3 clowns announce their candidatcy for next GE

[Goh Meng Seng]

If it worked I am sure they wouldn't need more NCMPs. People could tell it is not any different from China, so more ways/are were needed.

The Yaw issue leaves the PAP side a question mark while (it's true) you lost your own side, whereas there's worse things you can do to lose the chance of getting the PAP side to your side, with no guarantee of keeping your side. For that matter WP and key members are rarely heard speaking on other opposition. Probably don't care since they remember they came in for the PAP in the 1st place. Seems the rest oppose a different thing now. With here one opposition man reminding us of "bickering" and his ex-party.

Yes. Those close to the SDP found this and LTK's remark, Sylvia's IBA "comments" and their forums the 4 primary things touching raw nerve. Notice all 4 oft-repeated series had some relation to them. The first involved a candidate, former incumbent long gained infamy, 2nd was alluding a remark to their chief, 3rd on their trademark international engagement. Nothing was ever harped about WP not joining SDA or attending RP's forums. Surprised you didn't notice.

I have long learned that when there are more than 2 people within a group, there will bound to be bickering among them once a while. Especially so in politics.

There is nothing wrong in having opposition members bickering among themselves and I won't be surprised PAP members doing the same. It would be very odd and strange to me if someone assert that everyone are living happily ever after without any bickering among themselves. I would worry if there are no noises at all; it would be worse than Communist rule, I guess.

As for about harping on WP not joining SDA, it has happened long time ago among opposition members. Nothing new. WP was invited but rejected, so someone dissatisfied with it. That's pretty normal. Not attending RP's forums? Well it is not a norm to demand people to attend your forum, isn't it?

Goh Meng Seng

 

[Perspective]

I have long learned that when there are more than 2 people within a group, there will bound to be bickering among them once a while. Especially so in politics.

Of course. But I don't know if it happens more in politics.

There is nothing wrong in having opposition members bickering among themselves and I won't be surprised PAP members doing the same. It would be very odd and strange to me if someone assert that everyone are living happily ever after without any bickering among themselves. I would worry if there are no noises at all; it would be worse than Communist rule, I guess.

Of course again. That's I always made a distinction between settling disputes in pte and in public. The former is settling or attempt to settle matters face to face and talking to each other won't bring the media to your doorstep unless you're Jimmy Carrey's Truman. The latter is not an intention of settling matters because you're talking away from your disagreer and talking to the people how unhappy you are with your disagreer......and your disagreer can't hear you until he finds out in the news, so that is very clear how serious you are. Now why would the people vote for the opposition when you are telling us how bad the opposition is and as an opposition you telling us how bad means it's real bad, or the complainant is bad. I would not take the risk with either side. Now that would have been commonsense to even those who don't know anything politics.

Your point maybe that PAP also has disputes and I should cut slack since there are disputes in all camps, but like an ordinary human I wouldn't remember disputes when I don't hear of it hence it's probably settled but when it's public it's different because it means it can't be settled.

I believe you misunderstand my last point but Scro would get my point.

 

[Goh Meng Seng]

Bickering? I think the worse an opposition member can do is not the bickering but making their own affiliation look worse than what they are. If an opposition voter like me doesn't see bickering, please don't concoct or remind people (even if there is) of any "bickering".

Well, bickering doesn't make one's affiliation look worse, low taste and low class does. That's the difference. One hand cannot clap, two can.

Honesty is the best policy. You can only fool someone some of the time, but not everyone all of the time. There is nothing wrong to have difference in views even among opposition parties. If you truly believe in democracy, you should not be taking it as "making their own affiliation look worse".

The fact that people in opposition to join different parties, itself is a clear sign of having differences among them. Even people of the same party can have different views and agenda and sometime would quarrel among themselves, so what? That is bad? Nah. That is good from the democratic point of view. Only dictators like to have their own political parties to shut up, follow and toe the party lines.

To put the thinking to the extreme, at this moment, all political parties other than PAP are considered as "opposition" but does it mean that this would stay forever? What if one of the political party like WP becomes the ruling party? PAP and all other political parties would become opposition... on the same side!

Thus your term of "affiliation" is relative, not absolute.

To take the argument even further. If nobody wins a clear mandate of having 50% of the parliamentary seats. Does it mean that "opposition" parties other than PAP would naturally form the ruling coalition? I seriously doubt so. Most likely PAP form the ruling coalition with some other party! And guess which will be the party which would prefer to go into coalition with PAP?

