but what if the economy continues it downward spiral for the next two years and people still losing their jobs?
-
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.
My PREDICTION for GE2009.
- Thread starter Nice-Gook
- Start date
but what if the economy continues it downward spiral for the next two years and people still losing their jobs?
I mean PAP can anyhow say have election then will have election. Na beh, then tell others every 5 years for what, might as well do it every year.
If every 5 years means do it every 5 years, cannot anyhow happy then have election.
There is something wrong with the system in sinkieland. Better stay away and live in foreign land, very dangerous...
Yes the system a flawed. In first world develop countries, elections are fixed and there is at least several months for campaigning. If that coward ass announce there is an snap election, he will also have to explain why resources are spent holding elections now than 2012 (determined date) and not spent in helping Singaporeans in this economic downturn.
If WP SL go to contest in one of the single seat ward, she may have a chance of winning it.
Potong Pasir & Hougang retain by oppositions.
But PAP will increase it popular votes to 70%
Potong Pasir & Hougang retain by oppositions.
But PAP will increase it popular votes to 70%
If WP SL go to contest in one of the single seat ward, she may have a chance of winning it.
Potong Pasir & Hougang retain by oppositions.
But PAP will increase it popular votes to 70%
<style></style>SL?..you mean Sylvia Lim!.
.I reckon a vote for her is voting for our beholden judiciary.She publicly voted for our judiciary as the righteous in front of thousands of foreign legal eagles.The very same legal fraternity who later produced a long report saying our courts are biased...to the displeasure of LKY.Henceforth SL credibility was buried along with LKY.
Last edited:
Democracies in the West deal with the duration of a term in office differently.
At one extreme, you have the current US system which dictates exactly how long each term should be down to the day when the elections must take place (1st Tue of 4th Nov after the last election or something like that) and also when the changeover takes place (20 Jan after the poll). Such countries also have orders of precedence in case of an extraordinary vacation of the seat.
In ASEAN, the Philippines follows a system very similar to this while Indonesia's has many similarities.
In the Westminster system, a term of a parliament is capped at five years. The PM can call an election at any time within the term limit. He has to call polls if he loses the confidence of parliament to govern, i.e., his party loses more than half the seats as a result of defections and by-elections and is unable to form a coalition with other parties.
Singapore and Malaysia follows this system albeit with significant changes.
Which brings me to the PAPzi's 'if you leave the party, you lose your seat' rule. While the PAPzis sell it as a formula for stability, it is also clearly a tool for oppression when used together with the 'no need for by-elections' rule.
With these two rules the following is possible:
In fact, through these two rules they can do pretty much what they want.
Singaporeans have therefore given the PAPzis carte blanche when poll after poll we have not taken away their two-thirds majority.
Sad.
At one extreme, you have the current US system which dictates exactly how long each term should be down to the day when the elections must take place (1st Tue of 4th Nov after the last election or something like that) and also when the changeover takes place (20 Jan after the poll). Such countries also have orders of precedence in case of an extraordinary vacation of the seat.
In ASEAN, the Philippines follows a system very similar to this while Indonesia's has many similarities.
In the Westminster system, a term of a parliament is capped at five years. The PM can call an election at any time within the term limit. He has to call polls if he loses the confidence of parliament to govern, i.e., his party loses more than half the seats as a result of defections and by-elections and is unable to form a coalition with other parties.
Singapore and Malaysia follows this system albeit with significant changes.
Which brings me to the PAPzi's 'if you leave the party, you lose your seat' rule. While the PAPzis sell it as a formula for stability, it is also clearly a tool for oppression when used together with the 'no need for by-elections' rule.
With these two rules the following is possible:
- fearing massive defeat, the PAPzi CEC decides to change the constitution to scrap elections;
- enough PAPzi MPs refuse to support the proposed amendment to defeat it (they need 2/3);
- sensing this, the PAPzi CEC sack these MPs, causing them to immediately lose their seats;
- parliament is then left with the tiny opposition plus an absolute majority of compliant PAPzis;
- the PAPzis also do not have to worry about holding by-elections because the law does not require them to;
- they can then pass the law scrapping elections.
In fact, through these two rules they can do pretty much what they want.
Singaporeans have therefore given the PAPzis carte blanche when poll after poll we have not taken away their two-thirds majority.
Sad.
PAP can't let. It's voters, whether they want it.
<style></style>SL?..you mean Sylvia Lim!.
I have been waiting for someone to produce proof on that for months. That she said the judiciary was "fair and just" or now it's "righteous".
