NSP Response to PM Lee's NDR speech

We are glad to hear the Prime Minister addressing the various key problems that we have been raising for the past one year in his National Day Rally speech.

However, at closer examination, we have the following key points to make:

<span style="font-weight:bold;">$60 billion for MRT infrastructure over 10 years</span>

1. Where would the government get the funding of $60B from?

2. Will the PAP government increase the GST to 10% or raise other taxes to get additional funding? Will the public transport fares increase to finance this expenditure?

3. Will the PAP government keep to the promised time frame of 10 years? The PAP government has delayed various important infrastructure projects, like the building of hospitals as well as the Downtown line, which have resulted in the increased cost of construction. Will the PAP government promise to keep to the budget of $60B instead of allowing it to balloon out of control, just like what happened to the YOG budget?

<span style="font-weight:bold;">Measures to keep Housing Affordable</span>

1. We are very confused by the various contradictory signals that the PAP ministers have sent within these few months:

a. Late last year, Minister Mah Bow Tan claimed that housing was still affordable, and that the influx of immigrants was not a main factor causing the rise in resale prices. But now the Prime Minister has acknowledged that the influx of new immigrants has contributed to the rise in resale prices.

b. When Minister Mah put up the first few measures in March 2010 to curb rising resale prices, some Singaporeans questioned the inadequacy of such measures. Minister Mah defended his ministry’s decision and said no other measures would be necessary. But just 5 months down the road, Minister Mah has introduced more drastic measures to curb property prices.

c. In March 2010, Minister Mah claimed that the supply of flats was more than sufficient to meet any surge in demand. However it seems that his ministry must now go into overdrive to ramp up the supply of BTO flats.

d. In March 2010, Minister Mah raised the minimum occupation period for resale flat owners who take bank loans from 1 year to 3 years. Barely a few months later, the ministry is now further pushing it up to 5 years. It seems that HDB is unable to provide any policy stability at all.

e. On 26 June 2010, MM Lee said there probably isn’t any property bubble. But now, Minister Mah admits that a property bubble is in the making.


2. In December 2009, after admitting to being “caught off guard”, Minister Mah reassured us of the ministry’s ability to keep this problem of “unexpected” rise in property prices in check. Yet the contradictions as noted above clearly signal that his ministry continues to lose sight of the severity of the problem.

3. The latest drastic measures have caused unwarranted shocks to the whole system. Those who have based their purchases of HDB flats or private properties on the past policies will face great financial losses. The frequent policy changes will erode investor’s confidence in the government’s competency in dealing with such problems.

4. As long as there isn’t any fundamental change in the pricing mechanism of new HDB flats and the increasing demand of new migrants (Permanent Residents) is not effectively met by other means, we do not see how prices for both new and resale HDB flats can become affordable. NSP reiterates our stand that new HDB flats should be sold at cost price to citizens. HDB should also consider selling new flats to PR at market price so to ease the demand due to unusual increase in PR population.

<span style="font-weight:bold;">Immigration Policy</span>

1. We do not think that the Prime Minister understands the real problems caused by the huge influx of foreign labour on the ground.

2. PM Lee has raised the example of coffeeshop owners unable to find Singaporeans who are willing to work until 12a.m. and thus they need to employ foreign workers. But the truth is, to ask workers to work 14 hours or more in a day is an act of exploitation. The labour law should be applied equally on both local and foreign workers. We cannot allow employers to exploit foreign workers just because Singapore workers are unwilling to be exploited.

3. We also notice that there are firms putting up recruitment advertisement which discriminate against either Singapore citizens or races. The liberal FT policy that the PAP government has adopted is partly to be blamed for this discrimination of local Singapore citizens by businesses. This practice has to be stopped and NSP urges the government to set up Commission of Equal Opportunity and setting laws to outlaw discriminatory employment practices.

4. PM Lee has ignored the severity of the depression of wages of both middle and lower income earners due to the influx of foreign labour. There is no mention of any concrete plans to deal with this problem.

5. PM Lee may think that foreign labour will help to create jobs for Singaporeans but the reverse is also true. Many Singaporeans’ jobs have been displaced by foreign labour. The problem is so severe that engineers and managers are now becoming taxi drivers. We have invested lots of money in the education of our citizens but such displacement of jobs of foreign labour has effectively made our investment wasted. Here again, there is no mention of any concrete plans to deal with this problem by PM Lee.