Goh Meng Seng

 

[Perspective]

Friend, if you really want to respond to any post, do think double through some of the things first.

Well, bickering doesn't make one's affiliation look worse, low taste and low class does. That's the difference. One hand cannot clap, two can.

Why did you think opposition should avoid "bickering" in the first place? There has to be something counterproductive right? Even if it is not out of looking bad.

Honesty is the best policy. You can only fool someone some of the time, but not everyone all of the time.

"Honesty" has little to do with "bickering". You can start a "bicker" out of dishonest intentions as well.

There is nothing wrong to have difference in views even among opposition parties.

I never said the bickering was between opposition parties. I only used "opposition" as in "party" because I didn't want to use any party as example.

If you truly believe in democracy, you should not be taking it as "making their own affiliation look worse".

I think you mean "liberty" not "democracy". Please check the meaning of the word "democracy". If people do not want to see you bicker in public because they are not confident that you can work together, you don't believe in that, you are going against their grain, how that be democracy.

Only dictators like to have their own political parties to shut up, follow and toe the party lines.

I never said people who disagree should shut up. Read my post you responded to again.

To put the thinking to the extreme, at this moment, all political parties other than PAP are considered as "opposition" but does it mean that this would stay forever? What if one of the political party like WP becomes the ruling party? PAP and all other political parties would become opposition... on the same side!

Finally a point that offers some substance and provoked me to think, at least a little. I would think the problem right now is that PAP manages to handle its internal disputes quite well, but it would be farfetched to think they have no problems.

To take the argument even further. If nobody wins a clear mandate of having 50% of the parliamentary seats. Does it mean that "opposition" parties other than PAP would naturally form the ruling coalition? I seriously doubt so. Most likely PAP form the ruling coalition with some other party!

That point is not related to the discussion, but it's an interesting hindsight nevertheless.

And guess which will be the party which would prefer to go into coalition with PAP?

I don't know. NSP?

 

[scroobal]

All parties will be potential coalition partners with PAP without exception if no single party gains a majority. They all will make the claim that they can monitor the PAP closer. Thats politics 101.

By the way, good to hear that you have finalised your team. Do start a thread on this when you are ready. Would like to see support and discussion being kickstarted on the GE.

Will be wonderfull if more candidates put their names forward. Interesting to see how they young and new singaporeans will vote.

To take the argument even further. If nobody wins a clear mandate of having 50% of the parliamentary seats. Does it mean that "opposition" parties other than PAP would naturally form the ruling coalition? I seriously doubt so. Most likely PAP form the ruling coalition with some other party! And guess which will be the party which would prefer to go into coalition with PAP?

Goh Meng Seng

 

[Goh Meng Seng]

Friend, if you really want to respond to any post, do think double through some of the things first.



Why did you think opposition should avoid "bickering" in the first place? There has to be something counterproductive right? Even if it is not out of looking bad.



"Honesty" has little to do with "bickering". You can start a "bicker" out of dishonest intentions as well.



I never said the bickering was between opposition parties. I only used "opposition" as in "party" because I didn't want to use any party as example.



I think you mean "liberty" not "democracy". Please check the meaning of the word "democracy". If people do not want to see you bicker in public because they are not confident that you can work together, you don't believe in that, you are going against their grain, how that be democracy.



I never said people who disagree should shut up. Read my post you responded to again.



Finally a point that offers some substance and provoked me to think, at least a little. I would think the problem right now is that PAP manages to handle its internal disputes quite well, but it would be farfetched to think they have no problems.



That point is not related to the discussion, but it's an interesting hindsight nevertheless.



I don't know. NSP?

There is nothing "counterproductive" in bickering my friend. You are just thinking like PAP! Better to have one party rule, pass laws as quickly as possible without much bickering!

Bickering or even prolonged discussions and argument is NOT counterproductive but rather, a necessary process of Democracy...not Liberty. You better check what Democracy really means in essence, not just simply elections but it includes much more than than. Liberty is just a subset of Democracy my friend.

I for one would like to see more politicians "bicker" in public; that should be the way democratic politics should be. Even in USA, the republicans will argue their views in public domains over certain issues. The Democrats do so as well, so what? Only people with a closed mind would see bickering publicly by political parties as "counterproductive". Look on the bright side, that is what Democracy requires, a system of checks and balances via public discussion.

