Fact: Low Thia Kiang voted against having a time limit on when to hold a By-Election

[Perspective]

Re: Fact: Low Thia Kiang voted against having a time limit on when to hold a By-Elect

I think Ram is making fair comment. Being my brother, or father or mother or sister, doesn't give me an overwhelming right to claim them as my property. Like what KJ does to his dad. They have their friends as well and if I, say, ill-treated any of them, their friends have the right to stand for them.

What DG thinks is one matter, that is not Ram's point I believe, the point is the actions and deeds of the FVI itself in response. To be fair I don't believe anyone can predict death but it obviously knows that if DG had stayed with WP's campaign he would still be standing right now, but that is fine. At least show some guilt, remorse and compensation, one way is to continue staying with NSP and develop both the party and your own political skills in whatever capacity or TOC in his honour, instead of thinking it has reached some pinnacle of enlightenment, wasting its life in this forum and further wasting its life by talking only trash in forum, wrong priorities by pyro-ing the party its brother stayed with and assisting the PAP it said it didn't exactly favour. Now isn't that wasting and reversing DG's efforts in both the opposition cause as well as in his brother's cause who is now destroying both their works and its own credibility calling its former voters "insects" and "WP insects" when forummers aren't even interested in WP, and reversing all it used to believe in.

It's not a matter about who have the stronger points. The FVI often ends up rebutting its own points. Why would Ram need to do that for it?

 

[Ramseth]

Re: Fact: Low Thia Kiang voted against having a time limit on when to hold a By-Elect

Thanks to Rainnix for your frank feedback. Neither offense nor underbelt hit meant. Those were just facts. We have to live with and face up to facts. Thanks to Perspective for elaborating. My point isn't about the death of David. It's about brother helping brother is natural, even all the way to death, that coming from GMS who has been fingerpointing and loudmouthing about nepotism between the Lee parents and sons, brothers and sisters, family and extended family.

Whether or how or not did GMS work his brother to death is none of my business. It's their family business. My main point is, WP has been magnaminous enough to understand the brotherhood bond and let his brother help NSP without forcing him to resign or expell him. But today, look at the words GMS has for WP.

 

[Debonerman]

Re: Fact: Low Thia Kiang voted against having a time limit on when to hold a By-Elect

This so confusing! DG from WP was helping NSP and GMS was all along helping PAP!

 

[lockeliberal]

Re: Fact: Low Thia Kiang voted against having a time limit on when to hold a By-Elect

Dear. Ramseth,

As an orphan to, I would add the following points. Tactical voting even on principal is never easily explained to a wider electorate, note John, I vote for it before I voted against it flip flop Kerry.

The GRC , gerrymandering, etc all were designed in part to ensure absolute PAP dominance of the electoral process, If anyone has abused, and stretched the principles of Democracy it will be the PAP.

GMS can preach principles and shout democratic representation till the cows come home because HE HAS NOT WON anything or his party has not.

Obviously bending the rules is not being pro Singapore. but then again one could argue that fighting and wining within Bent and unfair rules is because it shows that it can be done. The question is having won an unfair fight to begin with does one give up whatever little advantage one had for "principles". Or does one fight using the same dirty rules as the PAP to win ? knowing full well, the huge structural advantage the PAP has.

For me it's damm well Simple, The pap does not fight fair and if u have to fight Goliath with unfair weapons then so be it. Politics remembers the winners it does not have a kind footnote for losers.


Locke

1. You're the one who recruited me into WP and left me orphaned behind; fortunately I have a brotherhood of orphanage by then.

2. You're the one who recruited your brother into WP who worked hard every week to attain cadreship. But when election came, you pulled him to help you in your NSP campaign. Even as a WP cadre, WP had neither objection nor complaint against him helping you. He ended up dead under your charge.

3. What's national interest? Is it for you say or decide? Re-read my monograph on democracy and weep. The majority decides, not you or me.

 

[Ramseth]

Re: Fact: Low Thia Kiang voted against having a time limit on when to hold a By-Elect

For me it's damm well Simple, The pap does not fight fair and if u have to fight Goliath with unfair weapons then so be it. Politics remembed the winners it does not have a kind footnote for losers.

Dear brother orphan, well said. We have come to the point when 4 in 10 vote opposition, i.e. only 6 in 10 vote PAP. That proves that there's democracy in Singapore as a matter of principle, not a matter of fear or apathy. The discrepancy is in the parliamentary representation reflected, i.e. 81 in 87 are PAP.

Now that opposition commands a good bulk of the popular votes, the next step should be to swing even more votes in more constituencies to cross that winning margin to redress the imbalance in parliamentary representation. Camp with your party at your respective GRCs and win more GRCs, not partyhopping over silly differences in ideologies and policies. Win first, talk later. But for some, it's argue first, lose later. Then scold the 60% voters for cowardice or stupidity.

