Interesting Quote from YPAP...

[Perspective]

Haha! I think you miss out one: Those who don't even know when they are all changed!

Have to agree absolutely.

My ideology has never changed; like change to vote for the opponent but yet wanting to fight them.

I think you miss out one too: like change to help the opponent take on its opponents but yet wanting to fight the opponent.

But I guess, there isn't much to talk about when individual changes but there is really something to ponder when the whole organization changes. That is the more scary part.

Depends on whether the individual or organization are those person wants to stand with or against. For one whom the latter's weakness does not matter more than the former's worse weakness, the scary part would be when the person leads esp the country/government.

 

[Goh Meng Seng]

Err.. Cannot agree with you here.... criticism is definitely different from voting directly in support of your opponent! Worse, even if it means voting against your own comrades if necessary!

But I guess the organization has great acceptance of such behavior to get such person into leadership position.

I have no single doubt that even if I criticize an organization that is opposing the common opponent, I will definitely vote against the common opponent.

No criticism, no improvement. Those who are against criticisms are the ones who are against improvement for the organization. Are you one?

Goh Meng Seng

Have to agree absolutely.



I think you miss out one too: like change to help the opponent take on its opponents but yet wanting to fight the opponent.



Depends on whether the individual or organization are those person wants to stand with or against. For one whom the latter's weakness does not matter more than the former's worse weakness, the scary part would be when the person leads esp the country/government.

 

[Perspective]

Did I mention "criticism"? I believe one would know it's not the only way to "take on".

But let's go into that anyway.

There's a difference between something said in private and in public.

There's a difference between a public message reaching others other than the intended person, and direct which of course does.

The intentions are different, so that needs to be clear.

You might "vote against the common opponent", but there's no guarantee that those who have read your message will do the same.

The PAP also criticises opposition. Does that mean they want them to improve? Maybe.

Should opposition accept it? Does not seem that way to me, thought the idea is not to allow criticisms from them.

Would you then be against improvement for the organisation?

And what of "against criticism"? Is it the acceptance of a criticism, or the acceptance of what the criticism is? Or both?

BTW you talk about voting. How do you know how another person votes for? Reading his mind?

Every time you start responding, you create more questions. Try to be less washy, it helps.

 

[scroobal]

Take it easy. GMS is like all politicians - they will never call you dumb to your face or break down your arguments that you look silly. They will play around with you and you get the impression that he is listening and he is engaged in an intellectual debate with you. After all he is after votes

You got to respect them for that. Go to any political gathering in a democracy and you will hear the dumbest comments and questions from some of them. The diplomatic, "I am seriously engaging you" feeling is given and the dumb chap will end up sitting down thinking he got his point across.

The fiercest debate will be with the intelligent ones that is after the politician attempts to evade the question or side step it.

Did I mention "criticism"? I believe one would know it's not the only way to "take on".

But let's go into that anyway.

There's a difference between something said in private and in public.

There's a difference between a public message reaching others other than the intended person, and direct which of course does.

The intentions are different, so that needs to be clear.

You might "vote against the common opponent", but there's no guarantee that those who have read your message will do the same.

The PAP also criticises opposition. Does that mean they want them to improve? Maybe.

Should opposition accept it? Does not seem that way to me, thought the idea is not to allow criticisms from them.

Would you then be against improvement for the organisation?

And what of "against criticism"? Is it the acceptance of a criticism, or the acceptance of what the criticism is? Or both?

BTW you talk about voting. How do you know how another person votes for? Reading his mind?

Every time you start responding, you create more questions. Try to be less washy, it helps.

 

[Goh Meng Seng]

Ouch! Scroobal! Why do you always want to spoil my fun!

But seriously speaking, I would rather to be frank up about things I see very wrong rather than hiding the daggers behind words.

I have read somewhere a WP member lambasting NCMP as "backdoor MP" when WP itself has a NCMP itself. Interesting? It was pretty funny to me and makes me wonder that someone within WP itself is against Sylvia Lim as NCMP!

But alas, Perspective won't find that as "attacks". To him, attacks could only come from people like me.

Goh Meng Seng

Take it easy. GMS is like all politicians - they will never call you dumb to your face or break down your arguments that you look silly. They will play around with you and you get the impression that he is listening and he is engaged in an intellectual debate with you. After all he is after votes

You got to respect them for that. Go to any political gathering in a democracy and you will hear the dumbest comments and questions from some of them. The diplomatic, "I am seriously engaging you" feeling is given and the dumb chap will end up sitting down thinking he got his point across.

The fiercest debate will be with the intelligent ones that is after the politician attempts to evade the question or side step it.

 

[Goh Meng Seng]

My dear Perspective,

I don't speak with twisted tongue. What I say in public could well be spoken in private. Unlike someone who will jab me all they want behind my back or just hide behind anonymous handlers like yours but just pretend to be courteous right in front. That's just not me.

