Voting - It doesn't matter

[rusty]

whether the oppositions are good or not.

What we urgently need now is 33.33% (28 members) to be voted into parliament to stop the PAP from amending our CPF and managing our monies in GIC and Temasek at their whims and fancies.

We need the quanitity now, never mind about the quality.

After one term if those elected do not perform, we can always vote them out.

PAP have brain washed almost all voters into believing the qualities of opposition come first which is not applicable at this stage.

 

[patrickv]

pap dog charlatan will come and give you 101 reasons why you should not anyhow vote for opposition. it is his fulltime job here.

 

[moolightaffairs]

whether the oppositions are good or not.

What we urgently need now is 33.33% (28 members) to be voted into parliament to stop the PAP from amending our CPF and managing our monies in GIC and Temasek at their whims and fancies.

We need the quanitity now, never mind about the quality.

After one term if those elected do not perform, we can always vote them out.

PAP have brain washed almost all voters into believing the qualities of opposition come first which is not applicable at this stage.

thats what i keep talking about since the last GE. must vote oppo in now regardless of standard. then the better ones will come forth and join the oppo. 抛砖引玉！！！

 

[Pioneer]

That sounds possible if all the key people in all opposition parties are elected.

 

[seebaysong]

Just get the SMCs and 2 GRCs (Aljunied and Bishan Toapayoh) lor

 

[silverfox@]

7-8 new opposition members not through the backdoor is going to be a huge success and the 1st big step. We need the quality more than the quantity. Because only quality opposition can attract more talents to join them. Quantity will only put off those who have the real intent to serve (just look at PAP and you will understand why) :p

 

[GoldenDragon]

7-8 new opposition members not through the backdoor is going to be a huge success and the 1st big step. We need the quality more than the quantity. Because only quality opposition can attract more talents to join them. Quantity will only put off those who have the real intent to serve (just look at PAP and you will understand why) :p

WP attracting CSM is a good example. A pity people like VW and Alec ended elsewhere.

 

[rusty]

7-8 new opposition members not through the backdoor is going to be a huge success and the 1st big step. We need the quality more than the quantity. Because only quality opposition can attract more talents to join them. Quantity will only put off those who have the real intent to serve (just look at PAP and you will understand why) :p

Obviously we need quality people to run the country but the urgency is to stop PAP from meddling with our CPF savings and other unpopular issues.

That is why at this point of time we need to have 28 opposition members to stop them in parliament.

Even if you have 20 opposition members, they can't stop the PAP from doing what they like.

Once the 28 member are in, you will see more capable people wanting to participate in politics.

 

[ivebert]

Obviously we need quality people to run the country but the urgency is to stop PAP from meddling with our CPF savings and other populous issues.

That is why at this point of time we need to have 28 opposition members to stop them in parliament.

Even if you have 20 opposition members, they can't stop the PAP from doing what they like.

Once the 28 member are in, you will see more capable people wanting to participate in politics.

Even if that happens, the roots of everything has been set

Nothing that 28 MPs can do to overturn anything

 

[silverfox@]

WP attracting CSM is a good example. A pity people like VW and Alec ended elsewhere.

Alec has a chance to end up in a better party if he finds one.

 

[rusty]

Even if that happens, the roots of everything has been set

Nothing that 28 MPs can do to overturn anything

Yes I agree but isn't it good to prevent futher damage?

At the same time PAP will be careful not to implement unpopulous policies and they cannot shaft them down our throats like they used to.

 

[ivebert]

Yes I agree but isn't it good to prevent futher damage?

At the same time PAP will be careful not to implement unpopulous policies and they cannot shaft them down our throats like they used to.

You are assuming the opposition will oppose PAP policies

Are you that sure?

PAP can offer one Minister position to LTK as a carrot, for eg.

 

[rusty]

You are assuming the opposition will oppose PAP policies

Are you that sure?

PAP can offer one Minister position to LTK as a carrot, for eg.

The opposition will listen to the ground and debate where necessary to prevent PAP from doing things they liked without resistant in the parliament. They are controlled by the whip so all PAP MPs become Yesmen.

Too many disadvantages policies had been shaft into our throats in the past and it is a good time to oppose with results if there were more than 33% opp. in the parliament.

I am not sure whether LTK will sucuumb to the carrot.

Are you that sure he will?

 

[rusty]

It is quite a pity that a lot of ah peks and ah sohs do not understand how the parliament works.

PAP capitalised on their ignorance and instill fear in them, telling them to scrutinise opp. credentials.

And that's the reason why we never see more opp. in parliament.

I hope opp. parties start to educate them.

The aim is to have enough opp. members in parliament for effective checks and not to oppose for the sake of opposing.

 

[jw5]

The key to voting opposition is to prevent power from being absolute.
You can always sort out the wheat from the chaf later.
Having said that, by all means vote in the chaf, but please don't vote in the worms.

 

[IR123]

whether the oppositions are good or not.

What we urgently need now is 33.33% (28 members) to be voted into parliament to stop the PAP from amending our CPF and managing our monies in GIC and Temasek at their whims and fancies.

We need the quanitity now, never mind about the quality.

After one term if those elected do not perform, we can always vote them out.

PAP have brain washed almost all voters into believing the qualities of opposition come first which is not applicable at this stage.

It is more the oppositions who brainwash their supporters into thinking it does not matter whether they have substance.

