George Yeo can break SAF bond while Dr Allan Ooi can't???

[cleareyes]

Hey, may I suggest you go look for this prick instead? He dare not accept your challenge and now shivering inside..it is not difficult to find him, just ask around who drive taxi in SDP, you will very soon get the answer..

Taxi driver so free? Got internet on taxi also?

 

[Blue6]

Taxi driver so free? Got internet on taxi also?

Oh yes! Type "taxi" into any Internet search engine's browser box and you will find some information "on taxi."

 

[Debonerman]

Eh Ah Gua! I am still waiting for your pm! Don't be sissy..YOUR MOTHERR KANA RAPE BY NG E-JAY now KANA AIDS!! :oIo:

WE now know you harbour a desire to suck Mah Bow Tan's Cock. What can I say? Boh lanjiao! Boh lumpar! Only know how to make empty threats just like the hairless twat who trades her own cheebye in London!

 

[Debonerman]

SDP ah gua, no balls still want to talk so loud! whahhahaha fuck off fuck off

kanna siow kow. Boh lumpar, boh lanjiao, kow peh kow bu kum lanjiao!

 

[Debonerman]

Eh Taxi driver, dun fuking twist again!! you fucking coward dare not show up at macdonald then show photo pretend to be there arhh..mother SDP fucker!! b4 i suck mah bow tan cock I will sodomise your fucker chee soon juan!! Fuck you chao chee bye SDP dog death!!! Coward!! Only moron will think i am edmund ng!! whahhahhahah!! come suck my dick then talk!! accept londontrade challenge 1st b4 u act hero here :oIo:

What can I say?:o

 

[Papsmearer]

I do not belong to the "GY is an asshole" camp. Neither do I believe that the world consists of only saints and assholes.

That's very open minded of you

But when praising Scroobal's post, which probably stems from your perception that he supports you view,

I was praising a very well written reply (whether it supports my view is immaterial). It's always a pleasure to read one after trawling through so much crap.

you failed to consider that his argument applies to GY defenders like you and Locke as well.

I think you should read what Locke and I have written
Neither of us started praising GY to the heavens
We merely responded to "myopic" allegations that GY is an asshole
I've stated time and again that GY should be judged by his deeds
Afterall, an "asshole" of his standing must have quite a track record
Till date, I'm still waiting for a response

You had a couple of pleasant personal encounters with GY. He was nice to talk to non- VIPs like yourself. Therefore, your conclusion is that he is a humble man. Isn't this a fallacy along the likes of "Dick spoke to the village thug, so he has to be a thuggish as well"?

I find GY to be a decent chap based on

1. My encounters with him in quite robust settings (feedback sessions with not much ass kissing). He is much less defensive than the typical PAP man and seems to have his own point of view beyond the talking points the PAP machine provides.
2. What my ex university mates tell me since they actually have experience working for him and other ministers. The civil service rank and file have their own ranking of ministers on an "asshole" scale.
3. My own assessment of his work and deeds over the years, much of which is public.

I think all that goes beyond a simple "Dick spoke to the village thug, so he has to be a thuggish as well" point of view.

BTW, I've also penned more than a few lines in defence of Dr Chee (if you care to scroll up a bit)

Londontraitor, your lovefest with Locko is turning everyone's stomach. Can u both please check into a hotel that charges hourly room rates and continue your stroking of each other there. Just because u have a few encounters with someone famous, and he was actually civil to you, u think he is a nice guy. U are starstruck by this asshole, and U are in no position to determine whether he is a nice chap or not. He could be a child molester or wife beater at home, and u would never know.

I on the other hand can safely say with no reservations that he is an asshole. Why?
1) He joined and is a high ranking member of an asshole political party who as we speak is fucking up the country. Only an asshole could join this party and be an active participant in the rape and pillage of singapore.
2) He is an asshole for words that he has said in the past, re: Burma, etc. It shows where is asshole mindset is.
3) He is an asshole for pretending he knows anything about running an air force.
4) If he works with and for assholes, and does nothing to change their behaviour, he is an asshole.
5) He is an asshole for evading simple questions about his pay.

If u have the balls, next time u meet him, ask him why the govt. is doing shit things like the FT policy and what not. If he answers u with the party line, he is an asshole. If he tells u what he really things, than maybe he is not.

 

[ozeman]

dear locke

i do not mind you being a pap balls carrier but i take issue with you always denying that you are one! you are one true incorrigible liar. heh heh...............

 

[scroobal]

This is one legacy that GY will have to carry to his grave. He is the MFA and something that he cannot walk away.

Just tell georgie yeo that his SUPPORT of the myanmar government throughout the years of junta rule has resulted in thouasnds of deaths.

 

[scroobal]

That was exactly my position years ago - all those aspiring to hold political office must meet minimum standards especially in the moral arena. Not anymore.

Not that I lost my moral compass. I did realise that applying logic in that manner plays into PAP's hand. As you know, the PAP has built high barriers vis a vis GRC, lawsuits, questioning academic qualifications, etc. These are meant to curtail entry to those who might have sterling qualifications but are not prepared to push a barrow uphill.

If you re-jig your reasoning, the aim should be as follows
- put PAP into a position where they are forced to be accountable
- if PAP does not peform, people will signal their displeasure but voting in bicycle thieves. It does not mean in anyway that bicycle thieves are sought for any representation purpose.
- that there is a limit to manipulating the democratic process.

For lesser person like Yaw, the PAP strategy worked. He not only fell for it rod, line and sinker, he also wrote his arguments for it as thought he uncovered the moral holy grail.

We all should aim for a minimum of 2 party system and we should think out of the box to achieve it. We should also not allow the PAP to do our thinking for us. I am very pleased with people of Potong Pasir. They were offered carrots that made so much economic sense and many of which would have translated to a better social life but they did not bite. Clinically speaking, they were mad to reject it. But they did reject. Why? And mind you the demographic suggest a middle to lower income background.

To say anyone who wants PAP dominance reduced or support opposition must vote opposition candidates without looking at some minimum criteria might be arguably "insular logic". Forummers all would agree that some opposition members may invariably help to reinforce PAP dominance with their actions - the differences lie in who they think the ones are (some say Chiam, LTK, Sylvia others say Chee, Ling, Chia).

What's your view.

 

[scroobal]

There is a persistent calls and crys for you to admit that you are pap apologist, PAP ball carrier etc. I think you might do a number of people alot of good and also allow them to sleep nights if you concede that you indeed one.

It matters little that you have been associated with a opposition party and that you directly contributed to the campaign. It also matters little that you been critical of the govt and the PAP.

Sometime in life you have to give a dog a bone just for fucksake.

Locke

 

[FuckSamLeong]

There is a persistent calls and crys for you to admit that you are pap apologist, PAP ball carrier etc. I think you might do a number of people alot of good and also allow them to sleep nights if you concede that you indeed one.

It matters little that you have been associated with a opposition party and that you directly contributed to the campaign. It also matters little that you been critical of the govt and the PAP.

Sometime in life you have to give a dog a bone just for fucksake.

Ouch! The first fuck word from mahmah in more than a year of this forum's existence!

 

[Perspective]

That was exactly my position years ago - all those aspiring to hold political office must meet minimum standards especially in the moral arena. Not anymore.

Not that I lost my moral compass. I did realise that applying logic in that manner plays into PAP's hand. As you know, the PAP has built high barriers vis a vis GRC, lawsuits, questioning academic qualifications, etc. These are meant to curtail entry to those who might have sterling qualifications but are not prepared to push a barrow uphill.

If you re-jig your reasoning, the aim should be as follows
- put PAP into a position where they are forced to be accountable
- if PAP does not peform, people will signal their displeasure but voting in bicycle thieves. It does not mean in anyway that bicycle thieves are sought for any representation purpose.
- that there is a limit to manipulating the democratic process.

For lesser person like Yaw, the PAP strategy worked. He not only fell for it rod, line and sinker, he also wrote his arguments for it as thought he uncovered the moral holy grail.

Theoretically there are 2 sides of the coin. Your point isn't invalid and it's quite straightforward, understandable and altruistic. On the other hand people know some of them would help to reinforce PAP dominance after their tenure by scoring own goals. In Parliament they also ended up checking their own opposition leader instead of PAP. We detest the dominance but we end up in a worse position than if we had just simply voted for PAP.

The gist of your point seems to be that the PAP has built high barriers therefore any opposition who comes forward has to be no good or eccentric. I beg to disagree.

 

[scroobal]

No issues there. Its difficult for many people to get their head around it thats why it works. I would do the same if I wanted to perpetuate the PAP monopoly.

Theoretically there are 2 sides of the coin. Your point isn't invalid and it's quite straightforward, understandable and altruistic. On the other hand people know some of them would help to reinforce PAP dominance after their tenure by scoring own goals. In Parliament they also ended up checking their own opposition leader instead of PAP.

Thats not what I wrote. Look at the quality of the opposition that stand for elections. Very few good ones.

May you can explain why only Low and Chiam got into parliament. They are not bad and neither are they eccentric. What happenned to the rest of good people - maybe they are happy with the PAP?

Looking forward to your views.

The gist of your point seems to be that the PAP has built high barriers therefore any opposition who comes forward has to be no good or eccentric. I beg to disagree.

 

[Perspective]

No issues there. Its difficult for many people to get their head around it thats why it works. I would do the same if I wanted to perpetuate the PAP monopoly.

Thats not what I wrote. Look at the quality of the opposition that stand for elections. Very few good ones.

May you can explain why only Low and Chiam got into parliament. They are not bad and neither are they eccentric. What happenned to the rest of good people - maybe they are happy with the PAP?

Looking forward to your views.

Wait... does your point mean - just vote for any opposition get them all elected, the voters will take care of the bad ones who will stay for only one term while the good ones stay on. That's how Low and Chiam stayed. Is that your point?

 

[scroobal]

I think its very clear what I mean. I am more interested in your views.

Wait... does your point mean - just vote for any opposition get them all elected, the voters will take care of the bad ones who will stay for only one term while the good ones stay on. That's how Low and Chiam stayed. Is that your point?

 

[Perspective]

I think its very clear what I mean. I am more interested in your views.

Sorry as I wasn't clear. Perhaps my pro-opposition instincts aren't as strong as other bros here.

For your question on why Low and Chiam stayed, am afraid it can be rather on-the-surface to examine just that. A lot of factors are involved, general or specific, and there is the beforemath, aftermath etc., the conditions and rules of every GE. And rather than why the 2 stayed, also why each candidate, GRC team or party didn't get in. I would even say that the reason why the 2 opposition MPs were elected were very different and conditions were also different during 2 different times, although why they stayed on is more similar.

In short, it's a collective conditions compiling all the voters' minds that resulted in a past-50% that allowed them to win. Even some who voted opposition were surprised to get their opposition elected. Nobody who voted either one or spoiled his vote can tell who his neighbour voted for. Interestingly, in a first past the post system, the difference is not made by the majority 60% who stick to PAP or opposition staunchly, but the smaller 40% in between.

 

[scroobal]

Any reasons why more good people are not forthcoming as opposition candidates?

Sorry as I wasn't clear. Perhaps my pro-opposition instincts aren't as strong as other bros here.

For your question on why Low and Chiam stayed, am afraid it can be rather on-the-surface to examine just that. A lot of factors are involved, general or specific, and there is the beforemath, aftermath etc., the conditions and rules of every GE. And rather than why the 2 stayed, also why each candidate, GRC team or party didn't get in. I would even say that the reason why the 2 opposition MPs were elected were very different and conditions were also different during 2 different times, although why they stayed on is more similar.

In short, it's a collective conditions compiling all the voters' minds that resulted in a past-50% that allowed them to win. Even some who voted opposition were surprised to get their opposition elected. Nobody who voted either one or spoiled his vote can tell who his neighbour voted for. Interestingly, in a first past the post system, the difference is not made by the majority 60% who stick to PAP or opposition staunchly, but the smaller 40% in between.

 

[Perspective]

Any reasons why more good people are not forthcoming as opposition candidates?

Think most people would be of the view that there are many ways to serve Singapore rather than party politics. Ask the guys in TOC and Maruah, or Siew Kum Hong, and you'd probably get that explanation.

The channels are many, and nearly every one seen as more attractive compared to if you run for 10 elections and never get elected, plus the risks involved. Notice that those that tried with the opposition, good or bad, are usually new timers and would go off after one or 2 elections. For them, it's usually the same psyche - the time is now, this time is different etc., so I come. Then they realise the time is not now or not what they thought and the story changes.

 

[ozeman]

Any reasons why more good people are not forthcoming as opposition candidates?

you have got be be an idiot to want to come forward to stand as opposition candidates against the pap in lky's singapore.

in case you do not already know, potential candidates have been jailed, sued to bankruptcy or driven out of the country.

 

[Debonerman]

you have got be be an idiot to want to come forward to stand as opposition candidates against the pap in lky's singapore.

in case you do not already know, potential candidates have been jailed, sued to bankruptcy or driven out of the country.

No, no , no! You can be a Low Thia Kiang! You must know what kind of underwear to use. The stealthy safe non confrontational type. In another words, know how to cover and keep your ass clean.