The 60% voters have their own intelligence to vote with and their own interests to vote for. They're the bellweather that 60% PAP policies are still popular.

 

[Thick Face Black Heart]

Re: Fact: Low Thia Kiang voted against having a time limit on when to hold a By-Elect

Goh Meng Seng, you simply don't get it! WP never thought that TLA's proposals were more principled, they in fact pointed out what was wrong with her proposals. TLA was making adjustment here and there in fact to hold GRC hostage to a single person. She was not trying to reduce GRC size or abolish it, so why should WP vote for the proposal.

Obviously you have to vote AGAINST the proposal because it is badly designed and does not meet any of the democratic objectives of political fairness at the electoral battle ground.

The answer is quite easily get. If WP is so principled in going against GRC system, so much so that it could vote against a MORE principled notion of democratic representation, then it should stop contesting in GRC during GE! By contesting in GRCs, it actually gave legitimacy to the GRC system! That is MORE DIRECT indication of supporting the GRC than voting against the principle of exercising democratic representation in GRC!


Goh Meng Seng

 

[Thick Face Black Heart]

Re: Fact: Low Thia Kiang voted against having a time limit on when to hold a By-Elect

Its not up to any opposition whether to fight fairly or unfairly. The PAP dictates the boundaries and all the rules. If you don't want to fight according to their prescription, you are not allowed to fight at all. So the choice for an opposition, even an opposition with 1, 2 or 3 GRCs under its belt, is not whether to fight fairly, but whether to fight within the rules or not to fight at all and give up altogether.

Which alternative will serve Singaporeans better? Obviously it is to fight within the rules, rather than to leave the game.

Given a choice to have smaller GRCs, I'm sure WP will support the idea. No reason not to. Smaller GRCs do not disadvantage WP or any opposition. Only larger GRCs do.

Did TLA advocate smaller GRCs? No, she didn't. Did she advocate proportionate representation? No, she did not. Should WP be taken to task for voting against TLA's motion? No, they should not.

Dear. Ramseth,

For me it's damm well Simple, The pap does not fight fair and if u have to fight Goliath with unfair weapons then so be it. Politics remembers the winners it does not have a kind footnote for losers.


Locke

 

[Perspective]

Re: Fact: Low Thia Kiang voted against having a time limit on when to hold a By-Elect

I think it is a matter of a political party striking a balance, and given that "balance" is a subjective thing, this balance needs to be of commonsense (which is lacking in fat village insects). For one, it has to oppose a policy in a way that agreement with parts of a policy's implications is not compromised. We all know that policies, despite being single, has dual or more ramifications.

For example, the Barisan boycotted Parliament because they believed Parliament was not convened for many purposes. But the act of boycott also went against the Barisan's belief of Parliamentary democracy because you are effective moving the power of decision-making to outside of Parliament.

In WP's case, they do not believe in GRCs, but they believe in giving people a choice. The latter can only be achieved by contesting as many seats as possible. Yet if the seats are in GRCs, they would have to contest GRCs to achieve #2, but put on record that they disagree with GRCs and promise of abolishing it if it comes into power. The WP should be faulted not for contesting GRCs, but not abolishing GRCs if it comes into power and does not do so. Such matters involving GRCs can only be changed with power, hence forummers were wondering why <b>it</b> (the FVI) was fussing about the powerless WP vis-a-vis GRC's existence.

And since <b>it</b> said WP should not contest GRCs because WP disagrees with GRCs, since <b>it</b> also disagrees with GRCs <b>itself</b>, <b>it</b> should be pyro-ing PAP who is the architect of GRCs and not WP, but by doing so ironically became guilty of what <b>it</b> accused WP of. No wonder people thought <b>it</b> is now with PAP.

The WP also voted against the motion and came up with another motion that includes one out of the 3 proposals in the motion it voted against - the timeline for by-election. The FVI would have a case against WP if WP merely voted against the motion without anything else. As I said for the 2nd time, only both <b>it</b> and Hri Kumar omitted mentioning WP's new motion despite being clearly in the know. And after I mentioned this the first time, instead of taking back <b>its</b> words, <b>it</b> vanished from the thread (which I expect <b>it</b> will employ the old tactic of repeating the lie in another thread). That, to me, is anti-WP and not objective as <b>it</b> claims, the kind of objective of TOC, Publichouse. Even TRE doesn't have such a slanted slope against WP (at least not presently). If <b>it</b> wants to be a neutral, it should take a leaf out of Publichouse, which has been quite objective compared to TOC or TRE. Being objective is to give more credit to PAP, not pyro WP more giving the excuse that everyone else is pyro-ing PAP (that is Bryan Ti's poo, and <b>it</b> wants to emulate that?).

