With the right type of opposition such as Chiam See Tong and Low Thia Khiang encouraged as "good" MPs, who needs another compliant one in Lina Chiam?
Especially one as good as her in digging out the past.
-
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.
CST's Wife Falling into 154th's Trap!
- Thread starter makapaaa
- Start date
With the right type of opposition such as Chiam See Tong and Low Thia Khiang encouraged as "good" MPs, who needs another compliant one in Lina Chiam?
Especially one as good as her in digging out the past.
His son Kenneth Jeya kicked his best pal Ng Teck Siong out of Reform Party. Perhaps that's politics, but the WP case is the least you can call "kick out".
1. First World progress due to First World govt: MM Lee, 147th Prostitute Press, 26 April 2006
"In an e-mail statement yesterday, he added: 'When dealing with opposition like the Workers' Party when J.B. Jeyaretnam played by the standards of the street fighters, the PAP must respond in kind.
'The Workers' Party under Low Thia Khiang must take this opportunity having got rid of Jeyaretnam to begin the process of getting the WP to First World standards".
2. GRCs needed to get minorities, women into House , 147th Prostitute Press, 29 April 2006
"Mr Lee also said that he hoped Singapore could start a fresh phase with the opposition appearing to have put aside what he called 'gutter politics'.
Mr Low, he said, was trying to do so, having got rid of Mr J.B. Jeyaretnam from the party. Mr Low was moving in the right direction, and this was why he (Lee Kuan Yew) was trying to encourage him, he added."
Subsequent events tended to show that Chiam was on the right track, and Chee derailed.
After taking over as SG of the party, the media acknowledged Chee's new status and accorded him space in the papers. The well-remembered and lengthy debate in the forum pages of the ST between Chee and his putative opponent at MacPherson, Matthias Yao, was a case in point. Chee was to take his party into the '97 election and to disaster. They lost the 2 seats they held, and the party leader himself failed to secure even the minimum vote -- of 40% -- that any opposition party leader would need to be considered credible, and this too in a single seat constituency of relatively small size.
Many of the SDP members of earlier years have fallen by the wayside. Now a new generation of members has arisen but have no knowledge of the '97 election and the years that preceeded it. But the initial inkling that they may have got that there is an apparent disconnect between their admiration for their party leader and the realities on the ground is the cold shoulder that most are receiving when they walk around in SDP colours. Contrast that with the generally warm reception that Chiam and Kenneth Jeyaretnam receive at the ground level.
People should begin to realise one fact -- that other than opposition to the ruling party, there are key differences between the opposition parties that include both style and policy substance.
After taking over as SG of the party, the media acknowledged Chee's new status and accorded him space in the papers. The well-remembered and lengthy debate in the forum pages of the ST between Chee and his putative opponent at MacPherson, Matthias Yao, was a case in point. Chee was to take his party into the '97 election and to disaster. They lost the 2 seats they held, and the party leader himself failed to secure even the minimum vote -- of 40% -- that any opposition party leader would need to be considered credible, and this too in a single seat constituency of relatively small size.
Many of the SDP members of earlier years have fallen by the wayside. Now a new generation of members has arisen but have no knowledge of the '97 election and the years that preceeded it. But the initial inkling that they may have got that there is an apparent disconnect between their admiration for their party leader and the realities on the ground is the cold shoulder that most are receiving when they walk around in SDP colours. Contrast that with the generally warm reception that Chiam and Kenneth Jeyaretnam receive at the ground level.
People should begin to realise one fact -- that other than opposition to the ruling party, there are key differences between the opposition parties that include both style and policy substance.
How did you know? Were on the ground? Unless you are an ISD dog?
I noticed your date of registration was 2008. You must be the sleeper internet brigade of the PAP activated just before election time? Doggies such as you will be watched for further anti-opposition activities.
U r right. LTK did not kick of JBJ. But neither did he discourage JBJ from leaving. Again, that is politics.
Relax, bro. Don't call people dog. In this forum, anyone who call people dog is automatically from SDP. Unless u want to be mistaken as an SDP member ... heheh
Dear Chau
Firstly I have to correct your statements. A hunger strike is meant to put you at threat of death for your cause in order to put pressure on the authorities. As a non civil disobedience political action, it works because of a REAL threat of death and hence political embarassment for the authorities. Of course if Chee had called it a fast as a protest we would not be having this debate as a fast is not life threatening
Secondly hunger strikers are allowed to take liquids for the simple reason of not allowing the body to collapse because of dehydration. Thirdly a quick search of force feeding of hunger strikers , includes, glucose and enzymes as one of the key life givers. So what does one make of a Hunger Striker who takes liquid glucose :_)). AT best according to some definitions it is a partial hunger strike but not a full one, though some have argued it is justified in some cases so as to extend the life of the hunger striker so he lives longer so as to put more political pressure on the gov. Other people view it as cheating in some form.
Locke
Firstly I have to correct your statements. A hunger strike is meant to put you at threat of death for your cause in order to put pressure on the authorities. As a non civil disobedience political action, it works because of a REAL threat of death and hence political embarassment for the authorities. Of course if Chee had called it a fast as a protest we would not be having this debate as a fast is not life threatening
Secondly hunger strikers are allowed to take liquids for the simple reason of not allowing the body to collapse because of dehydration. Thirdly a quick search of force feeding of hunger strikers , includes, glucose and enzymes as one of the key life givers. So what does one make of a Hunger Striker who takes liquid glucose :_)). AT best according to some definitions it is a partial hunger strike but not a full one, though some have argued it is justified in some cases so as to extend the life of the hunger striker so he lives longer so as to put more political pressure on the gov. Other people view it as cheating in some form.