6. Raising workers’ levy alone will not help much in preventing engineers and professionals being displaced by foreign labour. Raising workers’ levy will not prevent exploitation of foreign workers nor save jobs for citizens.

7. Last but not least, this liberal immigration policy has caused a serious problem of income disparity within our society. Wages of both middle and lower income earners have been depressed while some have basically lost their jobs and face underemployment or even unemployment. The widening of income gap and the diminishing of middle class are great concerns to social stability but the Prime Minister has not addressed it either.

<span style="font-weight:bold;">Conclusion</span>

Although we feel that the Prime Minister has put up a very good pre-election National Day Rally speech but we still find that the solutions that his government has provided are generally inadequate.

We must bear in mind that all the problems and issues addressed by the Prime Minister are mostly the result of oversight by the various ministries under the charge of the respective ministers. All these problems are not new and have been raised by many people including NSP over the year. These problems could be long anticipated as it is the direct result of PAP government’s deliberate policy of opening the floodgates for foreign workers and migrants to come to Singapore. These “caught off guard” ministers should be responsible and made accountable for their deficiencies.

We also note that the Prime Minister has not resorted to giving out goodies or red packets to citizens as a populist tactic to win support. We would be impressed if PAP decides to abandon its past undesirable election tactic and choose to contest the elections based on its policy views, ideas and plans instead. We would be even more impressed if PAP could put up the boundary report way before the impending general elections. It will open up a new era of healthy political competition and engagement for Singapore.

Goh Meng Seng
Secretary General
National Solidarity Party

I am aware the Singaporeans generally do not take to confrontational politics but is there a reason to be so nice and accomodating. Singaporeans are looking for Members of Parliament that are sharp, critical and tenacious on issues. The way that this response is written is more suitable for a Residential Estate Association where you do not want to put off an PAP MP as there is little choice.

The points are spot on. Lets have little more fire, take on the role of watchdog, behave like a critic and someone who can provide strong alternatives. Even Chiam on his younger days was a lot more fiery when it came to subjects such as HDB pricing etc.

Take a leaf out of western models of opposition parties - no quarters are given and none is expected. If you want to replace a PAP sitting member, you cannot come across as someone who is ready with suggestions, feedback and opinions. You are seeking accountability. Even people like the New Paper Sports Editor Leonard Thomas is more fiery and critical. So is T.Sasitharan, Tommy Koh, Alex Au, Alfian Saat, Balaji, and they are not even running for a seat.

Don't waste your time to try to please the uncles and aunties. They might admire you but they will always vote for the PAP. You should aim for those sitting on the fence and are mad about the 3 main issues of Housing, Transport and Immigration which you correctly highlighted.

The younger ones are also more concise in their approach to politics. Here is a good appraoch - take every opportunity as a 30 second soundbyte for you to push across message quickly. Use it convincingly.

Remember the nice niche is already covered by the PAP with people like Lily Kong, Ong Kian Min etc. No need for more nice people. Ever heard of Tan Cheng Bock or Tan Soo Khoon open up with double barrel gun in parliament on their own colleagues. You don't see them fluff their noses, thank the world and then make a critical comment. It has to be straight to the point.

If you want a lesson from a non-PAP person, then recall back in Hansard the comments by Kanwaljit Soin.

Here is the last tip. Don't confuse the PAP and the Government. When blasting them (when you finally do it) refer to the PAP and not the Government. People tend to respect the government so you have personalise the problem and associate it with the PAP. Don't use the the PAP and the government together and same applies to PAP and Minister. Just use the word PAP all the time for all things negative and government for all things positive.

Going forward when writing such responses or making a press release think of 2 well known Eurasian Singaporeans - Lionel de Souza and Dennis Distant. Aim to be closer to Dennis and far away from Lionel.

Opposition didn't pull the plug on the PAP's asset appreciation plan, Mr Mah did.

More good years...

Home > Breaking News > Singapore > Story
Jan 28, 2010
Don't cast protest vote: MM
By Sue-Ann Chia, Senior Political Correspondent
http://www.straitstimes.com/Breaking+News/Singapore/Story/STIStory_483139.html#


THE current contentious issue on the affordability of public housing was given another airing by Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew who cautioned Singaporeans not to cast a protest vote against the ruling party over this.

As Singaporeans lament rising flat prices, he said they ought to understand that the Government sells them at a subsidised price, below market rate, so that they can own an asset that will appreciate in value over the years.

It adds to their wealth and this is an asset-enhancing policy Mr Lee believes citizens should not find fault with.

If they do, they must be 'daft', he said, at a dialogue during a housing conference as part of a series of events to mark the Housing and Development Board's 50th anniversary.

And if National Development Minister Mah Bow Tan is unable to defend this policy, 'he deserves to lose' at the next general election, he quipped, to laughter from the participants, including a chuckling Mr Mah.

But if Mr Mah loses to the opposition, he warned that Singaporeans better sell their flats fast as they would no longer be of any value.

Goh Meng Seng said:

$60 billion for MRT infrastructure over 10 years

1. Where would the government get the funding of $60B from?

2. Will the PAP government increase the GST to 10% or raise other taxes to get additional funding? Will the public transport fares increase to finance this expenditure?

3. Will the PAP government keep to the promised time frame of 10 years? The PAP government has delayed various important infrastructure projects, like the building of hospitals as well as the Downtown line, which have resulted in the increased cost of construction. Will the PAP government promise to keep to the budget of $60B instead of allowing it to balloon out of control, just like what happened to the YOG budget?

Click to expand...

These points are very weak. They are typical Leong Sze Hian kind of questions -- where is the money coming from, why is it so much, etc?

The PAP is correct in spending more money on transportation. You should instead be questioning why so far, service standards have been so miserable, and how the $60B is going to improve that. Examples from HK, and Japan should be cited to illustrate how govts can create a good tpt system, and why are we not doing the same.

NSP's points on housing and immigration are spot on.

But need more zest.

Dear Scroobal,

Thank you for your pointers.

I am basically a very fiery person and I have to control myself emotionally when I wrote this message, else, I will be writing !@#$%^&*

Jokes aside but I tried to be mild because I do not want this long article to lose the gist amidst the expletives which may be used along with it. I have found that the SPH or Mediacorp editors tend to edit off those painful spikes which I threw in the past. Believe me, I have even use the phrase "VOTE BUYING" in my interview with some radio station but of course, it did not see the light of the radio waves.

I guess I have to find that fine balance between getting my message across (get them published) while maintaining my bites in some instances.

Goh Meng Seng

You are right. It does sound like classic Leong Sze Hian style.

Thick Face Black Heart said:

These points are very weak. They are typical Leong Sze Hian kind of questions -- where is the money coming from, why is it so much, etc?

Click to expand...

Do remember the PAP has never relented or resisted cutting down its opponents at the knees. I was at Fullerton when old man started questioning Chiam qualifications. None of them have held back and neither should you. The only exception was GCT in regard to Steve Chia during the hustings who complimented the latter.

I am glad that you have the fire in you. Write the first draft as usual. Then started taking out the positives and the civilities and sharpen the negatives and the critical comment so that there is no doubt that the fault lies with the PAP. Then apply the techniques that the likes of Myrna Thomas and the Hill Knowlton gang including Koh Buck Song have done over years about "labeling" and negative word associations. The PAP have used it so its fair game.

In debating, its up to the opponent to defend himself. You must be firm, hard and as I said before - tenacious. Just make sure there are no errors and if unsure don't use it.

Once you got the draft ready, then you correct the grammar. Here are some other tips - in your party website have bold headings such as the following

- why Singaporeans are mad
- why Singaporeans are disappointed
- Singaporeans need better than this
- why the PAP has failed the people
- Fairplay for every Singaporean
- Are the PAP listening to the everyday Singaporean

Note everyone of these examples have emotive words such as Singaporeans, PAP, everydaySingaporean etc. These attract readers who want to cut to the chase. Read Alfian's comments - it cuts deeply. Alex Au however is more journalistic rather than political. He tend to highlight their shortcomings but they are not political even he choses politics often.

Its not hard. You can write an entire speech about the apathy showed by the CEO of SMRT, the relentless search for higher rentals, and the her crushload comments while we hear how she teaches Tai Chi.

Just remember Government to the Chinese voters is mandate given by heaven. PAP on the other hand is an oppressive lot that never played by the rules starting with the elections. Just to get rally site for GE is a nightmare. After the Hougang debacle in terms of rally site, which Alex brilliantly flashed out, they are not going to give you another chance.