<style></style> International Bar Association’s (IBA) Conference Rule of Law Symposium
Sylvia Lim was invited to be a panellist at the International Bar Association’s (IBA) Conference Rule of Law Symposium held at Suntec City on 19 Oct.
19 October 2007 <!-- by WP webmaster -->
Social and Economic Development and the Rule of Law - the post-colonial experience in Asia
by Sylvia Lim,
Non-Constituency Member of Parliament
Chairman, Workers’ Party
Assessment of situation in Singapore
Certainly, Singapore’s priority has always been economic development. This must always be important as a government goal, for with growth will come, we hope, improvement to people’s lives. We have all seen how the lack of economic development in Myanmar brings severe misery and finally, social unrest.
In its bid to make Singapore a business-friendly place, resources are poured into making Singapore politically stable, and strengthening dispute resolution mechanisms. In surveys of expatriates already quoted to you by our leaders, our legal system tends to be ranked very highly. I have no doubt that the qualifications of our judges and lawyers, and the efficiency of the courts, can meet any international benchmarks........
[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]SDP disappointed with WP's IBA comments[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]
21 Oct 07[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]It is unfortunate that the Workers' Party Chairman Sylvia Lim feels that Singapore can deal with rule of law issues without support from the international community.
If that were the case, then why did Mr Chia Thye Poh remain detained without trial for 32 long years?
Ms Lim says that: "We Singaporeans are quite capable of deciding what kind of country we want."
By logical extension, did Singaporeans want Mr Chia Thye Poh's three-decade detention? Did Singaporeans want the media to be completely under the thumb of the PAP? Did the people support the manipulation of the electoral process?
The truth is that Singaporeans, while wanting to decide what kind of country we want for ourselves, have been unable to do so because our rights, including our right to free and fair elections have been crushed by the PAP.
It is therefore disappointing that as an opposition leader, Ms Lim feels that the election system is acceptable and that the outcome must be respected. We may not be able to do anything to change the election outcome but we do not have to respect it.
We need to fight to win back these rights and we need to change our political system. In short, we need reform.
To be very sure, only Singaporeans can effect that change. But let us not fantasize. We also need support from the democratic world as Taiwan, Indonesia, the Philippines, South Africa, Poland, Serbia, Chile, etc. needed it. And as Burma now desperately needs it.
On this matter, isn't it a trifle hypocritical for us to condemn the regime in Burma and call for democratic change there while in the next breath call on others to stop interfering in our own affairs?
It is true that the PAP says it doesn't want foreign interference. It is also a lie. What do you call the National Wages Council having American, German and Japanese business representatives sitting on its board deciding the wage levels of Singaporean workers?
If we shun foreign interference, why did the Singapore Government invite the IBA here. Shouldn't the Government have taken the IBA president to task for saying that Singapore has an "outstanding legal profession and judiciary?"
The truth is not that the PAP does not want foreigners interfering in our domestic affairs. Comments from foreigners, be they compliments or criticisms, are consider interference. While the PAP welcomes the former, it rejects the latter.
In a similar vein, Ms Lim accepts the accolades of the legal/judicial system of business groups. What is troubling is that she ignores studied criticisms of legal watchdog organizations such as Lawyers Rights Watch Canada, New York City Bar Association and the International Commission Jurists.
Does she consider these researched but critical reports "foreign interference" while welcoming the complimentary surveys of organisations cited by Mr Lee Kuan Yew?
In order for Singaporeans to decide what we really want for our country, we need an election system that is free and fair, a media that is not controlled by the ruling party, and the freedom of speech and peaceful assembly.
None of these institutions exist in Singapore. Without them the wishes and wants of Singaporeans can be, and are being, manipulated by the PAP to serve its own interests.
Help for Singaporeans so that they can be empowered to speak up against the suffocating grip of the PAP is not interference. Interference is when a foreign government supports one party over another as the British did with Mr Lee Kuan Yew and his wing in the PAP.
For the record, the SDP welcomes support for efforts to democratise Singapore. Beyond that we reject attempts to influence the policies of any political party by outsiders.
It is disappointing that the Chairman of the Workers' Party cannot see this distinction but instead parrots what the PAP so disingenuously advocates.
Appeasing the PAP so that we can be an acceptable opposition is not to "draw a balance" as Ms Lim claims. It is rather an unfortunate tactic that will be conveniently exploited by the PAP.