The FVI's argument about boycotting something a party doesn't believe in is age-old, stinking argument with stench that can only come with fat insects. It is like saying that if you disagree with a particular task your boss gave you but is not unethical, you should resign. It is alright to resign if the task requires you to cheat your customers. But if you think a product should be marketed at $3 to factor in the poor and the company's final decision is $6, should you resign? It is as good as not taking employment in any job since we will all face that situation once a week.

Or it is as good as saying that if WP disagrees with transport hikes, all WP CEC members should walk to work.

The NSP under <b>its</b> charge believed in GRCs and complained about GRCs. Furthermore, the party believed in 3 member GRCs while contesting 5 member GRCs. That is even more incoherent, but <b>it</b> kept quiet about it for the years <b>it</b> served as SG.

 

[Thick Face Black Heart]

Re: Fact: Low Thia Kiang voted against having a time limit on when to hold a By-Elect

Well said. It is a simple train of logic and reasoning that the village idiot cannot grasp at all. Or shall I be more precise ... the VI does not appear to grasp it because SHIT (she/he/it) does NOT wish to grasp it. SHIT (she/he/it) only wishes to throw stones, create confusing and self-contradictory arguments, engage in circular logic, and draw attention to SHIT (she/he/it).

In WP's case, they do not believe in GRCs, but they believe in giving people a choice. The latter can only be achieved by contesting as many seats as possible. Yet if the seats are in GRCs, they would have to contest GRCs to achieve #2, but put on record that they disagree with GRCs and promise of abolishing it if it comes into power. The WP should be faulted not for contesting GRCs, but not abolishing GRCs if it comes into power and does not do so. Such matters involving GRCs can only be changed with power, hence forummers were wondering why it (the FVI) was fussing about the powerless WP vis-a-vis GRC's existence.

 

[Perspective]

Re: Fact: Low Thia Kiang voted against having a time limit on when to hold a By-Elect

Well said. It is a simple train of logic and reasoning that the village idiot cannot grasp at all. Or shall I be more precise ... the VI does not appear to grasp it because SHIT (she/he/it) does NOT wish to grasp it. SHIT (she/he/it) only wishes to throw stones, create confusing and self-contradictory arguments, engage in circular logic, and draw attention to SHIT (she/he/it).

Thank you. My para 4 is very telling of the FVI's character itself. Green SHIT is what it likes.

 

[wikiphile]

Re: Fact: Low Thia Kiang voted against having a time limit on when to hold a By-Elect

Well said. It is a simple train of logic and reasoning that the village idiot cannot grasp at all. Or shall I be more precise ... the VI does not appear to grasp it because SHIT (she/he/it) does NOT wish to grasp it. SHIT (she/he/it) only wishes to throw stones, create confusing and self-contradictory arguments, engage in circular logic, and draw attention to SHIT (she/he/it).

I was wondering if SHIT thinks that GRCs is a representation of true democracy in Singapore and that it should not be voted against. We will be in deep shit if SHIT and cronies manage to win a GRC by a freak act of nature.

The prata flipping would be obvious but i rather SHIT not get a chance to do so, then again SHIT has been trying for 2 GEs with nothing to show except a young girl in the last one

 

[Perspective]

Re: Fact: Low Thia Kiang voted against having a time limit on when to hold a By-Elect

I was wondering if SHIT thinks that GRCs is a representation of true democracy in Singapore and that it should not be voted against.

Good retort! Exactly the same angle it used, turned out slapped itself in the bug-sized horizontally-oval face.

 

[jbsmith]

Re: Fact: Low Thia Kiang voted against having a time limit on when to hold a By-Elect

By-election is not optional
Letter from Sylvia Lim Member of Parliament for Aljunied, Chairman, Workers’ Party
04:46 AM Mar 01, 2012
MR HRI Kumar Nair's letter "We should let PM do his job" (Feb 29) referred to the Workers' Party's (WP) vote in Parliament against the motion filed by two Nominated Members on when by-elections are triggered and when they should be called.

His letter may give readers the wrong impression that WP was against setting a time-limit for by-elections in constituencies where the Member of Parliament's seat is vacant.

The motion in 2008 was precipitated by the demise of Jurong Group Representation Constituency (GRC) MP Ong Chit Chung and was a call to refine the system to provide for when a by-election should be called in a GRC.

It proposed that a by-election in a GRC be called upon the departure of either the minority MP or more than half of the MPs in the team.

It also proposed that a by-election be called in the event of vacancy in a Single Member Constituency (SMC) and for all by-elections to be held within three months of the vacancy.

When speaking then on the motion, I made it clear that WP was unable to support the motion for the simple reason that an attempt to refine the GRC system would be tantamount to accepting GRCs in our system, which WP does not.

