<TABLE id=msgUN border=0 cellSpacing=3 cellPadding=0 width="100%"><TBODY><TR><TD id=msgUNsubj vAlign=top>
Coffeeshop Chit Chat - Lau Lee's poor attempt to intimidate NMP</TD><TD id=msgunetc noWrap align=right>
Subscribe </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><TABLE class=msgtable cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="96%"><TBODY><TR><TD class=msg vAlign=top><TABLE border=0 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%"><TBODY><TR class=msghead><TD class=msgbfr1 width="1%"> </TD><TD><TABLE border=0 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0><TBODY><TR class=msghead><TD class=msgF width="1%" noWrap align=right>From: </TD><TD class=msgFname width="68%" noWrap>MissClarity <NOBR></NOBR> </TD><TD class=msgDate width="30%" noWrap align=right>Aug-19 8:25 pm </TD></TR><TR class=msghead><TD class=msgT height=20 width="1%" noWrap align=right>To: </TD><TD class=msgTname width="68%" noWrap>ALL <NOBR></NOBR></TD><TD class=msgNum noWrap align=right> (1 of 41) </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TR><TR><TD class=msgleft rowSpan=4 width="1%"> </TD><TD class=wintiny noWrap align=right>19483.1 </TD></TR><TR><TD height=8></TD></TR><TR><TD class=msgtxt>In Lau Lee's defence against NMP Viswas suggestion to consider the values in the pledge when considering national issues in parliament, he shows that he is losing his edge.
He might have the gravitas to chide the NMP, but his argument lacks in substance.
His 3 point strategy:
1. Pick on just one point(race) out of all the values (eg justice, equality, etc) in the pledge, stretch it to the logical extreme (by bringing in some old historical shit that only he knows), in order to discredit all of the valuable points listed in the pledge.
This style of defence/argument is often used when one has a very poor hand to start with.
Is he saying that parliament should not consider all those virtues like unity, democracy, justice, equality when voting for policies just because of some historical fact about race that he has just disclosed?
2. Get Hen to reinforce his argument by showing how those values were operative over the last 50 years.
Over the last 2 elections, have we been moving more towards or away from the values? Think of justice (Tang Wee Sung's 1 day jail vs the homeless fella who was jailed for 4 days and told to chain himself to a tree with a bicyle chain), equality (FT rights vs locals, MPs getting pensions vs the rest of the Sgians with no such option), democracy (opposition members being made bankrupts, a compliant media who'd spin all the news to their favor).
2 election = 10 years. Now you know why Hen needed to choose a 50 year time frame for comparision?
The current batch of MPs are living on borrowed goodwill, and their store of it is wearing very thin.
3. Get the media to use strong words like "demolish" to try to upkeep the illusion of the old man still being powerful enough to crush his opponent's arguments.
Did he really "demolish" the argument based on facts and a good argument, or did he try to use his gravitas and drama to try to scare a new NMP? I think the old man is more frightened that if he doesnt show his displeasure with this NMP's act of pointing out their flaws, more of the other NMPs will follow suit.
In the midst of all this cut-and-thrust, where was our great leader, LHL? It was not reported that he had offered any form leadership to this important debate where our core values that every Singaporean. Was he waiting for 12 days before he spoke up like in the MSK case?
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
He might have the gravitas to chide the NMP, but his argument lacks in substance.
His 3 point strategy:
1. Pick on just one point(race) out of all the values (eg justice, equality, etc) in the pledge, stretch it to the logical extreme (by bringing in some old historical shit that only he knows), in order to discredit all of the valuable points listed in the pledge.
This style of defence/argument is often used when one has a very poor hand to start with.
Is he saying that parliament should not consider all those virtues like unity, democracy, justice, equality when voting for policies just because of some historical fact about race that he has just disclosed?
2. Get Hen to reinforce his argument by showing how those values were operative over the last 50 years.
Over the last 2 elections, have we been moving more towards or away from the values? Think of justice (Tang Wee Sung's 1 day jail vs the homeless fella who was jailed for 4 days and told to chain himself to a tree with a bicyle chain), equality (FT rights vs locals, MPs getting pensions vs the rest of the Sgians with no such option), democracy (opposition members being made bankrupts, a compliant media who'd spin all the news to their favor).
2 election = 10 years. Now you know why Hen needed to choose a 50 year time frame for comparision?
The current batch of MPs are living on borrowed goodwill, and their store of it is wearing very thin.
3. Get the media to use strong words like "demolish" to try to upkeep the illusion of the old man still being powerful enough to crush his opponent's arguments.
Did he really "demolish" the argument based on facts and a good argument, or did he try to use his gravitas and drama to try to scare a new NMP? I think the old man is more frightened that if he doesnt show his displeasure with this NMP's act of pointing out their flaws, more of the other NMPs will follow suit.
In the midst of all this cut-and-thrust, where was our great leader, LHL? It was not reported that he had offered any form leadership to this important debate where our core values that every Singaporean. Was he waiting for 12 days before he spoke up like in the MSK case?
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