Goh Meng Seng said:

Dear Scroobal,

Thank you for your pointers.

I am basically a very fiery person and I have to control myself emotionally when I wrote this message, else, I will be writing !@#$%^&*

Jokes aside but I tried to be mild because I do not want this long article to lose the gist amidst the expletives which may be used along with it. I have found that the SPH or Mediacorp editors tend to edit off those painful spikes which I threw in the past. Believe me, I have even use the phrase "VOTE BUYING" in my interview with some radio station but of course, it did not see the light of the radio waves.

I guess I have to find that fine balance between getting my message across (get them published) while maintaining my bites in some instances.

Goh Meng Seng

Click to expand...

You can't write, you can't speak so what do you want me to say?



<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/9RrLQUN8UJg?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/9RrLQUN8UJg?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

I thought it was a resonablely balanced reply to the PM's NDR.

Singaporeans are not stupid and you don't really have to resort to theatrics to get their attention.

The PAP's half truths and focus of style rather than substance have made Singaporeans very wary of snake oil salesmen.

My view is that an Opposition politican who tells the truth in a clam, reasoned manner will gain a lot of credibility and support among Singaporeans who have recently awakened and are now looking for an alternative to the PAP.

That is exactly the problem - it is indeed reasonably balanced and therefore why would anyone vote for NSP.

No point getting NSP in parliament because they would provide a reasonably balanced comment during question time. I might as well vote for Tan Cheng Bock and Tan Soo Khoon who the ministries feared. Tan Cheng Bock is one of the nicest man you would meet. In Ama Keng he was considered god long before he entered politics. When he spoke in parliament, he went straight to the point. He did not offer compliments. I was told that the whip had a word with him about being too clinical. His retort was that if he wanted to be nice and civil, he would have joined the service industry and become a waiter;.

You must think that general elections is fair to all parties. Or do you prefer having a fireside chat with the PM over tea and scones to put across your view which of course would be balanced and reasonable.

If JBJ wrote a speech like that he would not have broken PAP's hegemony. He would however be remembered for his reasonably balanced speech.

We have had 50 years of PAP that Singaporeans have no clue about the basics of politics.

aurvandil said:

I thought it was a resonablely balanced reply to the PM's NDR.

Singaporeans are not stupid and you don't really have to resort to theatrics to get their attention.

The PAP's half truths and focus of style rather than substance have made Singaporeans very wary of snake oil salesmen.

My view is that an Opposition politican who tells the truth in a clam, reasoned manner will gain a lot of credibility and support among Singaporeans who have recently awakened and are now looking for an alternative to the PAP.

Click to expand...

scroobal said:

You must think that general elections is fair to all parties. Or do you prefer having a fireside chat with the PM over tea and scones to put across your view which of course would be balanced and reasonable.

If JBJ wrote a speech like that he would not have broken PAP's hegemony. He would however be remembered for his reasonably balanced speech.

Click to expand...

I don't think elections are fair and I don't think Goh Meng Seng is looking are a fireside chat with PM Lee.

The Opposition needs to reach out to Singaporeans. Unfortunately while the internet has a growing reach, many Singaporeans still rely on the msm for their news.

If you are too fiery and shrill, the msm will distort what you say and do so that you come across as a radical who is dangerous.

If you take a balanced, resonable approach, it is considerably harder to distort. Imagine you are the editor at ST and this NSP press release landed on your desk. As all of the points are resonable and backed up with dates and facts, it is quite hard to find fault with it and brand Goh Meng Seng a dangerous radical.

Until we can have a press which is fair and objective, the resonable calm approach is probably the only way to build your support.

scroobal said:

That is exactly the problem - it is indeed reasonably balanced and therefore why would anyone vote for NSP.

No point getting NSP in parliament because they would provide a reasonably balanced comment during question time. I might as well vote for Tan Cheng Bock and Tan Soo Khoon who the ministries feared. Tan Cheng Bock is one of the nicest man you would meet. In Ama Keng he was considered god long before he entered politics. When he spoke in parliament, he went straight to the point. He did not offer compliments. I was told that the whip had a word with him about being too clinical. His retort was that if he wanted to be nice and civil, he would have joined the service industry and become a waiter;.

You must think that general elections is fair to all parties. Or do you prefer having a fireside chat with the PM over tea and scones to put across your view which of course would be balanced and reasonable.