The SDP said it before and we say it again: Singapore's Opposition cannot stand up for the people on bended knees.[/FONT]
Last edited:
Yes, just do it...just vote for all opposition for the coming GE!!!
Why don't you put up the full speech of Sylvia Lim? And do not always use the SDP as a "shield". That's no different from the PAP or the described "WP".
Even then it says nothing about the laws being fair and just or righteous.
See, after so long, there are people who don't understand.
Can any bro here tell me, from 1959 to 2009, how many US President has changed hand? Every 5 to 10 years One New President, whereas we got 1
steady lah! Indispensable right?
Its one thing to preach to the unconverted by focusing on groundwork, and economic policies that can understand and help them, and another to preach to the converted, and then somehow through little disclipine, allow some members to press the self-defeat button by insulting the very same electorate which has the votes to put them into a winning position of at least winning an SMC(or losing it badly).
Let's be honest: there's little doubt about the achievements of what Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr had did in regards to civil protests in public. They did what they did to help liberate people. That is not in question. But if one expects the same results(in which we import such a practice wholesale without adapting and fixing it to the local context, customs and culture), then one doesn't understand that it simply cannot work, or even if it does, the impact is sometimes too little for people to notice. As it is, SDP's action are well known online, but offline, do many people care? Or do people want to know more of what SDP is doing- people who aren't as English educated, middle class and net savvy?
I think its clear that, even in examples overseas like President Obama's campaign in 2007-2008 season is that the internet is used as a tool to organise people offline in a faster, cheaper convenient fashion, and to decentralise the outreach efforts by localisation. The internet didn't replace the outreach program; it only made the outreach efforts more easier to go out because they could put the voter information and policies online, and anyone with a smartphone or a laptop could access these types of information online.
The same goes for fundraising, and gathering more manpower for outreach events and efforts, and of course, for free advertisments on youtube.
Similarly SDP has used the internet a lot more. But if they think people can be mobilised by just using the internet and focusing on a narrow market for volunteers, and for support offline, then something is wrong. You have to reach out to those who are so busy they can't go online, to those who are too poor and too chinese educated to go online, to those who are old and unable to go online because of language and literacy issues, and to those who simply can't be bothered to go online for any other reason. There's where organising outreach events and efforts must translate from online organising to also substantive real-life, real time events too. And it can't be just about protesting.
And then also, you can't just send videos and messages online, expecting all Singaporeans to watch it online. The people who can't, or won't, will need some form of outreach and if you don't approach them, and if you do scare them, they would rather vote the devil they know than the person they don't know or don't like.
I hope you folks get it. I don't like to say it at all, but there comes a time even honesty, downright honesty is needed if things goes a bit pear-shaped. Whether or not you like criticism, or you accept criticism or not, its up to you guys to understand. If not, you can keep on accusing other opposition parties of being "pro-PAP" and yet wonder why after each election, your share of the vote in the places you contest never seem to get better- instead it remains stagnant, or even worse, slips down even more.
Let's be honest: there's little doubt about the achievements of what Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr had did in regards to civil protests in public. They did what they did to help liberate people. That is not in question. But if one expects the same results(in which we import such a practice wholesale without adapting and fixing it to the local context, customs and culture), then one doesn't understand that it simply cannot work, or even if it does, the impact is sometimes too little for people to notice. As it is, SDP's action are well known online, but offline, do many people care? Or do people want to know more of what SDP is doing- people who aren't as English educated, middle class and net savvy?
I think its clear that, even in examples overseas like President Obama's campaign in 2007-2008 season is that the internet is used as a tool to organise people offline in a faster, cheaper convenient fashion, and to decentralise the outreach efforts by localisation. The internet didn't replace the outreach program; it only made the outreach efforts more easier to go out because they could put the voter information and policies online, and anyone with a smartphone or a laptop could access these types of information online.
The same goes for fundraising, and gathering more manpower for outreach events and efforts, and of course, for free advertisments on youtube.
Similarly SDP has used the internet a lot more. But if they think people can be mobilised by just using the internet and focusing on a narrow market for volunteers, and for support offline, then something is wrong. You have to reach out to those who are so busy they can't go online, to those who are too poor and too chinese educated to go online, to those who are old and unable to go online because of language and literacy issues, and to those who simply can't be bothered to go online for any other reason. There's where organising outreach events and efforts must translate from online organising to also substantive real-life, real time events too. And it can't be just about protesting.