Mr Hri Kumar noted correctly that WP had proposed in that debate an amendment to the motion, which did not succeed.

Besides calling for the abolition of GRCs, our amended motion would have preserved that part of the original motion which provided a three-month timeline for calling a by-election in an SMC.

Article 49 of the Constitution mandates that a vacant seat "shall", not "may", be filled by a by-election. It is not optional.

Though the timing is not provided in our laws, thus giving the Prime Minister some discretion, it has been pointed out that Section 52 of the Interpretation Act provides that where an act is to be done with no time limit prescribed, it should be done "with all convenient speed".

The Government should thus call the by-election in Hougang as soon as practicable.

Source: http://www.todayonline.com/Voices/EDC120301-0000060/By-election-is-not-optional

 

[3_M]

Re: Fact: Low Thia Kiang voted against having a time limit on when to hold a By-Elect

I observed parties that centred too much on principles and activisms seldom comes into power.

 

[Perspective]

Re: Fact: Low Thia Kiang voted against having a time limit on when to hold a By-Elect

When is the fat village insect (no)cum forum village idiot from the orange village which enjoys green SHIT (what a long name) coming to defend SHITSELF is anyone's guess. SHIT was accusing "WP insects" of not defending WP, then accuse whoever who came in as "WP insects" after they defend WP (even Scroobal got labelled), and while frolicking SHITS own "heads-I-win-tails-you-lose" principle with pride, nowhere is SHIT to defend SHITSELF.

There's a reason why forummers here do not pyro brocoli, Char_Azn, RonRon or myo539 the way they pyro THE SHIT. They never advocated cutting the opposition slack like SHIT did, only to swallow SHITS own principles and SHIT after WP went up the scales. So where is THE SHIT. "SEE HOW I'M TIMID"?

 

[scroobal]

Re: Fact: Low Thia Kiang voted against having a time limit on when to hold a By-Elect

This has been one of the best threads where good arguments have been put across very well by many. Impressed by Ramseth's fortright and practical views. GMS however is poor in his reasoning.

To be frank, WP approach has always been simplistic. Been simplistic is not necessarily negative. The odds have always been stacked heavily against the opposition. If you have watched WP and LTK over the years, he prefers to argue on tangible issues, avoid moot and abstract issues and was never attempted at arguing principles. He and WP thus remove the opportunity from the PAP to denegrate them.

WP opposes the concept of GRC which they have stated many times and and not about to engage in any activity in shaping or molding the GRC framework. How this is termed as being non pro Singapore is beyond logic. GRC is a means to enter parliament and they did not use the dumb excuse of many to avoid that approach as a matter of principle.

The use of David, a WP cadre in helping NSP is an excellent analogy.

 

[scroobal]

Re: Fact: Low Thia Kiang voted against having a time limit on when to hold a By-Elect

Bro, don't waste your time. He becomes highly irrational when it comes to WP. You better off sitting on a 3 legged chair which can offer some level of support at a certain angle. His arguments have no legs.

When is the fat village insect (no)cum forum village idiot from the orange village which enjoys green SHIT (what a long name) coming to defend SHITSELF is anyone's guess. SHIT was accusing "WP insects" of not defending WP, then accuse whoever who came in as "WP insects" after they defend WP (even Scroobal got labelled), and while frolicking SHITS own "heads-I-win-tails-you-lose" principle with pride, nowhere is SHIT to defend SHITSELF.

There's a reason why forummers here do not pyro brocoli, Char_Azn, RonRon or myo539 the way they pyro THE SHIT. They never advocated cutting the opposition slack like SHIT did, only to swallow SHITS own principles and SHIT after WP went up the scales. So where is THE SHIT. "SEE HOW I'M TIMID"?

 

[kingrant]

Re: Fact: Low Thia Kiang voted against having a time limit on when to hold a By-Elect

GMS,

The day you lost to MBT is the day you lost yr credibility as to yr strategies, approach, methods etc. You had the work cut out for you but you let us down. Now you are all over the place criticising all yr successful rivals or one time associates. Yr arguments are real weird.

 

[Fook Seng]

GMS,

The day you lost to MBT is the day you lost yr credibility as to yr strategies, approach, methods etc. You had the work cut out for you but you let us down. Now you are all over the place criticising all yr successful rivals or one time associates. Yr arguments are real weird.

Agree with you. MBT was there for the
picking. What a waste?

 

[Ramseth]

Re: Fact: Low Thia Kiang voted against having a time limit on when to hold a By-Elect

Agree with you. MBT was there for the
picking. What a waste?

I actually supported the NSP and GSM contest in Tampines GRC. The misfortune and mistake came with the breakup faction of RP that Cpt. GMS as Sec-Gen of NSP gleefully took in and split his battalion strength and direction. Instead of a good chance to win a GRC, he wanted to contest more and ended losing all.