If JBJ wrote a speech like that he would not have broken PAP's hegemony. He would however be remembered for his reasonably balanced speech.

We have had 50 years of PAP that Singaporeans have no clue about the basics of politics.

Click to expand...

Hi scroobal, you sure do not mix your words, do you?

You are very incisive and stand no nonsense. Screwing a soft ball like GMS is hard enuf, but you did it very well. Keep it up!

Aurv,

Your reasoning is circular.

We are NEVER going to have a free/indep press until and unless the PAP hegemony is broken.

And we can't break the hegemony if we remain any of the following:

(a) meek
(b) apologists
(c) hold back punches

Scroobal is not saying GMS should become unreasonable. He is saying he should not hold back his punches.

GMS should also not become another leong sze hian, whom many people think has punched, but in reality has merely fingered.

aurvandil said:

I don't think elections are fair and I don't think Goh Meng Seng is looking are a fireside chat with PM Lee.

The Opposition needs to reach out to Singaporeans. Unfortunately while the internet has a growing reach, many Singaporeans still rely on the msm for their news.

If you are too fiery and shrill, the msm will distort what you say and do so that you come across as a radical who is dangerous.

If you take a balanced, resonable approach, it is considerably harder to distort. Imagine you are the editor at ST and this NSP press release landed on your desk. As all of the points are resonable and backed up with dates and facts, it is quite hard to find fault with it and brand Goh Meng Seng a dangerous radical.

Until we can have a press which is fair and objective, the resonable calm approach is probably the only way to build your support.

Click to expand...

Thick Face Black Heart said:

Aurv,

Your reasoning is circular.

We are NEVER going to have a free/indep press until and unless the PAP hegemony is broken.

And we can't break the hegemony if we remain any of the following:

(a) meek
(b) apologists
(c) hold back punches

Scroobal is not saying GMS should become unreasonable. He is saying he should not hold back his punches.

GMS should also not become another leong sze hian, whom many people think has punched, but in reality has merely fingered.

Click to expand...

If you re-read the press release, I don't think Goh Meng Seng is any of the above. The points are hard hitting. What we don't have is the kind of rethoric that raises people's emotions. It is quite factual and bland which makes it safe to give to a msm editor.

Time and again, Goh Meng Seng that the position he wants is the mid point between CSJ and LTK. The press release captures that position. Given the current poltical reality, I think this is a good place for newbie Opposition politican to be. This poltical reality can of course change very quickly if he wins a GRC and he has Parlimentary immunity. If you want to say something really hard hitting, it is silly given PAP's record to say it out in the open. You should make the point in Parliament and then circulate the Hansard record.

I don't see how, or why anyone should try to be a midpoint between LTK and CSJ because the two have different ideologies to begin with. A midpoint implies a continuum, and there is none. If you're referring to degree of aggressiveness as the benchmark, then LTK serves no purpose.

If GMS has said previously he wants to be some kind of midpoint, then he has to be corrected. He should be his own man, never mind what the others are doing.

aurvandil said:

Time and again, Goh Meng Seng that the position he wants is the mid point between CSJ and LTK. The press release captures that position. Given the current poltical reality, I think this is a good place for newbie Opposition politican to be. This poltical reality can of course change very quickly if he wins a GRC and he has Parlimentary immunity. If you want to say something really hard hitting, it is silly given PAP's record to say it out in the open. You should make the point in Parliament and then circulate the Hansard record.

Click to expand...

1980 was the last GE that PAP used a traditional slate of candidates who were primarily politicians. In 1984, it changed it entire approach of selecting candidates who were primarily non-politicians. It had nothing to do with JBJ Anson By-elections of 1981.

1984 was a watershed year as number of things occurred. The batch of "new women" - Dixie Tan, Aline Wong, Yu Yee Shoon, Scholars led by old man's son, direct entry businesspeople and very mild civic minded people. Most of these people are known for their "balanced and reasonable" views. It was a strategic move and it was brilliant on the part of old man. Couple of things emerged from this ;

1) there was no need for anyone one else to comment on Singapore issues that went against the grain of people's expectation. There were a number of PAP MPs that did the job and therefore there was no need for an opposition MP. The "balanced and reasonable" view was covered.