Why, in the first place would you assume "opposition now" should be expected to "work together"? If so, must well merge all parties into one, isn't it? You don't seem to get the drift. You view "opposition" as relative to PAP as ruling party. Does that necessarily mean that opposition are expected to "work together"? I don't really see WP "working together" with other political parties even though other political parties wanted to go into alliance with it or even invited them to speak in their forums! So, who is giving the impression that your definition of "opposition" not able to "work together"? Get the drift?

Having said that, I see no problem in that, really. I do not expect your so call
"opposition" to "work together". I see them as individual political parties with their own agenda, else they would be together as one already.

As for what will be the first to consider as a coalition partner with PAP, I guess you will have to check with WP leadership first; maybe Mr. Yaw Shin Leong could help you clear this piece since he has readily voted PAP once.

Goh Meng Seng

 

[leetahbar]

There is nothing "counterproductive" in bickering my friend. You are just thinking like PAP! Better to have one party rule, pass laws as quickly as possible without much bickering!

Bickering or even prolonged discussions and argument is NOT counterproductive but rather, a necessary process of Democracy...not Liberty. You better check what Democracy really means in essence, not just simply elections but it includes much more than than. Liberty is just a subset of Democracy my friend.

I for one would like to see more politicians "bicker" in public; that should be the way democratic politics should be. Even in USA, the republicans will argue their views in public domains over certain issues. The Democrats do so as well, so what? Only people with a closed mind would see bickering publicly by political parties as "counterproductive". Look on the bright side, that is what Democracy requires, a system of checks and balances via public discussion.

Why, in the first place would you assume "opposition now" should be expected to "work together"? If so, must well merge all parties into one, isn't it? You don't seem to get the drift. You view "opposition" as relative to PAP as ruling party. Does that necessarily mean that opposition are expected to "work together"? I don't really see WP "working together" with other political parties even though other political parties wanted to go into alliance with it or even invited them to speak in their forums! So, who is giving the impression that your definition of "opposition" not able to "work together"? Get the drift?

Having said that, I see no problem in that, really. I do not expect your so call
"opposition" to "work together". I see them as individual political parties with their own agenda, else they would be together as one already.

As for what will be the first to consider as a coalition partner with PAP, I guess you will have to check with WP leadership first; maybe Mr. Yaw Shin Leong could help you clear this piece since he has readily voted PAP once.

Goh Meng Seng

my friend, these shadowy people even though highly educated are morally defunct. and morally defunct clowns if allowed to become MPs would create more havocs to the masses.

they themselves are suffocating with unresolved problems and pettiness vengefulness. ask urself how could these people really concern for others? they are a bunch of unhappy clowns...and they would wanna sow more unhappiness.

 

[Goh Meng Seng]

All parties will be potential coalition partners with PAP without exception if no single party gains a majority. They all will make the claim that they can monitor the PAP closer. Thats politics 101.

By the way, good to hear that you have finalised your team. Do start a thread on this when you are ready. Would like to see support and discussion being kickstarted on the GE.

Will be wonderfull if more candidates put their names forward. Interesting to see how they young and new singaporeans will vote.

Thank you Scroobal.

I am sick of old strategy and old tactic that has not given the alternative parties any edge for all these 20 years. The so call "keeping their cards close to their chest" has not worked for donkey years in gaining voters' confidence.

There are a few things I would like to see changing. Announcing candidates for different constituencies AT THE VERY LAST MINUTE are not going to give people the impression that your candidates are serious contenders. PAP MPs have the advantage of being known to their constituents much earlier with adequate exposure due to the very fact that they are the incumbents.

I don't know why alternative parties are so adverse in deciding and confirming their candidates well in advance. Maybe we are just not confident in the people we select as candidates, to give them adequate time, space and platform to allow them to make their voices heard and names known to the voters. The excuses given include "we don't know the how the boundaries are going to be redrawn". But heck, no matter how they are going to redraw, Ang Mo Kio will always be Ang Mo Kio, it will not disappear physically! If there are drastic redrawing of constituencies, I guess voters would understand our last minute re-arrangement of our candidates due to the change in configurations. So be it.

