CST's Wife Falling into 154th's Trap!

[Chau Ve Nist]

Obviously the person to whom my questions were directed doesnt have an answer or is avoiding an answer to make us all understand clearly his POV.

I have no interest in dealing with forummers like you who are unable to stand on your own two feet but need to rely on issuing childish "infractions" to prop yourself up during an argument.

 

[kingrant]

Still smarting? I gave you the infraction for calling me "fucking cock". It's not that I cannot stand on my own two feet and got to rely on infractions to prop me up. You were the one, you see, who had to resort to unbecoming language to prop up ur arguments. Anyway, infractions are so common here. If you can't take the heat, better stay out of the kitchen. I get them too, for even flimsier reasons. You just take them in yr stride, smile and move on. Newbies like you must not be so "siew hey". No hard feelings, bro.

I have no interest in dealing with forummers like you who are unable to stand on your own two feet but need to rely on issuing childish "infractions" to prop yourself up during an argument.

 

[cleareyes]

What do you think of this UN led hunger strike (see below) with no one having any intention of dying at all? Does this meet your "international politicans and activitist" standards or that other ignorant chap who claim that you must plan to die so that a hunger strike can be considered genuine?

You come up with a weak article on hunger strike and use that for your example?

The UN "hunger strike" is not a "strike" per say but just an example of showing and experiencing how its like to be hungry.

The "hungry strike" we talked about here is an act where you showed your belief and determination by "willingly put your life in a matter of risk".

They are so different in both intent and practise that it is a laughing joke to even compare them at the same intention and servrity.

Hey, If you are not willing to risk tyour life, dont try to put up an act. No one will believe and support you when they can see you are just fooling them.

 

[cleareyes]

I would be most grateful if you could please save such kiddie remarks for kiddie forums. Thanks.

i m just doing what you are doing. Why? Cant handle it?

You want a mature debate, then dont change the subject and quit twisting and turning.

 

[Perspective]

Perspective,

Whether Steve Chia contested under NSP or under SDA is NOT the issue here.
The point is our Opposition parties have ceded the Malay ground to the PAP.
Which means that in a marginal seat like Choa Chu Kang, even if Steve Chia managed to get 55% of the Chinese vote, he will still lose to PAP becos the Malays and other minorities are solidlly behind the PAP.

I am of the opinion that the reason why Workers' Party & SPP cannot expand their Parliamentary power of 1 seat each is BECAUSE both LTK & CST are spending too much of their time and party resources in managing their respective wards that they forgot how to debate in Parliament and neglected the other aspects of political activities to the detriment of their party colleagues who contested in other wards and lost. Sooner or later, these frustrated party members will pack up and join other parties.

As ELECTED Oppostion Members of Parliament and also leaders of their respective parties, I think both Chiam & Low must shoulder most of the blame for the poor state of the Opposition in terms of parliamentary seats.

Of course. The ones in the opposition who manage to get into parliament after much difficulty are the ones you people try to sell as should be voted out. Conclusion is 100% PAP in parliament. Good try but too bad sammyboy.com isn't anywhere near a broadcast centre.

 

[Sideswipe]

according to sampierre insider source
around 70% of Malays voted for PAP in most constituencies last GE.

Steve Chia got 40% in CCK SMC.

let say, he has the nationwide average of 30% Malay Votes in CCK
That is 30/100 X 20% Malay in CCK? = 6%
30% Malay Votes is 6%
so if Chia got 60% Malay support, he will get 46% votes, still not enough to win the seat.

by this logic, Chia the second highest opposition winner can't win even if he won a majority of Malay votes. The rest of the oppositions can't win too expect maybe Aljunied GRC.

so obviously, our oppositions are still losing by a significant margin in the 75% Chinese votes. That's why they are defeated by a clear margin of 25% average in most constituencies.

IMO, the oppositions have to start winning the Chinese votes to 50-50% split between PAP, when that happen then the minorities votes will become the deciding factor.

 

[yellow_people]

according to sampierre insider source
around 70% of Malays voted for PAP in most constituencies last GE.

Can we then reasonable conclude that this insider source took all the cast votes from all the ballot boxes and took the personal particulars of all of Singapore voters and cross referenced the serial # on the votes against the electoral rolls to deduce 70% of Malays voted PAP?

Is this why Goh Meng Seng categorically stated that "The root cause of minorities being left behind is a result of dysfunctional families." as they are a vote loser for the Ah Beng cause?

 

[yellow people]

Is this why Goh Meng Seng categorically stated that "The root cause of minorities being left behind is a result of dysfunctional families." as they are a vote loser for the Ah Beng cause?

No smelly shit, they are a vote for the Keling cause.

 

[Chau Ve Nist]

Still smarting? I gave you the infraction for calling me "fucking cock". It's not that I cannot stand on my own two feet and got to rely on infractions to prop me up. You were the one, you see, who had to resort to unbecoming language to prop up ur arguments. Anyway, infractions are so common here. If you can't take the heat, better stay out of the kitchen. I get them too, for even flimsier reasons. You just take them in yr stride, smile and move on. Newbies like you must not be so "siew hey". No hard feelings, bro.