2) it made it easier to control the state press and the media as there were views that was contrary to govt's stand and these were "reasonable and balanced" and guess what? - it came form PAP MPs in parliament. Lily Neo is an excellent example and so are Inderjit Singh, Ong Kian Min and Sin Boon An. The state press can now quote on contrary views for "reasonable and balanced" reporting. This addresses your point about the press editor choosing balanced and reasonable views. It has been the benchmark for Singapore controlled journalism.

3) It is now 26 years and in the Singapore psyche, only "reasonable and balanced" views are acceptable. It basically takes away the oxygen from the opposition. When old man used the figurative threat of taking his hatchet to Catherine Lim by cornering her at a cul de sac, it was certainly not reasonable nor balanced but it came from the very man that managed to convince the gullible that only "reasonable and balanced" from the opposition is acceptable. An since his own MPs can do that , there was no need to for opposition.

If Singapore opposition continue to provide "reasonable and balanced" views, they will be certainly be mentioned in the press but there is no need to elect them. Why bother when Lily Neo and Sin Boon An can do just that and they have massive clout.

In the days of internet and control over one's own website, why toe the PAP line.

As I told GMS in my very first post in the Internet, the uncles and aunties will like him for his reasonable and balanced comments but they will not see a need to vote him in. Those needs are already met by the PAP.

I can assure you that JBJ, Chiam, Low and Ling would not be elected if they followed GMS style. Sylvia would not be taken seriously if she complimented the govt every time she wanted to be critical. It pointless being first out of the block in terms of responses and its pointless in making so many releases if these do not have an impact. Take a leaf out of KJ comments and articles. There are no compliments, there are no civilities, there no praises about the PAP and the Government, it straight to the issues of concern. Balance comments are for neutral parties, journalist and academics. If you are politician, you have to be tenacious with issues. Chiam got his seat because he kept badgering about HDB subsidy, cost of building a flat and I remember he even asked about the cost of sand. He never ever complimented the government about the success of the HDB which frankly is a marvel in the first 3 decades.

Tan Cheng Bock and Tan Soo Khoon however felt they were short selling Singaporeans and made it known. To take a measure of the man, Tan Cheng Bock point blank opposed the NMP scheme because of the balanced and reasonable bullshit went too far.

Sorry to belabour the point, but I suspect that if GMS and you can get it wrong and both of you are nice people with good intentions, I am sure the majority have fallen for the same spell cast 26 years ago.

I am sure GMS' desire is to be in parliament rather than be voted a nice guy.

aurvandil said:

I don't think elections are fair and I don't think Goh Meng Seng is looking are a fireside chat with PM Lee.

The Opposition needs to reach out to Singaporeans. Unfortunately while the internet has a growing reach, many Singaporeans still rely on the msm for their news.

If you are too fiery and shrill, the msm will distort what you say and do so that you come across as a radical who is dangerous.

If you take a balanced, resonable approach, it is considerably harder to distort. Imagine you are the editor at ST and this NSP press release landed on your desk. As all of the points are resonable and backed up with dates and facts, it is quite hard to find fault with it and brand Goh Meng Seng a dangerous radical.

Until we can have a press which is fair and objective, the resonable calm approach is probably the only way to build your support.

Click to expand...

Thanks, that is exactly what I mean. There is no need for theatrics, drama, sensationalism nor half truth and comments that cannot be substantiated. It has to be potent, incisive and clinical in cutting down the PAP.

The PAP has run roughshod over Singaporeans and there have been a number of policy failures and NSP has actually identified these concerns but the delivery is shocking. Even the ladies in Aware are more fiery when dressing people down.

By the way, the 1984 strategy of bringing in non-politicians such as Dixie Tan and Aline was mainly due to the backlash of the great marriage debate and the seminar that led to the subsequent birth of Aware.

Thick Face Black Heart said:

And we can't break the hegemony if we remain any of the following:

(a) meek
(b) apologists
(c) hold back punches

Scroobal is not saying GMS should become unreasonable. He is saying he should not hold back his punches.

GMS should also not become another leong sze hian, whom many people think has punched, but in reality has merely fingered.

Click to expand...

Cannot tahan anymore bro. I am however glad that he is considering the points.

methink said:

Hi scroobal, you sure do not mix your words, do you?

You are very incisive and stand no nonsense. Screwing a soft ball like GMS is hard enuf, but you did it very well. Keep it up!

Click to expand...