SDP - From strength to democratic strength

[yellow people]

let me guess.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/zqjtz3rEPG0&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/zqjtz3rEPG0&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

A shock in the nuts!!

 

[Goh Meng Seng]

Dear Locke,

This is also part of my assessment. PAP is basically a party that reacts to situation. The expanded NCMP scheme lays the foundation towards proportionate representation as and when they needed the change.

There is just one possibility for PAP to go for proportionate representation: if and only if they start to lose more than 3 ministers. The so call "Ministerial caliber" people are hard to come by and they couldn't possibly afford to lose more than 3 ministers at any one time. Once they are facing such danger in time to come, they may just consider proportionate representation to protect the loss of "ministerial talents".

This could only happen if and only if Singaporeans are ready to vote in two opposition GRC teams into parliament, unseating at least two ministers along with those ministers of state. PAP has sensed the possibility of losing GRC and thus their reaction, reducing the size of the GRC to limit loss. In so doing, couple with throwing in more SMCs, it hopes to entice opposition heavy weights like Sylvia Lim and LTK to fight SMC instead of GRC. Especially so for LTK when the risk return analysis would have tilted tremendously. To risk losing 1 seat in order to gain 4 is definitely less attractive than risking losing 1 to gain 5 or even 6. They are trying to delay the eventuality of losing the GRC fortress. Of course, it is up to WP to make the assessment in proper context, whether it is for the party's self interests or for the greater aim of political reform and development for the next decades to come.

The short to mid term objective for opposition parties is to win at least 1 GRC in the next 2 elections. This should also be SDP's or any opposition parties' objective that aim to initiate political reform for Singapore. Only then, PAP will be forced to change.

Goh Meng Seng

Dear GMS

The SDP has always had a nothing or everything mindset. Elections are not free fair and democratic and thus the results are unreflective of the will of the people. They have thus been hindered from competeting effectively and they will thus resort to extra parliamentary means. Given a level playing field, they are sure that people will vote for them.

Granted that whole reasoning above is premised on the ability to challenge effectively PAP rule and to be able to offer effective alternative government. What they can't see sadly is the fact that winning despite the odds , one grc or two grcs will effectively force the PAP to shift its political position in response to such a loss in order to stem the loss of votes. Limited objectives versus the grand objective, they just do not seem to buy into the limited objective view




Locke

 

[Goh Meng Seng]

let me guess. could it be a certain nerd with plenty of turds? many had been viciosly bitten by him before. my l'l brother LEETAHSAR has learned a good lesson from the mastershapeshifter so gms are u playing with a deadly venomous snake and hope to be bitten twice?

Dear Leetahbar,

I wouldn't reveal who that friend is here.

As long as he is in the fight to change the political system here, that's fine with me.

Goh Meng Seng

 

[lockeliberal]

“ Corporations and politicians known that they cannot seduce their public into buying what they want them to buy, or doing what they want them to do unless they first awaken a sense of need and or discontent. Make the masses uncertain about their identity and u can help identify it for them. It is true of groups or nations as it is for individuals, they cannot be seduced without being made to feel some lack “

Robert Greene

 

[belowbelt]

Mr. Goh,

Who are you? Who are you to give advice to SDP? Who are you to say that SDP should should not discard the parliamentary route altogether. Do you know for a fact that they are doing that?

Who are you to comment on Taiwan politics to say the Chen is the most corrupt ex-president? Your ignorance and your hot-air brings exceeding embarassment to you.

 

[LaMei]

Dear Scroobal & Phouse,

I have a short good talk with a potential candidate for SDP lately (I shall leave his name out at this moment).

My friend didn't think much of the NCMP scheme,

SDP has to discard the narrow definitions they have for political engagement. If they are here to fight for democratic development, they must understand that they should not discard the parliamentary route altogether.

My conclusion to him is that SDP has to preserve its strength in providing enough candidates for the next elections which will be the watershed battle for all opposition parties.
This may be the strategy of PAP to wipe out smaller and "undesirable" opposition parties in time to come, particularly SDP through the process.

If SDP and NSP wants to stay relevant in Singapore politics, they would have to find ways to make gain in the coming GE.

Goh Meng Seng

Dear GMS..

First thing first, I would prefer to refer your 'friend' as your 'ex-colleague' as I believe friendship goes beyond the topic of politics...hence, the ex-colleague would be more appropriate here..

Are you speaking on the capacity of SDP to claim your ex-colleague is SDP potential candidate?

This ex-colleague of yours is partyless till to date, and he could be any party's potential candidate, even so for NSP as he is still very much in touch with your NSP president. I hope you are well aware that your president is also very keen to make him a NSP candidate.

Your private conversation and exchange of views between him, yourself and some others ex-colleagues of his who are colleagues of yours is but just a private conversations between ex-comrades.

It baffles me as to why this private conversation is now being put across by you no less that whatever transpire is the stand of SDP?