I have already said, be prepared to take as good as you can take if you want to give. You start an insult, I may return the favour if I am in the mood to humour you. And when I return the favour, please don't be a hypocrite and start beating your chest ever so self-righteously about being "insulted" and like a little limpwristed faggot, start issuing infractions on the sly.

In internet forums, there is a certain code of honour in that you fight your own fights especially ones that you started without resorting to juvenile infractions, spamming, faking multiple IDs, etc.

You call me a "newbie" and think yourself as a oldbie and but if you still don't know who I am despite my use of a new nick, it doesn't say very much about you, your level of intelligence or your claims to "oldbie-hood".

In any case, "newbie", "oldbie" rubbish is of no interest to me. It is the quality of your arguments, attitude and your ability to stand on your own two feet without resorting to infractions, spamming, use of multiple IDs, etc that matters and determine whether I should engage you.

 

[Chau Ve Nist]

You come up with a weak article on hunger strike and use that for your example?

The UN "hunger strike" is not a "strike" per say but just an example of showing and experiencing how its like to be hungry.

The "hungry strike" we talked about here is an act where you showed your belief and determination by "willingly put your life in a matter of risk".

They are so different in both intent and practise that it is a laughing joke to even compare them at the same intention and servrity.

Hey, If you are not willing to risk tyour life, dont try to put up an act. No one will believe and support you when they can see you are just fooling them.

I was expecting you to ape the other poster and pound on the use of the word 'fast' in the UN letter to to say it is not a hunger strike. Looks like you have your own mind.

Anyway as I have patiently explained, a hunger strike is about a cause. The cause may differ. That doesn't make one hunger strike more valid than the other.

I have already told you to provide credible sources to back up what you say if you or the likes of you continue to insist that "willingly put your life in a matter of risk" (no more "willing to die" but now "risk" eh) is an objective of a hunger strike. There may be a threat to die but it is a threat and need not be stupidly carried out when you have already attained your objectives or if you never had any intention to die but felt that you had to just so that you can appeal to the illiterates who don't know how to use their keyboard and mouse to search for information.

Remember, there is a reason why it is called a hunger strike and not a death strike. Death maybe the outcome but is not the objective.

Look, I am more than happy to learn something new but not when it is unsubstantiated, baseless or hollow assertions and nonsensical arguments that you are unable to back up with some credible sources of information, studies or considered opinions by experts in the field. Until now, you have not provided one shred of evidence or credible source to back up what you say. The reason is fairly obvious and simple. It is because there are none.

If you submit any paper to your employers or academics without being able to substantiate what you say or without being able to differentiate a baseless personal opinion and one that is substantiated and backed up by studies and references, your employers will treat it as rubbish or your academics you will give you an "F" grade for your paper.

Cheers.

BTW, as I suggested to the other poster, you may want to write to the UN to teach them a thing or two about hunger strikes and correct their "mistakes".

 

[Chau Ve Nist]

i m just doing what you are doing. Why? Cant handle it?

You want a mature debate, then dont change the subject and quit twisting and turning.

Grateful if you could care to provide some evidence about "change the subject" or "twisting and turning"? Otherwise, I will treat it as another one of your usual rubbish that you are unable to substantiate or an attempt at an insult.

Thanks in advance.

 

[kingrant]

Always remember it was you who started this "juvenile" name calling. Fine I'll not issue you any infractions since you are so terrified. If you are an oldbie, you shld be used to infractions by now and how harmless they are.

Fine if you think you are somebody here. Just start answering those questions and stop lording over yr pompous smart ass attitude. Fine also if you dont want to take me on. No great loss here.

And btw, I don't use multiple ids, faking, or spamming. Unlike you with yr new id, I dunno what you are up to.

I have already said, be prepared to take as good as you can take if you want to give. You start an insult, I may return the favour if I am in the mood to humour you. And when I return the favour, please don't be a hypocrite and start beating your chest ever so self-righteously about being "insulted" and like a little limpwristed faggot, start issuing infractions on the sly.

In internet forums, there is a certain code of honour in that you fight your own fights especially ones that you started without resorting to juvenile infractions, spamming, faking multiple IDs, etc.

You call me a "newbie" and think yourself as a oldbie and but if you still don't know who I am despite my use of a new nick, it doesn't say very much about you, your level of intelligence or your claims to "oldbie-hood".

In any case, "newbie", "oldbie" rubbish is of no interest to me. It is the quality of your arguments, attitude and your ability to stand on your own two feet without resorting to infractions, spamming, use of multiple IDs, etc that matters and determine whether I should engage you.

 

[lockeliberal]

Dear Chau

A cause :_)). One does not need to " put ones life at risk or to die" It is only a " threat"...... the real objectives are political and publicity.

What credible sources have you put up ? Every reference to a hunger strike will turn up instances of people who have died or who have put their own life at risk for a "cause " because of the publicity or the pressure it puts on authorities.

Every medical reference to a hunger strike talks about the risk, and the health risk to the person taking part. How can you put a hunger striker like glucose chee amongst people like Bobby Sands and others who either died or put at risk their lives for a cause. ? How can you even justify taking glucose when GLUCOSE is used to force feed prisoners who are hunger striking ?

