougang is a counterreaction, but NSC?
See that this sentence was added later and it is a good point. Interestingly, Jalan Besar was NSP's (or SDA) lowest scoring GRC in 2001 and 2006. It is rather presumptuous to assume that this won't be the case in 2011. Also noticed that in 2001, it was more like a SPP/PKMS team, so NSP effectively only contested in 2006.
I don't think NSP thought they should have priority over M-K.
It's only GMS who thought that they should have had priority and the only reason is because he thinks they should and hence they should have got it.
It's never easy to logically explain the thinking of a narcissist with a humongous ego.
Sorry but not too accurate. Sebastian Teo (NSP president) has explicitly stated views that coincide with this view. It was in the Chinese papers.
To be more accurate, Teo did not state that they were angry that WP came into MK. He stated that they were willing to give up MK, but not to a weak WP team. (Not only is that a weird statement, that would make contesting Hougang a bit more weird.)
Ok, thanks for the clarification.
Me english educated, so no read chinese newspaper. :o
According to a clown, we are also unable to detect subtlety.
This is the same as what GMS was harping about previously.
That he would only be willing to give up MK if Sylvia or Low himself went there.
Of course, if they had listened to him and did that and lost all, now GMS even more jialat.
Yes, edited in after analyzing the results tabulation. Based on the track records, NSP has no claim whatsoever on Jalan Besar or Moulmein-Kallang.
The challenge to WP to field an A-team in M-K was first issued by GMS. Seb had to back him up even though Seb himself had tasted the grounds and won't want to stand in M-K anymore anyway. To be fair, Seb had quite good support in Kg. Glam division when it was an SMC but that was donkey years ago and it's no longer an SMC. GMS motive, on hindsight, is clear by now. To try to draw LTK or CSM into M-K to ensure WP couldn't win both Ajunied and M-K.
Ok, thanks for the clarification.
Me english educated, so no read chinese newspaper. :o
According to a clown, we are also unable to detect subtlety.
This is the same as what GMS was harping about previously.
That he would only be willing to give up MK if Sylvia or Low himself went there.
Of course, if they had listened to him and did that and lost all, now GMS even more jialat.
I don't think anyone can answer satisfactorily why different statements by NSP are not coherent. Hope Sadist or Kinana will try though.
- If the MK issue was not about 3CF but a weak WP team, then it makes no sense to say that you are now entering Hougang because of MK and 3CF.
- If you have scholars and think they are the best, you would expect that probability that WP will come up with a "better" team is very low and therefore shouldn't give way in MK in the first place.
- If you expect WP "Ateam" to give up Aljunied for MK, then you are showing exceeding arrogance, not the other way around that you are asserting. It is as if you think you have the right to decide where they should go.
- In the first place, did you even communicate to WP that is this condition for you to give up MK before you pulled your team out?
- Did WP even give you that promise before you gave up MK because it would mean WP has to tell you who their candidates are, which is odd.
These are 5 odd points from various NSP statements. I am not being anti-NSP - we know PAP and WP has failed in several aspects, and I am not issuing a moral standard here but I think they pale in comparison because it is a constant flip-flop and furthermore no apology for this flip-flop. To be fair, NSP did not publicly go after everything GMS went after, such as "Yawgate" and the misconstrued "plargiarism".
Your view does have some merit but I would prefer to stay away from the subjective as people can argue to no end. I would hold NSP to a fixed principle - if they agree that contesting in a constituency the last round gives you some form of "priority" the next round. NSP has been silent to critics on its Facebook, hence I do not think they want to answer or have the answers.
Then if WP did not respond or ignored you and the probability seem quite low, then do not pull out. All these talk about WP's actions over MK and the wasted chance of the scholars makes me wonder why they even pulled the team out in the first place. And if the team was the best and you were worried that WP would despite losing deposit grab a few % away from you preventing you from winning, why not put in Marine Parade since you were so sure that GCT was a myth and TPL was a liability. They have been talking like they expected MP to become the highest scoring GRC anyway. And you are right, I do find it interesting that when NSP unveiled their team of 4 in MK, Seb Teo was not among them. I still wonder what was that about.