My advice to you is quit 纸上谈兵, quit trying to advice other political parties what they should be doing, spend more time concentrating how to play catch up to other opposition parties and any suggestion you have, try suggesting to your own party instead of being a undesirable member of your own party. Quit being GMS (Glorifying MySelf)

I do agree with phouse3 when he ask you to quit speaking like a kingmaker.

I do wonder what credibility and credentials do you have to give comments on other political parties what they should and should not be doing. On your self-proclaimed as Opposition MP's Mentor? which reminds me, so when are you starting that 18 part MP Mentoring course that was long long overdue.

 

[LaMei]

For those who still think that SDP is not interested in Parliamentary Route..pls kindly refer to these articles ;

1) Misconceptions about the Singapore Democrats - http://www.yoursdp.org/index.php/pe...-misconceptions-about-the-singapore-democrats

2) Misconception No. 1: SDP not interested in elections - http://www.sammyboy.com/showthread.php?t=36547

3) Misconception No. 2: SDP working through "extra-legal" means - http://www.yoursdp.org/index.php/pe...-no-2-sdp-working-through-qextra-legalq-means

4) Misconception No. 3: SDP does not offer alternative ideas - http://www.yoursdp.org/index.php/pe...on-no-3-sdp-does-not-offer-alternative-ideas-

5) Misconception No. 4: SDP an extremist party that advocates breaking laws - http://www.yoursdp.org/index.php/pe...-extremist-party-that-advocates-breaking-laws

6) Misconception No. 5: SDP does not speak on pocket-book issues - http://www.yoursdp.org/index.php/pe...o-5-sdp-does-not-speak-on-pocket-book-issues-

 

[Goh Meng Seng]

Dear Lamei,

I seriously think that you are really a liability. There are reasons why I do not want to reveal certain details while keeping the gist of discussion. The names or identity in this case, is not the focus but rather the thoughts.

I do not know what is your purpose of barging in here but little information or knowledge is very dangerous to people like you.

Sorry to say that, you are not in any position to give any advice to anybody, least me. You could not even get your basics right, least about strategy and tactical perspective.

With people like you, I guess Dr. Chee's idea of "collaboration" will really hard to come by.

Goh Meng Seng

Dear GMS..

First thing first, I would prefer to refer your 'friend' as your 'ex-colleague' as I believe friendship goes beyond the topic of politics...hence, the ex-colleague would be more appropriate here..

Are you speaking on the capacity of SDP to claim your ex-colleague is SDP potential candidate?

This ex-colleague of yours is partyless till to date, and he could be any party's potential candidate, even so for NSP as he is still very much in touch with your NSP president. I hope you are well aware that your president is also very keen to make him a NSP candidate.

Your private conversation and exchange of views between him, yourself and some others ex-colleagues of his who are colleagues of yours is but just a private conversations between ex-comrades.

It baffles me as to why this private conversation is now being put across by you no less that whatever transpire is the stand of SDP?

My advice to you is quit 纸上谈兵, quit trying to advice other political parties what they should be doing, spend more time concentrating how to play catch up to other opposition parties and any suggestion you have, try suggesting to your own party instead of being a undesirable member of your own party. Quit being GMS (Glorifying MySelf)

I do agree with phouse3 when he ask you to quit speaking like a kingmaker.

I do wonder what credibility and credentials do you have to give comments on other political parties what they should and should not be doing. On your self-proclaimed as Opposition MP's Mentor? which reminds me, so when are you starting that 18 part MP Mentoring course that was long long overdue.

 

[Perspective]

For those who still think that SDP is not interested in Parliamentary Route..pls kindly refer to these articles ;

1) Misconceptions about the Singapore Democrats - http://www.yoursdp.org/index.php/pe...-misconceptions-about-the-singapore-democrats

2) Misconception No. 1: SDP not interested in elections - http://www.sammyboy.com/showthread.php?t=36547

3) Misconception No. 2: SDP working through "extra-legal" means - http://www.yoursdp.org/index.php/pe...-no-2-sdp-working-through-qextra-legalq-means

4) Misconception No. 3: SDP does not offer alternative ideas - http://www.yoursdp.org/index.php/pe...on-no-3-sdp-does-not-offer-alternative-ideas-

5) Misconception No. 4: SDP an extremist party that advocates breaking laws - http://www.yoursdp.org/index.php/pe...-extremist-party-that-advocates-breaking-laws

6) Misconception No. 5: SDP does not speak on pocket-book issues - http://www.yoursdp.org/index.php/pe...o-5-sdp-does-not-speak-on-pocket-book-issues-

I do understand that the SDP is for Parliamentary measure (else it would be pro-anarchism), just that it is not for Parliamentary measure under a PAP govt.

However given that the PAP govt is in place, any Parliamentary measure would be a "PAP Parliamentary measure". Hence at times people get confused when they are unsure which one the SDP is referring to.