And for the record, when I am criticising, I base on issues on hand, never about personality. Well, maybe that's your trait, but that's not mine. I could well defend the same person as well as criticising him later not because I have changed stand but because the merits of the different issues have shifted. You don't expect me to continue to praise someone even when I feel that he has done wrong, do you? Hypocrisy is not my trait either.

It is up to other people to decide how to vote and it is not my responsibility to garner votes for anybody. If I am going to behave just like you wish, I would become more PAP than PAP already. PAP members will always praise themselves to the sky, whether in private or public. My democratic belief is always based on the first premise, nobody is perfect, that's why you need democratic checks and balances. Well, maybe to you and your ilks, you may think that you need to be more PAP than PAP to win them, so be it. That's not my trait either.

Whether a criticism is valid and taken well into daily reflections, that's not my judgment call. You will have decide. You have different attitude towards criticisms. You could use circular argument that so and so (eg. PAP) is our enemy, so any criticisms from them are invalid... so they are full of hatred. So be it. That will only increase your emotions, not your strength. Make the best of other people's criticisms. They are your mirrors. But alas, some just don't think other people's words are worth anything, so be it.

You ask, should opposition accept PAP's criticisms? My answer is, why not if they are valid? Or you are just too presumptuous that all their criticisms will be invalid?

PAP may not criticise you in the hope of helping you to improve, so be it. But that doesn't stop you from improving yourself based on their criticism, right? Why must you be dictated by PAP's will and fancy? I just don't really understand.

I am just playing around with you, that's all. Knowing you for so long, you are all that presumptuous to start with. There is no questions but only imaginations within you.

Goh Meng Seng

Did I mention "criticism"? I believe one would know it's not the only way to "take on".

But let's go into that anyway.

There's a difference between something said in private and in public.

There's a difference between a public message reaching others other than the intended person, and direct which of course does.

The intentions are different, so that needs to be clear.

You might "vote against the common opponent", but there's no guarantee that those who have read your message will do the same.

The PAP also criticises opposition. Does that mean they want them to improve? Maybe.

Should opposition accept it? Does not seem that way to me, thought the idea is not to allow criticisms from them.

Would you then be against improvement for the organisation?

And what of "against criticism"? Is it the acceptance of a criticism, or the acceptance of what the criticism is? Or both?

BTW you talk about voting. How do you know how another person votes for? Reading his mind?

Every time you start responding, you create more questions. Try to be less washy, it helps.

 

[Goh Meng Seng]

In any case, are you opposition supporter?

If so, why are you criticising particularly Kenneth JB? Are you out to destroy him?

If my criticism on WP could really make it lose votes, then the problem doesn't lie with me. It would mean that the criticism is very much valid and reasonable, else people would just treat it as rubbish. So if that is the case, WP should be looking seriously into what's wrong with its political stand from time to time, instead of trying to be defensive about anything that doesn't sound good to it.

Goh Meng Seng

Did I mention "criticism"? I believe one would know it's not the only way to "take on".

But let's go into that anyway.

There's a difference between something said in private and in public.

There's a difference between a public message reaching others other than the intended person, and direct which of course does.

The intentions are different, so that needs to be clear.

You might "vote against the common opponent", but there's no guarantee that those who have read your message will do the same.

The PAP also criticises opposition. Does that mean they want them to improve? Maybe.

Should opposition accept it? Does not seem that way to me, thought the idea is not to allow criticisms from them.

Would you then be against improvement for the organisation?

And what of "against criticism"? Is it the acceptance of a criticism, or the acceptance of what the criticism is? Or both?

BTW you talk about voting. How do you know how another person votes for? Reading his mind?

Every time you start responding, you create more questions. Try to be less washy, it helps.

 

[Perspective]

I don't know what all the blabber is for. My whole point from the start is how one could be a pot calling the kettle black, not the black pot. Nothing in the above suggests that this has been responded to. Maybe should've made it real simple.

My premise as I have always said - I would read first.

 

[Perspective]

Take it easy. GMS is like all politicians - they will never call you dumb to your face or break down your arguments that you look silly. They will play around with you and you get the impression that he is listening and he is engaged in an intellectual debate with you. After all he is after votes

You got to respect them for that. Go to any political gathering in a democracy and you will hear the dumbest comments and questions from some of them. The diplomatic, "I am seriously engaging you" feeling is given and the dumb chap will end up sitting down thinking he got his point across.

The fiercest debate will be with the intelligent ones that is after the politician attempts to evade the question or side step it.

It's not that but I wholly agree with you. Will leave that chap alone after this.

 

[Goh Meng Seng]

It's not that but I wholly agree with you. Will leave that chap alone after this.

LOL! Of course you will leave this issue alone after racking it up for nothing. Watch your track record before you try to bluff your way through of "black kettle black pot"!

You may think you could deny anything here but there are people out there who know exactly who you are. Your remarks here will just sound full of hypocrisy. Look, you took issue of me criticising some organization but you have a license to criticise others? eg. Kenneth JB?