Locke
Dear Chau
Differing circumstances and differing time frames lead to in my humble view differing conclusions. JBJ was removed by his CEC because of a dispute over who was to pay what for a law suit against the party started by the PAP. Save the party or save JBJ, can;t say the same circumstances applied in 1993. The similarities however are closer for 2006 and the current on going law suits against the SDP for allegations NKF related made against it in their party newspaper. Some of the then CEC had apologized and paid , some have not, and they not have a new party USD in case the old one is closed down.
Locke
Differing circumstances and differing time frames lead to in my humble view differing conclusions. JBJ was removed by his CEC because of a dispute over who was to pay what for a law suit against the party started by the PAP. Save the party or save JBJ, can;t say the same circumstances applied in 1993. The similarities however are closer for 2006 and the current on going law suits against the SDP for allegations NKF related made against it in their party newspaper. Some of the then CEC had apologized and paid , some have not, and they not have a new party USD in case the old one is closed down.
Locke
Who cares what Lee Kuan Yew says? Ironically, the biggest Lee Kuan Yew-haters are the ones who listen to him most.
The irony of men.
What is there to "correct" when I stated that a "hunger strike is not an action meant to kill yourself"??? Isn't that what I clearly stated earlier? If at all, I had to correct many of the cynics and sarcastic doubters egged on by Lee's lapdogs on this "glucose" issue in the old forum. It is good to see that after a few years, quite a few have now realised that a hunger strike is not a death strike.
Not quite sure what your point is except that it is an elaboration - except for the "cheating in some form" and "partial hunger strike" part - of what I have already stated.
Last edited:
You forget to mention that LTK never bothered to clarify LKY's remarks but instead patted each other's back with a "passing grade". Evidently LTK cares a great deal what LKY says and thinks about him.
Good luck to the Ah Beng in the forthcoming elections. They are going to need it.
You forget to mention that LTK never bothered to clarify LKY's remarks but instead patted each other's back with a "passing grade". Evidently LTK cares a great deal what LKY says and thinks about him.
Good luck to the Ah Beng in the forthcoming elections. They are going to need it.
I'm not LTK but I think he didn't bother with LKY remarks which was exactly my point.
If I were to inteprete things in your manner, CST must think LKY is honest and CSJ respects LKY a lot.
I expected this response and something along the line you have written
. As such, I decided to hold back Low Thia Khiang's response until this line emerged. This is what Low Thia Khiang said of LKY:"'I'm very surprised. MM Lee is Singapore's founding father. He has always said the truth." WP's Low: MM must sue me to prove he's right , 147th Prostitute Press, 4 May 2006
How not to believe the Godfather this time around when the Godson himself has stated he "always said the truth"???
Full article
********
WP's Low: MM must sue me to prove he's right
(147th Prostitute Press), 4 May 2006
WORKERS' Party chief Low Thia Khiang last night challenged Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew to sue him if he does not believe the party's account of who wrote Mr James Gomez's apology.
MM Lee was quoted in Lianhe Zaobao yesterday as saying that Mr Low could not have written the statement because his command of
English is not good enough.
In his response at a rally in Yishun yesterday, Mr Low said in Mandarin: 'I told reporters clearly that Gomez's apology was written by him and edited by me. This is the whole truth.'
He added: 'I'm very surprised. MM Lee is Singapore's founding father. He has always said the truth. 'But now he has spoken without basis of truth, made allegations against me that are not based on facts.
'Now unless he sues me in court, to prove that he is right, his own reputation will be affected.
'Singapore's international standing will also be affected. Because internationally, Lee Kuan Yew's name is equivalent to Singapore's.'
"Differing circumstances and differing time frames" but the essence was that the old leaders were forced to make way for the new.
For CSJ, it was an "ouster" that led to his ridicule and condemnation as an ingrate by LKY, his lapdogs and his 154th ranked prostitute press.
For Low Thia Khiang, it was a commendable deed for "getting rid" of a thorn and a disagreeable irritant in LKY's side. No wonder he was LKY's and the PAP's "agreeable" blue-eyed boy.
I expected this response and something along the line you have written
"'I'm very surprised. MM Lee is Singapore's founding father. He has always said the truth." WP's Low: MM must sue me to prove he's right , 147th Prostitute Press, 4 May 2006
How not to believe the Godfather this time around when the Godson himself has stated he "always said the truth"???
Full article
********
WP's Low: MM must sue me to prove he's right
(147th Prostitute Press), 4 May 2006
WORKERS' Party chief Low Thia Khiang last night challenged Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew to sue him if he does not believe the party's account of who wrote Mr James Gomez's apology.
MM Lee was quoted in Lianhe Zaobao yesterday as saying that Mr Low could not have written the statement because his command of
English is not good enough.
In his response at a rally in Yishun yesterday, Mr Low said in Mandarin: 'I told reporters clearly that Gomez's apology was written by him and edited by me. This is the whole truth.'
He added: 'I'm very surprised. MM Lee is Singapore's founding father. He has always said the truth. 'But now he has spoken without basis of truth, made allegations against me that are not based on facts.
'Now unless he sues me in court, to prove that he is right, his own reputation will be affected.
'Singapore's international standing will also be affected. Because internationally, Lee Kuan Yew's name is equivalent to Singapore's.'
Goodness. How people read lines because they come from not in his favour.
Sorry. I don't understand what you are saying.
I thought you decide what to believe for yourself. Is something believeable to you just because LTK says so? It's clear in context that he's rhetorically challenging LKY. It's also clear in context that you're rhetorically branding LTK.
You obviously do.
Similar threads