Also when it says that elections can't change the PAP, it does send conflicting signals as to why it would contest elections under a PAP govt in the first place. To express that it wants to use elections as a platform to express its views shows that it does believe that the chance of change is there. Hence people get confused again as to whether SDP believes in any change through the "PAP-govt sanctioned" polls.

I would think the argument that civil activism as an experience valve for a aspiring political leader is better than the argument that civil activism comes in place of the inability to change the government, and I can see SDP has shifted or expanded its position which is good.

 

[lockeliberal]

Dear GMS

Sigh she assumes it is that person and by adding details ensures greater speculation of who that person is. I really wonder what sort of EGO and logic assumes all roads lead to ROME and in particular marvel super heroes and Vietnam Era twin engined fighter bombers.

So either her speculation is correct and she has inadvertently led the identity slip because she has revealed greater details than you or she is one self obessesed naval gazing idiot.


Locke

 

[lockeliberal]

Dear Go "everywhere" and get no where GO GO


We all contribute intellectually and academically to the issue at hand, lowly members, high flying do everything morally pure activists. We comment disagree and discuss and that is the spirit of democracy something u fail to grasp whilst claiming to be fighting for it.

" I will not agree with you but will I defend your right to disagree with me" just does not ring any bells if they do even tinkle up there do they ?

You just can't grasp or get of your moral high horse that on one should ever comment on the right of another person to comment which you have just done.






Locke

 

[Perspective]

You think the chap you're defending is any better?

 

[lockeliberal]

Dear Perspective

He does not have to be Jesus Christ to make comments about politics or share his thoughts on what would be ideal for opposition politics in Singapore.


Locke

 

[eatshitndie]

quit trying to advice other political parties what they should be doing

should be "to advise" and not "to advice" as advice is a noun while advise is a verb.

sammy, you're too slow.

 

[LaMei]

Dear Lamei,

I seriously think that you are really a liability. see, labeling individual like me as a liability and hindrance when I, like your ex-colleague, do not belong to any political party YET.

There are reasons why I do not want to reveal certain details while keeping the gist of discussion. For someone who posted private conversation between ex-colleagues and with enough hints to as to who that ex-colleague of yours is, says a lot about you. The names or identity in this case, is not the focus but rather the thoughts.the thoughts of that individual in this case and not that of SDP as what you try to lead others to believe.

I do not know what is your purpose of barging in here but little information or knowledge is very dangerous to people like you. I can't blame you for not knowing the purpose of my intervention, given your inclination to do so selectively at times.


Sorry to say that, you are not in any position to give any advice to anybody, least me. You could not even get your basics right, least about strategy and tactical perspective. same to you Mr Goh, mind your own party business and do not attempt to put words into SDP mouth when speaking to any individual whom u deem to be close to SDP or a potential SDP candidate!

With people like you, I guess Dr. Chee's idea of "collaboration" will really hard to come by. there you go again, indirectly posting out your little talk you have with CSJ about 'collaboration"..I rest my case!

Goh Meng Seng

My reply in blue

 

[Perspective]

Nothing about comments or thoughts, Locke. It's the habit of LTB-style exposé.

 

[Ramseth]

I'm not trying to play judge, but I personally think that Lamei has the stronger case. It's Meng Seng barging into other parties' business, not Lamei barging into his.

 

[LaMei]

To express that it wants to use elections as a platform to express its views shows that it does believe that the chance of change is there. Hence people get confused again as to whether SDP believes in any change through the "PAP-govt sanctioned" polls.

I can see SDP has shifted or expanded its position which is good.

Hi Perspective...

As I do not speak for SDP, I might not be able to help clear the confusion.

My purpose is point out to those who claimed that SDP is not interested in parliamentary route the articles on SDP website which states otherwise.

Sometimes I do find that due to our own biasness that cause us not to be objective and hence the confusion.

As a supporter of SDP, like you, I am glad to see SDP has come this far despite the odds. I am also happy and proud to be one of those in the picture with them.

:-)

 

[LaMei]

I give this a pass..waste of time to even read...

Dear Go "everywhere" and get no where GO GO


We all contribute intellectually and academically to the issue at hand, lowly members, high flying do everything morally pure activists. We comment disagree and discuss and that is the spirit of democracy something u fail to grasp whilst claiming to be fighting for it.

" I will not agree with you but will I defend your right to disagree with me" just does not ring any bells if they do even tinkle up there do they ?

You just can't grasp or get of your moral high horse that on one should ever comment on the right of another person to comment which you have just done.






Locke

 

[phouse3]

It is not a question of political approach. The article clearly states the party wants to contest.

But from a pragmatic perspective, we know the liabilities of the CEC members and the party are joint and several. It is possible for the plaintiffs to file a petition to wind up the party.

And in one of the scenarios where the parliamentary route is rendered useless, would the party cry foul and degenerate into political activism again? Why the predeterminism? Why the martyrdom? Why not explore other avenues?

Isn't it better for people to know sooner rather than later? I don't think confidentiality is important anymore.