I am just stating a plain fact. WP's own members just shoot their own feet so often, even to the extend of calling their very own NCMP "Backdoor MP"! Please lah, ask them to keep their own house in order first before you try to lecture others.

Goh Meng Seng

 

[scroobal]

The reason why voting even in a liberal democracy is secret is that people will never reveal their true feelings even if they are absolutely right in order not offend others or to fall in line with Joneses.

I was tempted many a times to reveal my identity but I doubt I will be my honest self ( including being a bastard at times).

Then the other more valid reason for anonymity is that you become a target for the small but delusional lot. Note Avantas of Wayangparty fame who only went after those he knew the identity of. He literally drove Melvin out of the forum.

I do admire you even though we disagreed on many a times as you seem to weather these unwanted attention well and are prepared to explain your views and that your party.

Ouch! Scroobal! Why do you always want to spoil my fun!

But seriously speaking, I would rather to be frank up about things I see very wrong rather than hiding the daggers behind words.

I have read somewhere a WP member lambasting NCMP as "backdoor MP" when WP itself has a NCMP itself. Interesting? It was pretty funny to me and makes me wonder that someone within WP itself is against Sylvia Lim as NCMP!

But alas, Perspective won't find that as "attacks". To him, attacks could only come from people like me.

Goh Meng Seng

 

[Goh Meng Seng]

Dear Scroobal,

It really depends on how your value your identity and stake that comes with it. I guess for you, its pretty much high stake to reveal your identity. I have somehow figure out "which part of Singapore" you are from by certain postings that you have put up. Honestly, I do not see the need for you to put up your true identity because the backlash could be...well.. overwhelming at your level.

You are after all, not ready to take the plunge into politics (opposition politics that is) at your age. Identity will only invite inconvenience and repercussions from the "Gods", if you know what I mean.

Anonymity to you, may be a form of convenience to avoid trouble but for other people like Perspective, it becomes a platform for hypocrisy.

My position is actually quite simple. If I could not even defend my party (i.e. the party I belong to at any time) and the stand that it takes in a forum like this one, how am I supposed to defend it in parliament or any other bigger platform? Take all the flakes and punches if I may and that's for a healthy dose of training.

BTW, Melvin is not totally out of this forum.

Goh Meng Seng

The reason why voting even in a liberal democracy is secret is that people will never reveal their true feelings even if they are absolutely right in order not offend others or to fall in line with Joneses.

I was tempted many a times to reveal my identity but I doubt I will be my honest self ( including being a bastard at times).

Then the other more valid reason for anonymity is that you become a target for the small but delusional lot. Note Avantas of Wayangparty fame who only went after those he knew the identity of. He literally drove Melvin out of the forum.

I do admire you even though we disagreed on many a times as you seem to weather these unwanted attention well and are prepared to explain your views and that your party.

 

[scroobal]

Good to hear that Melvin is here. People like Ramseth, TiLik, Ejay, Lamei all contribute in many meaningful way.

I also retain my anomymity in order to release sensitive things which I feel should be known.

Dear Scroobal,

It really depends on how your value your identity and stake that comes with it. I guess for you, its pretty much high stake to reveal your identity. I have somehow figure out "which part of Singapore" you are from by certain postings that you have put up. Honestly, I do not see the need for you to put up your true identity because the backlash could be...well.. overwhelming at your level.

You are after all, not ready to take the plunge into politics (opposition politics that is) at your age. Identity will only invite inconvenience and repercussions from the "Gods", if you know what I mean.

Anonymity to you, may be a form of convenience to avoid trouble but for other people like Perspective, it becomes a platform for hypocrisy.

My position is actually quite simple. If I could not even defend my party (i.e. the party I belong to at any time) and the stand that it takes in a forum like this one, how am I supposed to defend it in parliament or any other bigger platform? Take all the flakes and punches if I may and that's for a healthy dose of training.

BTW, Melvin is not totally out of this forum.

Goh Meng Seng

 

[scroobal]

Bro, the reason I wrote that is because of his public persona, he cannot give you a truthful answer even if he agrees with you on certain select topics. On the whole I found him to be very candid on many matters that other politician will not be.

Cut him some slack and devote your time in preparing old man's cortege.

It's not that but I wholly agree with you. Will leave that chap alone after this.

 

[Perspective]

Bro, the reason I wrote that is because of his public persona, he cannot give you a truthful answer even if he agrees with you on certain select topics. On the whole I found him to be very candid on many matters that other politician will not be.

Cut him some slack and devote your time in preparing old man's cortege.

Bro, he doesn't bother me. Talking about old man's cortege, overheard some fortune telling fellow mention the year 2014, his age 91. Just some bo liao chatter.

 

[scroobal]

I was told that it will be biggest cortege in the world. Everyone will there. Many to ensure that he is actually buried and never to rise again.

MAS will have to work hard to stop outflow of family assets and the spectre of property crashing.

Bro, he doesn't bother me. Talking about old man's cortege, overheard some fortune telling fellow mention the year 2014, his age 91. Just some bo liao chatter.