At some point you have WANNABEs, publicity hungry sluts out for a PR stunt aka RIS LOWs types. It is pretenders false prophets like Chee who degrade the true nature and meaning of hunger strikes.



Locke

 

[lockeliberal]

Dear King

Basically in his view like the issue of what is a "hunger strike" he will take the smallest hole that he can FIND and call it a Hill not forgetting the mountain of stuff and issues behind it.



Locke

 

[kingrant]

I quite agree with you that the high stakes involved in a hunger strike must be death at some point. Otherwise, there is no pressure on the one being pressured. In order for a hunger strike to be successful, it needs publicity as an ally and a fear of it going all the way for the opposing side. So it does need to be a PR stunt and at the same time, the striker must be prepared to die, otherwise what's the threat? Hopefully, the strike ends without it ever reaching a critical stage. But a repressive homicidal regime being able and too willing to covering up the strike and being prepared to go all the way is indeed a formidable roadblock to anyone contemplating a hunger strike in this environment. Better to think about something else.

Dear King

Basically in his view like the issue of what is a "hunger strike" he will take the smallest hole that he can FIND and call it a Hill not forgetting the mountain of stuff and issues behind it.



Locke

 

[kingrant]

Dear Locke,

To people like him, fighting for a cause is purely for publicity, and if it can lead to death, better fudge it or dodge it. He has plainly said so here. I'm flabberghasted. With more Opp like him, who is only wayang2, when it comes to the crunch, he will back down with tail between his legs. Lol. To think that hunger strikes are only for show without serious backing it up. To me it's poker play, and you see my card over my dead body, sums it up. To the one striking, being left to die is a prospect; to the one opposing it, allowing someone to die is unconscionable so he will try to avoid it. Therefore, is death an outcome (byproduct) or the objective (go to the end)?

Anyway as I have patiently explained, a hunger strike is about a cause. The cause may differ. That doesn't make one hunger strike more valid than the other.

I have already told you to provide credible sources to back up what you say if you or the likes of you continue to insist that "willingly put your life in a matter of risk" (no more "willing to die" but now "risk" eh) is an objective of a hunger strike. There may be a threat to die but it is a threat and need not be stupidly carried out when you have already attained your objectives or if you never had any intention to die but felt that you had to just so that you can appeal to the illiterates who don't know how to use their keyboard and mouse to search for information.

Remember, there is a reason why it is called a hunger strike and not a death strike. Death maybe the outcome but is not the objective.

 

[elephanto]

....But a repressive homicidal regime being able and too willing to covering up the strike and being prepared to go all the way is indeed a formidable roadblock to anyone contemplating a hunger strike in this environment. Better to think about something else.

Very true.
This pre-requisite of having a liberal press/media to ensure the world nows what is happening is CRUCIAL.

Gandhi's famous 'ahimsa' - civil disobedience worked in South Africa & India because there are sympathethic press & a growing Left tendency in form of Fleet Street & Labour Party emergence during that age...

International Press also played crucial roles in Nelson Mendala, Aung San Su Khi's long detention .... and release & redemption in the former's case.

Whereas Chia Thye Poh languished under ISD detention for world 2nd longest record to no great ripple in the court of world opinion.

 

[kingrant]

What if you still have not attained yr objectives and you are going into the point of no return (clinically)? Death is stupid you say.

There may be a threat to die but it is a threat and need not be stupidly carried out when you have already attained your objectives

Oh so now you agree to die unless you get the publicity?

or if you never had any intention to die but felt that you had to just so that you can appeal to the illiterates who don't know how to use their keyboard and mouse to search for information.

You have to answer the one question: are you prepared to die?

 

[sampierre]

Of course. The ones in the opposition who manage to get into parliament after much difficulty are the ones you people try to sell as should be voted out. Conclusion is 100% PAP in parliament. Good try but too bad sammyboy.com isn't anywhere near a broadcast centre.

Friend,

I did NOT say I want Chiam & Low to be voted out at the next GE.
I would still continue to vote for Chiam or Low if I were a resident in their respective wards, NO QUESTION about it.
Here, I'm merely expressing my sentiment that the two elected MPs and leaders of their respective parties could have done much, much more for the Opposition's cause if both of them were to spend more time and party resources in expanding their party base to beyond just Potong Pasir & Hougang areas. Amongst all the Opposition leaders, Chiam & Low are the BEST people to lead and nurture the Oppostion into a credible fighting force against the PAP, but unfortunately the 2 men are quite contented to stay in the background . I agree with Kenneth Jeyaretnam saying that after more than 20 yrs, if a party still have only one MP in Parliament, then something is very wrong.

 

[lockeliberal]

Dear San

Even as I would disagree on substance and presentation vis sa vis both Chiam and LTK in their success or lack there of in both recruitment and increasing opposition presence. I would like to add they have succeeded in one critical regard.

They have proven that the opposition can run a town council as effectively or even more effectively than the PAP. All politics is local and they have done well in that regards


Locke