Safe and secure for the pap you mean? Or for the opposition?
-
IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here. The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.
Low Versus Low
- Thread starter Ramseth
- Start date
I've always liked LTK, even though I'm seldom interested in political figures as individuals, preferring to concentrate on what helps to make the lives of ordinary singaporeans better.
Some opposition supporters think that he's too mild, too quiet, not confrontational and sharp enough, just plays defence and seldom goes on the offense perhaps, doesn't take advantage of pap slip-ups and cock-ups. But what is viewed by some as a negative can also be a positive.
I like his style, a quiet confidence, defending himself, his party and their actions and territory, making the occasional biting remark in parliament, taking care of his constituency and town council, making sure the people know him and know he cares, speaking out for the ordinary citizens when pap policies are slanted.
His relatively laid back style may frustrate and annoy some, but in times where the ruling party and its members have not succeeded in putting the ordinary citizen as their top priority or have made slip ups in speech or action, his style may just be what wins votes and elections.
It's good that there are different types of opposition leaders and candidates. It may be a problem if every opposition leader or candidate was like him, but in my opinion, it would definitely be a problem if no opposition leader or candidate was like him.
Some opposition supporters think that he's too mild, too quiet, not confrontational and sharp enough, just plays defence and seldom goes on the offense perhaps, doesn't take advantage of pap slip-ups and cock-ups. But what is viewed by some as a negative can also be a positive.
I like his style, a quiet confidence, defending himself, his party and their actions and territory, making the occasional biting remark in parliament, taking care of his constituency and town council, making sure the people know him and know he cares, speaking out for the ordinary citizens when pap policies are slanted.
His relatively laid back style may frustrate and annoy some, but in times where the ruling party and its members have not succeeded in putting the ordinary citizen as their top priority or have made slip ups in speech or action, his style may just be what wins votes and elections.
It's good that there are different types of opposition leaders and candidates. It may be a problem if every opposition leader or candidate was like him, but in my opinion, it would definitely be a problem if no opposition leader or candidate was like him.
(1) If the Hougang boundary did not change over the years, then this meant that those voters who do not like LTK will move out of the estate whilst those who like LTK will remain. This will lead to a greater concentration of LTK supporters within Hougang. The evidence for this is the percentage of votes won by LTK in Hougang.
(2) Why should the PAP let LTK build up such a power base? If we assume that the purpose of politics is to obtain power and having obtained, to retain it then it make absolutely no sense to let LTK's power base be increased.
Unless LTK is more beneficial to the PAP by being elected.
(3) That may explain why the PAP does not take Hougang into Aljunid or Cheng San. Because his presence is beneficial to them.
(4) Finally to answer your last question, the PAP does not need to wait for LTK to slip up if they do not want him around. The key is the Hougang boundary. Any legitimate reason to change the boundary parameters will immediately change the political equation. Yet in the facts given by you, the boundaries around Hougang changed. What is so special then that Hougang must remain constant?
(5) This of course opens up the debate - why is LTK more beneficial to the PAP by being elected?
Last edited:
PAP has no legitimate reason to change the boundary of Hougang or absord it into a GRC, neither do they want to, as it's electorally dangerous for them. My reading is that PAP is happy with letting WP keep Hougang SMC to save Aljunied GRC, instead of risking a all-or-nothing contest which they're not confident of winning. The legitimate reason to change or absorb exists in Potong Pasir, where the decrease in population over the past 20 years made it smallest SMC in Singapore, actually not qualifying to be an SMC anymore.
Which implies that the PAP has legitimate reasons to change the boundaries of the other areas.
This is an area i have no knowledge in to comment.
ED under PMO has all legitimate rights to change electoral boundaries. However, to look good, to sound convincing and win more votes, however they change, they usually provide a reason. Population shifts, HDB developments etc. The most ridiculous ever on record was Braddell Heights SMC (in between Potong Pasir and Hougang) being drawn into Marine Parade GRC in 1997 after GE 1991 Sin Kek Tong (SDP) scored 47% there. But the then-PM Goh Chok Tong explained it away as rebalancing Marine Parade demographics after cutting out MacPherson as an SMC to accommodate Chee Soon Juan's one-to-one challenge to Matthias Yao.
After everything said it will ultimately depends on how the boundary are drawn. Remember how Cheng San, Eunos disappear? Aljunied may have the same fate. That bring us to the point why so many things are still unknown when come to electing our leaders. Boundary unknown, election date unknown, etc. Only 14 short days are given to select people to run $200b economy. It took more than 2 years to select Mr.Goodyear to head GIC and still wrong. Just imagine.
Yes!, if the people like blind lemmings allow this go on, soon it would be PAP GRC, that covers 80% of SINgapore; no need to vote at all...ther will be no Marine Parade, no Hong Kang no this, no that...
This type of gerrymandering is only effective if the popular vote for the PAP is above 60%.
Once it drops below 60%, sampling error kicks in. Given the way PAP clandistinely does its polling of popular support, it is not possible to get accurate results to "confirm" a PAP victory.
In general if the underlying popular support is 55% to 59% (my forecast for this election), then very high chance of losing 1 to 2 GRCs.
If the popular support is 50% to 54% (my forecast for 2017), then high chance to lose the 2/3 majority no matter how you draw the boundaries.
One issue which is seldom discussed is whether PAP will resort to ballor box stuffing if the results get too close for comfort. If the popular support drops to 50% to 54% and yet we still see 82 to 84 PAP domination because all the PAP canidates won by 0.5% or 1%, then it is almost a statistical certainty that the PAP stuffed ballot boxes to steal the elections.
PAP has never resorted to that, and that's one of the blight on TLH CV for alleging it happened. PAP and LKY would go all out to persuade, seduce, coerce, whatever, to win votes before the votes are cast. But after the votes are cast, they'd count it and accept the result, win or lose. And you're doing yourself an intellectual disfavour by suggesting that you believe these rumours. Try volunteer as a counting agent and see for yourself.
You are one objective man.
You could do better than endorsing an anti-abortion opportunist.
I am not saying that the PAP has done it before. This is just a useful statistical guideline to keep an eye out for when we read the results.
Forgot to add that the past behaviour of the PAP is based on them still having an overwhelming majority in Parliament. The PAP is untested in situations when they look like they might lose the 2/3 majority or worse, lose the election altogether. There are so many entrenched interests and so many multi-million dollar ricebowls involved. Really hard to completely preclude the PAP from ever resorting to such tactics to stay in power for the "good of Singaporeans".
Abortion of foetus is legal and not immoral!
In The Merchant Of Venice by William Shakepeare, shooting a good arrow after a bad arrow is a waste and a mistake.
If the parents are unable and not ready to bring up a kid in this world, why bring the kid in to join the suffering?
Did Straits Times publish Low Thia Kiang news press? Than again, given Straits Times dismal circulations and low subscription rate, I doubt so. They will continue to publish news that please the ears of PAP. Unfortunately, any ommission is what the readers want to read, so internet has became the best source for news objective updates. Let's hope to see massive retrenchment in SPH due to poor operations result.
Similar threads