I am going to experiment with a new strategy. Announce my candidates and even the location we chose to fight EARLY. Let my candidates have adequate time, space and platform to air their views to the public. Never mind if they really make some stupid mistakes along the way. I do not expect PERFECT candidates, they are just human. As long as we are able to stick together as a team and learn our ways, that is fine with me.

Many people believe ground work is Number One strategy. After the battle in Aljunied, I don't believe so. Ground work may be important, but should not be the only SINGLE DOMINATING IMPORTANCE. The truth is, even when political parties carry out their ground work, they refrain from identifying themselves firmly as potential candidates for that constituency! So the ground work has little use except to up the party's image a bit. But we know that most Singaporeans vote alternative parties more according to who stand in their constituency, less on which party is contesting. One prime example is Steve Chia having more percentage votes than some WP candidates even though he is from NSP which is perceived as having less political branding.

Some "bickering" from "opposition" may appear if I announce my team for contest in certain GRC; just like Yaw Shin Leong making public disappointment known when Chiam announced that he is looking into contesting Bishan TP. But so be it. I am ready and daring enough to put my cards on the table early for all to see. Other political parties may make noise but just show me your cards if you want to make noise. Then we will let the public like you to decide which team has better mix; not necessary about having "better candidates".

This comes to the second point. Alternative parties have been looking for "better candidates" without knowing the key factor in fighting a GRC includes the RIGHT MIX of candidates. Most people thought that if we could get ALL PHDs, doctors, lawyers and "highly qualified elites" as candidates, they will have higher chance!

But is this true? I seriously doubt so. NSP in the past has tried such formula before. They have an impressive team of doctors, lawyers and Phds. But they score a mediocre result. Why? Paper qualification is not a sufficient condition for political success; it may not even be a necessary condition to start with!

Anyway, these are some of the thoughts I have over the past and future strategy in breaking up PAP's monopoly power.

Goh Meng Seng

 

[scroobal]

Thats what I like about you - prepared to discuss issues, try new things and not afraid to to throw out views that may not be popular. Despite the fact that half the time I do not agree with you, yet you are prepared to reply and engage the topic at hand. Good for you.

One of the reasons why parties tend to hold things close to their chest is to avoid announced candidates getting caught out by the govt controlled press.
You might be right in that if announced early besides the constituents knowing the candidate better, all the supposed negativity can be taken out early by addressing and bringing closure to any minor adversity.

Looks like you have been burning the midnight oil - well done.

There are a few things I would like to see changing. Announcing candidates for different constituencies AT THE VERY LAST MINUTE are not going to give people the impression that your candidates are serious contenders. PAP MPs have the advantage of being known to their constituents much earlier with adequate exposure due to the very fact that they are the incumbents.

Goh Meng Seng

 

[leetahbar]

many had in the past experienced the double-crossing of the nefarious ng ejay. on one hand, he pretended to accede to peace n ceasefire but on the other hand, his sinister defaming is initiated.

all these people are just not sincere to really wanna improve the lives of peasants. they are here simply for self-glorifying. they exploit and masterbate one another thus giving a false sense of achievement.

look how chee massaged chia when he pleaded guilty and praise him for being "patriotic". what about ng ejay who hastingly PG without more concern about his action would dreadfully and adversely affect the entire TBT gang? and see how that troll lamei still applying her FLIRT&DESTROY on him to boost his self-conceit?

 

[Perspective]

There is nothing "counterproductive" in bickering my friend. You are just thinking like PAP! Better to have one party rule, pass laws as quickly as possible without much bickering!

Huh? Not sure if you were even replying to me. I wanted clarification on why you felt opposition should avoid bickering and start concentrating on elections and why the change of tact. Were you then thinking like PAP?

Bickering or even prolonged discussions and argument is NOT counterproductive but rather, a necessary process of Democracy...not Liberty. You better check what Democracy really means in essence, not just simply elections but it includes much more than than. Liberty is just a subset of Democracy my friend.

Now that's a clearer picture. Yes, it is, provided that you accept that the people also has the democratic right to vote out parties that bicker in public. Because democracy is not only for politicians and parties. The last time it happened it brought a party half it's vote share and I think that's democracy. As you said, the word encompasses more and there is an essence, so you should not in the same breadth define the word so narrowly. BTW it's in Wikipedia and it means "Popular Government" in Latin.

