If Ex-Regent Goh could be speaking the truth for this alibaba logic, the Christian Satan will surely rebrand himself as the Messiah for the whole world.
Ex-Regent Goh says local peasants should not worry that GRC patronage system will see dubious opportunists getting a free ride as Peasants' Representatives, that Patronage will not balk the interests of peasants in the long run.
But the hard logic must prevail. Imagine if you are TinPot Ling, now you are the public's anger against the regime? What will you do? The most logical conclusion is to look for a patron who will put you on track to win the procedural elections and that is the purpose of GRC - Patronage. Since peasants are unreceptive of you but the Patron's think highly of you, it will be gross injustice not to support your patron by balking the stupid uncooperative peasants.
Indraneh is another example of patronage. She recently wrote a article arguing the efficiency of autocracy will trump the wonders of slow moving first world democracies.
If peasants recall Indraneh is a recipient of patronage via the GRC system, one will forgive her stupid comments.
The European system was designed to prevent the re-emergence of powerful families e.g. Hapsburg that dominated much of feudal europe during the middle ages. The Hapsburgs, together with other equally corrupt dynastic political families saw their rapid decline with the europeans overturning the concept of god kings. The United States system, currently derided as ineffective was design to be such. Stupid peasants did not realise the Yankee system was geared to prevent depots like the English Kings and Lords from trampling on colonists based on whims and fancies. Indraneh knew her history better than most peasants but knew her loyalty lied with her Patron in Tanjong Pagar. That prompt her to wrote a article telling peasants that benevolent autocracy is better for Asiatic cultures like Peasantpore.
If one read TinPot Ling's bubblegum pop slogans and Indraneh false assertions, it is evident that the so called rigorous system is flawed.
In a patronage system, the lackeys are chosen for their loyalty. Suppose if you are patron, it will be bad idea to put someone with higher ambition and EQ on-board because history always prove that students will outshine the master within decades. Hence the so called rigorous selection is simply an exercise to pick Yes Men and Women who will parrot the patron's thoughts. One good example is Josephine Teo. Teo was proven to be a crap when the Commies gave her a hard time in Suzhou. Back in Peasantpore, she was declared be a safe bet whose loyalty could be counted on and became the Peasants' Representative. As a Peasants' Representative who is loyal to her patron via the GRC, she spent most of her time lecturing peasants on their lowly stock. When Arse Loong raised taxes to punish the poor, she defended the hike as an effective way to limit the poor peasants' birthrate and bemoaned tax hikes are never timely.
Examples like TinPot Ling, Jos Teo and Indraneh as proof that the 'rigourous system' championed by ex-Regent Goh is an exercise in Patronage.
Ex-Regent Goh says local peasants should not worry that GRC patronage system will see dubious opportunists getting a free ride as Peasants' Representatives, that Patronage will not balk the interests of peasants in the long run.
But the hard logic must prevail. Imagine if you are TinPot Ling, now you are the public's anger against the regime? What will you do? The most logical conclusion is to look for a patron who will put you on track to win the procedural elections and that is the purpose of GRC - Patronage. Since peasants are unreceptive of you but the Patron's think highly of you, it will be gross injustice not to support your patron by balking the stupid uncooperative peasants.
Indraneh is another example of patronage. She recently wrote a article arguing the efficiency of autocracy will trump the wonders of slow moving first world democracies.
If peasants recall Indraneh is a recipient of patronage via the GRC system, one will forgive her stupid comments.
The European system was designed to prevent the re-emergence of powerful families e.g. Hapsburg that dominated much of feudal europe during the middle ages. The Hapsburgs, together with other equally corrupt dynastic political families saw their rapid decline with the europeans overturning the concept of god kings. The United States system, currently derided as ineffective was design to be such. Stupid peasants did not realise the Yankee system was geared to prevent depots like the English Kings and Lords from trampling on colonists based on whims and fancies. Indraneh knew her history better than most peasants but knew her loyalty lied with her Patron in Tanjong Pagar. That prompt her to wrote a article telling peasants that benevolent autocracy is better for Asiatic cultures like Peasantpore.
If one read TinPot Ling's bubblegum pop slogans and Indraneh false assertions, it is evident that the so called rigorous system is flawed.
In a patronage system, the lackeys are chosen for their loyalty. Suppose if you are patron, it will be bad idea to put someone with higher ambition and EQ on-board because history always prove that students will outshine the master within decades. Hence the so called rigorous selection is simply an exercise to pick Yes Men and Women who will parrot the patron's thoughts. One good example is Josephine Teo. Teo was proven to be a crap when the Commies gave her a hard time in Suzhou. Back in Peasantpore, she was declared be a safe bet whose loyalty could be counted on and became the Peasants' Representative. As a Peasants' Representative who is loyal to her patron via the GRC, she spent most of her time lecturing peasants on their lowly stock. When Arse Loong raised taxes to punish the poor, she defended the hike as an effective way to limit the poor peasants' birthrate and bemoaned tax hikes are never timely.
Examples like TinPot Ling, Jos Teo and Indraneh as proof that the 'rigourous system' championed by ex-Regent Goh is an exercise in Patronage.
Last edited:
