If Irene Ng was included, she would easily be first or very close second. During the parliamentary session on the MRT incidents, that stupid bitch quiiter from M'sia suggested to Lui Tuck Yew that S'poreans are just being spoilt as compared to other countries citizens who don't complain so much as us.
Written 26 June 2008
Once again, MM Lee Kuan Yew has unleashed his old, tired brand of propaganda. He told around 650 participants of a dinner forum at the Shangri-La Hotel on Wednesday that one freak election result is all it will take to wipe out Singapore’s success. This is an old refrain that he has used repeatedly before.
MM Lee warned that a freak result could happen if voters became bored and decided to give the “vociferous opposition” a chance — out of “light-heartedness, fickleness or sheer madness”.
I find it quite amazing that MM Lee would acknowledge the existence of a “vociferous” opposition when PAP’s Organizing Secretary (Special Duties) Dr Ng Eng Han had lashed out at the Worker’s Party in the latest edition of Petir (PAP’s official magazine) for being silent on important issues.
Perhaps MM Lee was referring to parties like the SDP. I shall refrain from speculating further.
But to be very sure, MM Lee is not pulling his punches on this one. He has castigated opposition supporters as people who vote out of “light-heartedness, fickleness, or sheer madness”.
This is a very serious charge in a supposedly democratic country, or a country is touted by the authorities to be democratic. Is MM Lee suggesting that only PAP supporters are sane, rational people?
MM Lee also said, “In five years, you can ruin this place and it’s very difficult to pick up the pieces.” So he clearly is advancing the opinion that opposition parties are incompetent parties that would wreck havoc if they came into power.
But wasn’t PAP playing the role of an opposition party too before it came into power in 1959?
I don’t see how MM Lee’s brand of self-serving logic that does not extend beyond the tip of his nose could possibly make sense to the majority of thinking voters out there.
Many of my readers should already know that MM Lee is merely engaging in bland and worn out scare tactics in expressing the danger that voters plumping for more opposition MPs might end up with an unintended change of government. So I will not belabour the point, but will only state unequivocally that given the current state of affairs in Singapore, an opposition party might well run the place better than the PAP.
After all, wasn’t the PAP itself an untested party before its electoral victory in 1959?
MM Lee also said, “When you’re Singapore and your existence depends on performance — extraordinary performance, better than your competitors — when that performance disappears because the system on which it’s been based becomes eroded, then you’ve lost everything.”
What extraordinary performance is he referring to? Escape by Mas Selamat Kastari and the multitude of serious security lapses committed by the MHA?
MM Lee could not have been referring to the fact that octogenarians are collecting drink cans from hawker centres just to make a meager living while foreigners are taking jobs meant for Singaporeans, or that fact that schemes like CPF Life have to be implemented because after 43 years of independence, the CPF system has failed to secure Singaporeans a decent retirement, despite that fact that Singapore is touted as an Asian economic miracle.
To top the icing on the cake, MM Lee also said that the problem with popular democracy is that during elections, candidates are not judged on how well they can govern, but on their persuasive power.
But surely a political party that is not yet the ruling party would not have had the chance to showcase its ability to govern and perform administrative functions. How will they convince the electorate to vote for them, except through persuasion and debate? Wasn’t that how the PAP itself came into power in 1959?
Going by MM Lee’s argument, the incumbent party should be permanently locked in. What then would happen if one day, the incumbent became corrupt or incompetent? How would the electorate vote them out, if they were expected to judge parties based on their administrative competence, something which no opposition party would have had a chance to display?
MM Lee said that the elements a country needs to have in order to succeed are a government that the people have confidence in and trust, as well as able leaders who are aboveboard.
Sadly, we are having less and less of those.
MM Lee said that 5 years is all it takes to ruin Singapore, if an unexpected change of government occurs.
I say that 5 years of political plurality might be all it takes to put Singapore back on the right track.
/
Bloody waste of Taxpayers' S$ !!!
/
因廟堂之上，朽木為官；殿陛之間，禽獸食祿。狼心狗行之輩，滾滾當朝；奴顏婢膝之徒，紛紛秉政
coming elections, PLEASE REMEMBER to
VOTEpapees OUT
do yrself, yr forefathers and yr generations to come, a favor, a service and a long-awaited justice
Vikram: I shouldn’t have taken a “dig” at Chen Show Mao
March 16th, 2012 | Author: Editorial : tre
Vikram Nair
In the recent Parliamentary Budget debate, MP Vikram Nair has likened what Worker’s Party (WP) MP Chen Show Mao said to a Nigerian scam. It caused a storm among online netizens with most condemning Vikram’s behaviour in the Parliament.
In a media interview reported by Chinese mainstream media today (16 Mar), the MP from Sembawang GRC said that he shouldn’t have taken a “dig” at Mr Chen during the Parliamentary debate. He admitted that he has “gone too far”.
Vikram said that the tone he used was too sarcastic during the Parliamentary debate. This caused him to be misunderstood and the overall effect wasn’t good. If he was to do it again, he would be more direct.
He explained that even though he was “poking fun” at Mr Chen during the debate, in truth, he was hoping Mr Chen could explain in more detail how Mr Chen’s proposal to improve the measures of government budget could become feasible.
It was also revealed in the interview that Vikram broke 2 expensive Parliament microphones, each costing more than $300, in less than 6 months he was in Parliament. Reason was when he got too excited involving in a Parliamentary debate, he would grab hold of the vertical Parliament microphone and pull it towards him, breaking the microphone.
The microphone is sensitive enough to pick up sounds from 360 degree without the need to speak directly into it. Even since he was warned by the Speaker of Parliament, he is now careful not to touch the microphone when he speaks.
Vikram also revealed that he loves to debate. He was a school debater all the way from ACS to RJC to University of Cambridge.
During the interview, the reporter asked Vikram an interesting question. The reporter has observed that during the Parliamentary session, YPAP Chairman Teo Ser Luck would whisper quietly to him. The reporter wondered if Teo was trying to help Vikram to develop countering arguments refuting WP’s MPs.
Vikram replied, “Not really. He was showing me his notebook telling me that I’m being scolded on the Net”.
.
Background
It started when Mr Chen urged the Government not to look at social spending as a one-way outflow of resources, but an investment in human capital which will yield returns in ‘unlocking’ economic, social and cultural value among Singaporeans [Link].
The next day, Vikram said Mr Chen implied that the PAP Government had not done enough for vulnerable groups, or that it cared less about them. He found this ‘hurtful’.
“I think many of us here have been working year in, year out, helping the vulnerable groups, and it is pretty hurtful coming from Mr Chen because he might have held this belief for a long time, but he came back only quite recently to help in this,” he said.
He decried the vagueness in Mr Chen’s assertion that investing in human capital would yield returns, adding that he is ‘not as smart as Mr Chen, so I must press him for a few more details to understand how this self-funding investment works’.
Likening it to a Nigerian scam e-mail where recipients are urged to transfer funds in return for a pay-off later, he said Mr Chen had promised something ‘even better, because you don’t have to put in any money at all, and you get more than money in return’.
Subsequently, The Online Citizen (TOC) publishes an article written by Ng Ee-Jay, ‘Vikram Nair compares Chen Show Mao’s proposals to a Nigerian scam’. Vikram was offended by this article but for some reasons, wasn’t at the ST report which also mentioned ‘Nigerian scam’.
He then said he hadn’t ruled out taking legal action against TOC, regarding the potentially libelous article about him. He said, “It is extremely deceptive of TOC to attribute lies to me.”
He said the article suggested that he considered investing in the elderly, the disabled, the poor and other needy Singaporeans as being ‘akin to a Nigerian scam’.
TOC then invited Vikram to write in and state his point of view, which TOC would be ‘more than happy to carry in full’ on its website. It said it would then respond if necessary [Link].
After Vikram’s skirmish with TOC, Vikram then changed his tune saying he did not have any legal plans for now. And he hoped not to take legal action but if there was lingering damage he might have to consider it. He said he just wanted to clear his name.
Vikram also said he did not intend to engage in a debate with TOC on its website. This was in response to TOC’s invitation to him to write to TOC
Who is your 'zhong'? What's his name?
