-
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.
Fact: Low Thia Kiang voted against having a time limit on when to hold a By-Election
- Thread starter wMulew
- Start date
Re: Fact: Low Thia Kiang voted against having a time limit on when to hold a By-Elect
The ones that voted Aye were all NMPs from the 11th parliament, so that would have happened between 2007 to 2009. CST seems to be absent.
The ones that voted Aye were all NMPs from the 11th parliament, so that would have happened between 2007 to 2009. CST seems to be absent.
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2011
- Messages
- 10,331
- Points
- 0
Re: Fact: Low Thia Kiang voted against having a time limit on when to hold a By-Elect
Yes, I wonder why LTK voted no,..not that it mattered if he voted yes...I hope he explains why...
Yes, I wonder why LTK voted no,..not that it mattered if he voted yes...I hope he explains why...
- Joined
- Jul 10, 2008
- Messages
- 35,599
- Points
- 113
Re: Fact: Low Thia Kiang voted against having a time limit on when to hold a By-Elect
looking at the way it is crafted, me wouldn't give a full "aye" for this motion.
part a.i. states that when a member of the GRC belonging to a minority group vacates, shall carry out by-elections.
everyone in a GRC team is "held ransom" by the minority member? very tough call, aye?
looking at the way it is crafted, me wouldn't give a full "aye" for this motion.
part a.i. states that when a member of the GRC belonging to a minority group vacates, shall carry out by-elections.
everyone in a GRC team is "held ransom" by the minority member? very tough call, aye?
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2008
- Messages
- 4,081
- Points
- 48
Re: Fact: Low Thia Kiang voted against having a time limit on when to hold a By-Elect
WP has always been against the GRC system. So they would not vote for anything that further entrenches that corrupting institution. Politically, they also do not want it said that they had de facto supported the GRC system, especially when the amendment was bound to fail anyway.
If I am not wrong, WP moved for a further division so that the parts of the amendment involving GRCs (subsection (i)) be voted on separately from those involving the SMC but was rejected by the other members.
WP has always been against the GRC system. So they would not vote for anything that further entrenches that corrupting institution. Politically, they also do not want it said that they had de facto supported the GRC system, especially when the amendment was bound to fail anyway.
If I am not wrong, WP moved for a further division so that the parts of the amendment involving GRCs (subsection (i)) be voted on separately from those involving the SMC but was rejected by the other members.
Last edited:
Re: Fact: Low Thia Kiang voted against having a time limit on when to hold a By-Elect
TS should also put the link for hanzard and see what the debate was about and people will get the context. Nobody in his right mind after all the effort, is going to be held ransom by one single minority member in a GRC. Zihau is right.
TS should also put the link for hanzard and see what the debate was about and people will get the context. Nobody in his right mind after all the effort, is going to be held ransom by one single minority member in a GRC. Zihau is right.
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2009
- Messages
- 5,494
- Points
- 0
Re: Fact: Low Thia Kiang voted against having a time limit on when to hold a By-Elect
Can abstain or not
If can, then must explain why he "aye"............
Can abstain or not
If can, then must explain why he "aye"............Re: Fact: Low Thia Kiang voted against having a time limit on when to hold a By-Elect
time has changed lah tat time and now. tat time no opposition GRC representation mah. anyway hougang no need by election can b absorbed into aljunied GRC.
time has changed lah tat time and now. tat time no opposition GRC representation mah. anyway hougang no need by election can b absorbed into aljunied GRC.
- Joined
- Jul 10, 2008
- Messages
- 35,599
- Points
- 113
Re: Fact: Low Thia Kiang voted against having a time limit on when to hold a By-Elect
me don't sit in the Parliament leh, so me not sure of the full proceedings :o:o:o
Can abstain or not
me don't sit in the Parliament leh, so me not sure of the full proceedings :o:o:o
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2008
- Messages
- 4,968
- Points
- 48
Re: Fact: Low Thia Kiang voted against having a time limit on when to hold a By-Elect
If that was the case, they should have abstain, not vote NO. Assuming what U say is true, WP needs to learn to vote more tactically
If that was the case, they should have abstain, not vote NO. Assuming what U say is true, WP needs to learn to vote more tactically
- Joined
- Jul 10, 2008
- Messages
- 18,719
- Points
- 0
Re: Fact: Low Thia Kiang voted against having a time limit on when to hold a By-Elect
The bill that was voted down concerned GRC. Only NMPs who needn't go through the electoral process would table and vote for such a bill. Both PAP and WP members voted it down in unison, PAP members knowing that they're either in GRC or could be posted to GRC anytime, why be held ransom by minority or other members? WP members knew one day (as it has already happened) that they would win a GRC. Commonsense, isn't it? Tell NMPs to go eat shit and die, or else join a party and stand for election. But WP couldn't do that since PAP wanted shit eaters and shit stirrers around, and they're still dominant enough to insist on having them.
Also, WP and SPP held only one SMC each at that time. In case of sudden vacation of seat for whatever reason, it's hanging the entire party on the highwire.
The bill that was voted down concerned GRC. Only NMPs who needn't go through the electoral process would table and vote for such a bill. Both PAP and WP members voted it down in unison, PAP members knowing that they're either in GRC or could be posted to GRC anytime, why be held ransom by minority or other members? WP members knew one day (as it has already happened) that they would win a GRC. Commonsense, isn't it? Tell NMPs to go eat shit and die, or else join a party and stand for election. But WP couldn't do that since PAP wanted shit eaters and shit stirrers around, and they're still dominant enough to insist on having them.
Also, WP and SPP held only one SMC each at that time. In case of sudden vacation of seat for whatever reason, it's hanging the entire party on the highwire.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2008
- Messages
- 3,359
- Points
- 0
Re: Fact: Low Thia Kiang voted against having a time limit on when to hold a By-Elect
Abstention is not a tactical vote - it is a populist vote. It means you have no stand on an issue. To some, it is irresponsible positioning.
2 out of 3 of the first 3 submissions concern a GRC. WP is right to agree with the 4th on a separate resolution.
Abstention is not a tactical vote - it is a populist vote. It means you have no stand on an issue. To some, it is irresponsible positioning.
2 out of 3 of the first 3 submissions concern a GRC. WP is right to agree with the 4th on a separate resolution.
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2008
- Messages
- 3,162
- Points
- 0
Re: Fact: Low Thia Kiang voted against having a time limit on when to hold a By-Elect
Truth be told, WP should have abstained if they were steadfast on their stand against the GRC. To vote against or for the bill is to acknowledge its relevance. It also makes them look silly that they voted similarly with the MIW when they in fact have a totally different from the MIWs. It's plain dumb!
They should have abstained. It is as simple as that.
Truth be told, WP should have abstained if they were steadfast on their stand against the GRC. To vote against or for the bill is to acknowledge its relevance. It also makes them look silly that they voted similarly with the MIW when they in fact have a totally different from the MIWs. It's plain dumb!
They should have abstained. It is as simple as that.
- Joined
- Jul 10, 2008
- Messages
- 35,599
- Points
- 113
Re: Fact: Low Thia Kiang voted against having a time limit on when to hold a By-Elect
hmm... bro, then would it be something like how BS abstaining from that monumental referendum on the merger?
hmm... bro, then would it be something like how BS abstaining from that monumental referendum on the merger?
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2008
- Messages
- 3,162
- Points
- 0
Re: Fact: Low Thia Kiang voted against having a time limit on when to hold a By-Elect
BS then had been compromised. To abstain as they did was to allow the PAPpies free reign, for 50 over years. For WP to abstain would not result in even 1% of the disaster that BS's abstaining did. WP had also talked so much against the GRC but in the end they voted same as the PAPpies.
There should be a thread on the merits of the PAP, the referendum and the PAP's desire to pull out from Malaya. There were other options as is the case with Hong Kong. But the PAP were hellbent on getting Singapore for themselves from which to build their empires. And I'm not talking about Leeapore but each and every PAP cabinet minister knew very well that they were on a course to destroy the lives of their political enemies and to obtain absolute control over their citizens. DOn't blame LKY, all the first generation cabinet ministers knew this very well. And this was the reason they all have kept silent until their deaths. This includes D Nair. What little bitching he did is less than 1% of what he and his PAPpies friends did to gain power and to hold onto it. :oIo:
BS then had been compromised. To abstain as they did was to allow the PAPpies free reign, for 50 over years. For WP to abstain would not result in even 1% of the disaster that BS's abstaining did. WP had also talked so much against the GRC but in the end they voted same as the PAPpies.