And then also, you can't just send videos and messages online, expecting all Singaporeans to watch it online. The people who can't, or won't, will need some form of outreach and if you don't approach them, and if you do scare them, they would rather vote the devil they know than the person they don't know or don't like.
I hope you folks get it. I don't like to say it at all, but there comes a time even honesty, downright honesty is needed if things goes a bit pear-shaped. Whether or not you like criticism, or you accept criticism or not, its up to you guys to understand. If not, you can keep on accusing other opposition parties of being "pro-PAP" and yet wonder why after each election, your share of the vote in the places you contest never seem to get better- instead it remains stagnant, or even worse, slips down even more.
Last edited:
<style></style>Now that's my boy !
Why don't you practice what you preach.Yeah ! we had enough of arm chair critic.We need people like you.
Go man,Go to jail or get bankrupted or whatever.Just stand for election as an opposition candidate and I am sure PAP will finish the rest for you.
Will you put your money where your mouth is?
ISA Detainee
by Tan Jing Quee
What was it like 'inside'?
A difficult question
Could you, would you really listen
Without sneer, to the endeavours
How should I begin?
Should I start from the traumas of the raid
How liberty was so capriciously enchained
Without a warrant, without warning
On the dark hours
When even dogs slept undisturbed.
You were hauled into a world ran amok:
The mug shots, 'turn out your pockets'
the thumb and fingers impressions
(whatever for, I commit no crime!)
No one bothered,
The guard shoved you on,
Along the corridor of despair;
That first heavy thud of the iron door
Sealing you incommunicado from the world --
The wind, sun, moon, and the stars
And all that was human and dear.
Should I recall the dark cell
At Central Police Station
A purgatory of perpetual night
The stone slab for the bed
Sullied, soiled matteress, no sheets
Blood smeared walls, cries of past agonies
The rude, cruel hourly rip-rap of the shuttlers
"To check your health",
So it was explained.
Should I narrate
The daily bath at the tap
The Squat pan, dank and putrid
Meant to dehumanize, humiliate.
Should we be thankful
For the daily ditch water
which passed for tea
The stony crumbs for bread
The rice so callously tossed with dust?
Should we be grateful
For the censored books and news,
To decontaminate our minds;
Should we be grateful too
For the unbearable heat
The lonely insomnia of the day and night,
Migraine and diarrhoeic fever
And panadol as panacea?
How could I ever forget those Neabderthals
Who roamed Whitely Holding Centre,
Under cover of darkness,
Poured buckets of lice water
Over my stripped, shivering nakedness,
Slugged my struggling, painful agony
Circling, sneering, snarling
Over my freezing nudity,
More animals than men;
What induced this
Vengeful venom, violent score
To settle, not for a private grievance
But a public, democratic dissidence;
From whence sprang this barbarity?
What made men turn into beasts
In the dark, away from prying eyes,
Protected by a code of dishonour and lies
To ensure they survive and rise.
For sure, there were gentler souls
Who tried to be decent, no more:
The smiling guard who lightened the hours
With a chance remark, a joke
The barber who brought his scissors, cigarrets and news
The interrogator who handed a bible
Told him the elegant prose
Contrasted strangely with my current state,
How distant those beautiful thoughts were
From the violence to our liberty.
What then is the truth?
A generation trapped in lies
Who rushed to defend, to justify
Never to listen, see, or speak out.
Only when we open our hearts
Confront this barbarism
Can we truly exocise our fears,
Finally emerge as a free people,
A liberated society.
Last edited:
Hey brudder.You not happy to have food on you table har?.Must also feed you mah !
Jumping Jesus,pleeeaz lah.Go and search google hor.:p
People don't become politicians without a plan, and without getting some education, boy. Did you think Obama become President, by just walking into the scene, and claiming the Presidency?
He's a Columbia and Harvard Law graduate for Pete's sake. And he had to go through a decade plus of years of politics before he became a credible contender for the top job.
<style></style>Golly ! now than you tell me.You mean you ain't got no education and not even a plan ! Blinking blizzards ,but you would preach ?
And preach to such people like Chia Thye Poh and JBJ and etc etc. who sacrificed their entire lives ! Mama Mia...tell me where is this monastery where they teach you to preach to such ripe ole politicians...:p
It's not about spoonfeeding, of course I found the whole speech which is why I asked. Why censor PAP style when SL was critical after the paragraph you put up. Then why the double standard with the effort to put the whole SDP article.
And nothing was addressed on "laws being fair and just" or "righteous".
Two words - intellectual dishonesty. Intention to mislead PAP style.
Similar threads