This is an interesting hindsight. We remember that he had been so bitter about WP but had kept it until it won a GRC, and if winning a GRC gave him such reactions, such a hindsight appears plausible.
Last edited:
There's no such thing as Yawgate. Just as there's no such thing as Clintongate. Yawgate is a term coined mischievously or ignorantly or misguidedly by GMS. The original -gate was Watergate. It referred to political scandal and conspiracy. Neither Yaw nor Clinton had done any of that. There's no -gate.
Last edited:
in the light of what ramseth, perspective, TFBH & many others share re: GMS & his various highfalutin moral pronouncements (ridiculously backed & echoed almost verbatim by Sadist/Kanina),
all the more at every GMS post, I find his use of David Marshall's gem on public service highly out of place as the signature quotation of a man whose self righteousness & pomposity outweigh his modest ability.... damn my china clients would say this is typically greast-beating matyr who always 好心做坏事 ('create trouble with a "good" heart') !
all the more at every GMS post, I find his use of David Marshall's gem on public service highly out of place as the signature quotation of a man whose self righteousness & pomposity outweigh his modest ability.... damn my china clients would say this is typically greast-beating matyr who always 好心做坏事 ('create trouble with a "good" heart') !
Fair enough. I could call it the Yaw episode, but I believe people know what I am saying.
I can't remember if I stated my position on the matter but here it goes - WP did turn it around, but the episode was better not to have than have. In terms of moral, it is clearly wrong to me as a member of my faith. In terms of political competency, that is no relation to (a moot point). In terms of the sacking due not to morals or competency but transparency, that is the biggest sole factor that I agree with (though pro-WP chaps must be clear it makes 1 wrong and 1 right and not 1 wrong and 2 rights). This is to show where I stand else I am only said to be accusing NSP. Even if I do not want to even side WP in the slightest bit, it is a fact that PAP and NSP/SDA has never sacked their MP in such a manner.
Last edited:
Dear Rams
After having seen Moulmein, Kallang become in demographics like Holland Bukit Panjang. I would say that the temptation by the PAP was for the WP to over reach and to spread its best candidates to thinly on the ground. They designed Moulmein Kallang and all the SMCs as opposition fly traps , suck them in and damage their chances of winning on weaker ground. Without prior work on the ground and without a star factor appeal, it would have been difficult for either party and more so for the NSP.
GMS could never persuade Tony and Hazel to put all their eggs in one basket. Half his party wanted to waste its time across the other side of the Island.
Locke
After having seen Moulmein, Kallang become in demographics like Holland Bukit Panjang. I would say that the temptation by the PAP was for the WP to over reach and to spread its best candidates to thinly on the ground. They designed Moulmein Kallang and all the SMCs as opposition fly traps , suck them in and damage their chances of winning on weaker ground. Without prior work on the ground and without a star factor appeal, it would have been difficult for either party and more so for the NSP.
GMS could never persuade Tony and Hazel to put all their eggs in one basket. Half his party wanted to waste its time across the other side of the Island.
Locke
I understand that the expulsion of Yaw wasn't due to morals. If you've read law and politics, there's nothing to do with morals, it's just what's best for the majority and what the majority would want or tolerate. The expulsion of Yaw was due to irresponsibility, disappearing from duty. That WP has given good accountability. Take the Clinton example again, he stood steadfast, faced the music, confessed and apologized. Not only wasn't he expelled, he was even re-elected.
Last edited:
Ah Ram, you are very intelligent. GMS will covertly cripple opposition politics in S'pore. It wasn't his motive. He was just being used.
Prostitutes are paid for services rendered.
Of course, we're more intelligent. How can SAF training compare to SPF training?
You see SPF senior officers in PAP, none of them mention their ORD(NS) ranks. SPF? Colonels, BGs and MGs falling over each other.
Similar threads