There should be a thread on the merits of the PAP, the referendum and the PAP's desire to pull out from Malaya. There were other options as is the case with Hong Kong. But the PAP were hellbent on getting Singapore for themselves from which to build their empires. And I'm not talking about Leeapore but each and every PAP cabinet minister knew very well that they were on a course to destroy the lives of their political enemies and to obtain absolute control over their citizens. DOn't blame LKY, all the first generation cabinet ministers knew this very well. And this was the reason they all have kept silent until their deaths. This includes D Nair. What little bitching he did is less than 1% of what he and his PAPpies friends did to gain power and to hold onto it. :oIo:
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2008
- Messages
- 3,359
- Points
- 0
Re: Fact: Low Thia Kiang voted against having a time limit on when to hold a By-Elect
Perhaps it is the political culture and reality here that makes you think that way. A UK parliamentarian will agree with my comments if he/she reads it. That would be very much their approaches - no sitting on fence, no intentional avoidance of voting with the other side (sometimes against own party to flex muscles etc.)
Truth be told, WP should have abstained if they were steadfast on their stand against the GRC. To vote against or for the bill is to acknowledge its relevance. It also makes them look silly that they voted similarly with the MIW when they in fact have a totally different from the MIWs. It's plain dumb!
Perhaps it is the political culture and reality here that makes you think that way. A UK parliamentarian will agree with my comments if he/she reads it. That would be very much their approaches - no sitting on fence, no intentional avoidance of voting with the other side (sometimes against own party to flex muscles etc.)
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2010
- Messages
- 12,289
- Points
- 113
Re: Fact: Low Thia Kiang voted against having a time limit on when to hold a By-Elect
Agree with Zhihau, you and Scroobal here. Proper context must be made. The debate was about GRC and the clause about SMC was never the main thrust of Thio Li Ann's motion. WP has always been for reform of the GRC system, but not in the manner prescribed by TLA. WP's voting against the motion was correct because they disagreed with TLA's approach of how GRC system should be reformed to handle the loss of a member. Many opposition supporters would also disgaree with TLA once they've understood the context of the debate.
It was never about SMC.
Agree with Zhihau, you and Scroobal here. Proper context must be made. The debate was about GRC and the clause about SMC was never the main thrust of Thio Li Ann's motion. WP has always been for reform of the GRC system, but not in the manner prescribed by TLA. WP's voting against the motion was correct because they disagreed with TLA's approach of how GRC system should be reformed to handle the loss of a member. Many opposition supporters would also disgaree with TLA once they've understood the context of the debate.
It was never about SMC.
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2008
- Messages
- 3,162
- Points
- 0
Re: Fact: Low Thia Kiang voted against having a time limit on when to hold a By-Elect
Who gives a fcuk what UK does or does not do? :oIo:
We are talking about Singapore. We are talking about GRC which the WP was always against. If WP was against GRC then why give it any credence or relevance in voting for or against it? :*:
To make matters worse, the WP voted in tandem with the PAPpies. How much more stupid can they look after all this talk from them.
They should as they have acknowledged that the GRC is a pathetic attempt at introducing a more democrtic process. They should acknowledge that but accept that they have to play by the rules of today (then) which includes the GRC system. For them to disprove of the GRC system and then give relevance to it by voting in such a manner as to give it credence and relevance is pure stupidity. Add in the fact that they voted in like manner with the PAPpies goes to show that the WP knows head from tail where or what to stand for and when to do it.
Who gives a fcuk what UK does or does not do? :oIo:
We are talking about Singapore. We are talking about GRC which the WP was always against. If WP was against GRC then why give it any credence or relevance in voting for or against it? :*:
To make matters worse, the WP voted in tandem with the PAPpies. How much more stupid can they look after all this talk from them.
They should as they have acknowledged that the GRC is a pathetic attempt at introducing a more democrtic process. They should acknowledge that but accept that they have to play by the rules of today (then) which includes the GRC system. For them to disprove of the GRC system and then give relevance to it by voting in such a manner as to give it credence and relevance is pure stupidity. Add in the fact that they voted in like manner with the PAPpies goes to show that the WP knows head from tail where or what to stand for and when to do it.
Similar threads