I for one would like to see more politicians "bicker" in public; that should be the way democratic politics should be. Even in USA, the republicans will argue their views in public domains over certain issues. The Democrats do so as well, so what? Only people with a closed mind would see bickering publicly by political parties as "counterproductive". Look on the bright side, that is what Democracy requires, a system of checks and balances via public discussion.

Have not heard any bickering between yourself and another NSP politician, so I guess it's either unhealthy "democracy" or the party must be perfect.

Why, in the first place would you assume "opposition now" should be expected to "work together"? If so, must well merge all parties into one, isn't it?

Did I?

You view "opposition" as relative to PAP as ruling party. Does that necessarily mean that opposition are expected to "work together"?

Did I?

I don't really see WP "working together" with other political parties even though other political parties wanted to go into alliance with it or even invited them to speak in their forums! So, who is giving the impression that your definition of "opposition" not able to "work together"? Get the drift?

Did I? However I recall you were earlier saying that WP needs to learn to work together because it has to form a coalition in future.

Having said that, I see no problem in that, really. I do not expect your so call "opposition" to "work together". I see them as individual political parties with their own agenda, else they would be together as one already.

That I never disagreed.

As for what will be the first to consider as a coalition partner with PAP, I guess you will have to check with WP leadership first

Well if you couldn't tell I wasn't really interested in the question it was because I didn't see that had anything to do with the discussion, so there.

maybe Mr. Yaw Shin Leong could help you clear this piece since he has readily voted PAP once.

Since you were a WP candidate before, maybe you could tell us how many out of the 20 candidates (including Yaw) voted PAP. I would think that if at least 11 voted for PAP, yes. (Then again, wouldn't expect one to be honest with their ex-parties)

 

[scroobal]

Looks like this has moved from bickering to nitpicking.

Huh? Not sure if you were even replying to me. I wanted clarification on why you felt opposition should avoid bickering and start concentrating on elections and why the change of tact. Were you then thinking like PAP?

 

[Perspective]

Thats what I like about you - prepared to discuss issues, try new things and not afraid to to throw out views that may not be popular. Despite the fact that half the time I do not agree with you, yet you are prepared to reply and engage the topic at hand. Good for you.

One of the reasons why parties tend to hold things close to their chest is to avoid announced candidates getting caught out by the govt controlled press.
You might be right in that if announced early besides the constituents knowing the candidate better, all the supposed negativity can be taken out early by addressing and bringing closure to any minor adversity.

Looks like you have been burning the midnight oil - well done.

Yes enjoyed reading this particular one, one of the rare better, posts of GMS. Although don't agree with about half of the pointers it is an interesting perspective nevertheless. And better than what I found were weaker replies the same author had been giving me so far.

 

[Goh Meng Seng]

Huh? Not sure if you were even replying to me. I wanted clarification on why you felt opposition should avoid bickering and start concentrating on elections and why the change of tact. Were you then thinking like PAP?



Now that's a clearer picture. Yes, it is, provided that you accept that the people also has the democratic right to vote out parties that bicker in public. Because democracy is not only for politicians and parties. The last time it happened it brought a party half it's vote share and I think that's democracy. As you said, the word encompasses more and there is an essence, so you should not in the same breadth define the word so narrowly. BTW it's in Wikipedia and it means "Popular Government" in Latin.



Have not heard any bickering between yourself and another NSP politician, so I guess it's either unhealthy "democracy" or the party must be perfect.



Did I?



Did I?



Did I? However I recall you were earlier saying that WP needs to learn to work together because it has to form a coalition in future.



That I never disagreed.



Well if you couldn't tell I wasn't really interested in the question it was because I didn't see that had anything to do with the discussion, so there.



Since you were a WP candidate before, maybe you could tell us how many out of the 20 candidates (including Yaw) voted PAP. I would think that if at least 11 voted for PAP, yes. (Then again, wouldn't expect one to be honest with their ex-parties)

I think you are talking like PAP... comment out of context then return to the context?

People may be like you, will only think that they better vote PAP if those people are "bickering opposition"! Err.... does that sound familiar somewhat? But I respect their choice just like I respect Yaw Shin Leong's voting right.

But my point is, why should people adopt such voting consideration in the very first place?

I didn't know your definition of words are merely determined by "Wikipedia" or some simple definition! I was expecting more substance from your understanding on what Democracy means!

Well, if things turn out that way that WP may need to work as coalition, naturally it is either with PAP or some other "opposition". That's the essence. Unless WP will not consider working with anyone else, be it PAP or "opposition".

At this instance, it is of course "not politically correct" to be seen to "work together with PAP", so to speak, unless you think otherwise? Thus, the most natural choice now, is for WP to try to work with other "opposition", isn't it? This is a "political necessity" based on "political consideration". But this does not necessary means that voters should expect ALL opposition parties are to "work together". This is something you assert earlier.

You are mixing up perspective from political parties vs voters. Never mind.

You ask me how many WP candidates voted for PAP? Voting is secret unless they want to reveal their voting preference willingly in public domain like Yaw Shin Leong. And it is an intrusion to other people's privacy to ask such question but I can tell you what I know, Yaw voted PAP, I didn't and voted for his team. And the other thin I know is that in spite of Yaw voting for PAP, he is re-elected by WP cadre as CEC member. So I guess WP as a party organization, has no problem with his voting preference.

Goh Meng Seng

 

[Perspective]

I don't plan to drift further and would want a response to golden question (rather than a politics debate, not my intention).

I am still curious as to why you wanted opposition to avoid bickering at first.

If it's in the passages you wrote, please enlighten.

 

[Goh Meng Seng]

I don't plan to drift further and would want a response to golden question (rather than a politics debate, not my intention).

I am still curious as to why you wanted opposition to avoid bickering at first.

If it's in the passages you wrote, please enlighten.

Where did I write that?

I simply say, we may have our bickering from time to time but it is unnecessary to take down people who are potential "opposition candidates" via such process.

Sometimes, I really wonder your ability to understand the delicate difference! I am all for small little bickering based on differences in views, but not vicious personal emotional vengence to take people down and attempts to destroy them from taking candidacy in coming elections.

Goh Meng Seng

 

[Perspective]

Where did I write that?

I simply say, we may have our bickering from time to time but it is unnecessary to take down people who are potential "opposition candidates" via such process.

Sometimes, I really wonder your ability to understand the delicate difference! I am all for small little bickering based on differences in views, but not vicious personal emotional vengence to take people down and attempts to destroy them from taking candidacy in coming elections.

Goh Meng Seng

"There are of course several bickering of the past between individuals or even different opposition parties but I think it is time to put all these to the past and concentrate on providing adequate contest and challenge to PAP's monopoly of power."
- Goh Meng Seng

Why would one need to put "bickering" "to the past" if if it "small little bickering based on differences in views"? Unless the "bickering" was at a level but it wasn't indicated.

(Other 2 side thoughts - it is hard to tell if bickering is difference of views or personal vengeance because the latter would express a difference of view. However, if one could tell because the detractor came clean, that was my point in the first place.)

 

[Perspective]

All parties will be potential coalition partners with PAP without exception if no single party gains a majority. They all will make the claim that they can monitor the PAP closer. Thats politics 101.

Absolutely agree and good point.

(There's a contradiction with painting "Mr Clean" and saying all are "Mr Black". It's a easy way out but cuts no ice)

 

[Goh Meng Seng]

"There are of course several bickering of the past between individuals or even different opposition parties but I think it is time to put all these to the past and concentrate on providing adequate contest and challenge to PAP's monopoly of power."
- Goh Meng Seng

Why would one need to put "bickering" "to the past" if if it "small little bickering based on differences in views"? Unless the "bickering" was at a level but it wasn't indicated.

Put it to the past doesn't mean that don't bicker in the future. And this post is posted in what context? When you are seeing people trying to go for other people's throats! But for the moment, it is time to concentrate to tackle the most important issue on how to provide adequate contest and challenge to PAP's monopoly of power. As I have said, your mind is beginning to work like PAP, taking things out of context. Did you read my later postings to Locke? Get the better feel of the context please.

Goh Meng Seng

 

[Perspective]

Put it to the past doesn't mean that don't bicker in the future. And this post is posted in what context? When you are seeing people trying to go for other people's throats! But for the moment, it is time to concentrate to tackle the most important issue on how to provide adequate contest and challenge to PAP's monopoly of power. As I have said, your mind is beginning to work like PAP, taking things out of context. Did you read my later postings to Locke? Get the better feel of the context please.

Goh Meng Seng

I will leave the name-calling you so endear aside even if you called me PAP another 4 times because that's not important to me. Now, why would bickering be avoided at certain times when it is supposed to be part of a democracy.