If you vote for the wrong oppositions, you find them in Parliament advocating abolishment of death penalty, imposition of minimum wages or gay rights or garnering personal benefits for themselves. Or they view it as a $1m five-year contract and open their mouths once in five years to sell koyok. Do you want such oppositions?

I don't.

I prefer those oppositions who are moderate, talk sense and know that making policies are complicated and far-ranging in its implications. I would like such oppositions to be in significant power. I prefer them to have ambitions of being the next Prime Minister in due course as that will make them work harder to gain the neccessary votes. (Otherwise why enter politics ???!!!, if you think your ideas for the country have so little value). It will also make the current PAP PM work harder when he knows he has a competitor in the opposition.

Don't vote for any oppositions just because they are oppositions. Vote for credible men and women who can carry the social issues into Parliament and who not tell you to get out of his unconcerned face when you approached him about a town council problem. Good oppositions are rare. Vote in good oppositions and they benefit you. Vote in bad oppositions and you benefit them.

 

[rusty]

It is more the oppositions who brainwash their supporters into thinking it does not matter whether they have substance.

If you vote for the wrong oppositions, you find them in Parliament advocating abolishment of death penalty, imposition of minimum wages or gay rights or garnering personal benefits for themselves. Or they view it as a $1m five-year contract and open their mouths once in five years to sell koyok. Do you want such oppositions?

I don't.

I prefer those oppositions who are moderate, talk sense and know that making policies are complicated and far-ranging in its implications. I would like such oppositions to be in significant power. I prefer them to have ambitions of being the next Prime Minister in due course as that will make them work harder to gain the neccessary votes. (Otherwise why enter politics ???!!!, if you think your ideas for the country have so little value). It will also make the current PAP PM work harder when he knows he has a competitor in the opposition.

Don't vote for any oppositions just because they are oppositions. Vote for credible men and women who can carry the social issues into Parliament and who not tell you to get out of his unconcerned face when you approached him about a town council problem. Good oppositions are rare. Vote in good oppositions and they benefit you. Vote in bad oppositions and you benefit them.

I think you have not read my post correctly.

I am saying we need sufficient opposition members in order to stop PAP's unpopulaous advocations in parliament. Nowhere in my post I mention about advocating or proposing.

With the current two members or future 20 members if they were voted in, they are still not capable of stopping PAP manupulations with our CPF and other issues at their whims and fancies.

Therefore there is an urgency now to bring in the numbers instead of the qualities that the PAP had been emphasizing.

Once the required numbers are in, we will then gauge their performance and eliminate those who underperformed.

Using fear and intimidation is the hallmark of PAP.

 

[Unrepented]

FT quantity is more important than quality.....look around you, tio bo?

Though you made vaild points, but you should learn some crisis management and strategies.

It is more the oppositions who brainwash their supporters into thinking it does not matter whether they have substance.

If you vote for the wrong oppositions, you find them in Parliament advocating abolishment of death penalty, imposition of minimum wages or gay rights or garnering personal benefits for themselves. Or they view it as a $1m five-year contract and open their mouths once in five years to sell koyok. Do you want such oppositions?

I don't.

I prefer those oppositions who are moderate, talk sense and know that making policies are complicated and far-ranging in its implications. I would like such oppositions to be in significant power. I prefer them to have ambitions of being the next Prime Minister in due course as that will make them work harder to gain the neccessary votes. (Otherwise why enter politics ???!!!, if you think your ideas for the country have so little value). It will also make the current PAP PM work harder when he knows he has a competitor in the opposition.

Don't vote for any oppositions just because they are oppositions. Vote for credible men and women who can carry the social issues into Parliament and who not tell you to get out of his unconcerned face when you approached him about a town council problem. Good oppositions are rare. Vote in good oppositions and they benefit you. Vote in bad oppositions and you benefit them.

 

[IR123]

I think you have not read my post correctly.

I am saying we need sufficient opposition members in order to stop PAP's unpopulaous advocations in parliament. Nowhere in my post I mention about advocating or proposing.

With the current two members or future 20 members if they were voted in, they are still not capable of stopping PAP manupulations with our CPF and other issues at their whims and fancies.

Therefore there is an urgency now to bring in the numbers instead of the qualities that the PAP had been emphasizing.

Once the required numbers are in, we will then gauge their performance and eliminate those who underperformed.

Using fear and intimidation is the hallmark of PAP.

My apologies if I misread your post.

Let me take your point again that you vote them in and then after a term, if they did not perform then vote them out.

You already have the track record of Chiam See Tong and Low Thia Kiang. Can you list their performance for the last term? Base on your list, is it worth keeping them or should one or both be voted out, according to your post #1. (Your current post change it to evaluation only after the requisite numbers are in)

How can you be assured that those oppositions you vote in will NOT do machinations of their own? Especially if you advocate not evaluating them for now.

How can you be so sure that those elected will opposed the PAP? In the case of WP, they do not oppose for opposition's sake.

How can you be so sure that opposing the PAP will not lead them to passing laws that abolish the death penalty and imposing minimum wages that lead to higher inflation and structural imbalance that neccessitate changes to the employment laws?

How can you be so sure that people who do not vote the oppositions are fearful of the PAP and intimidated by them?

Most of all, how can you be so sure that the 'urgency' you mentioned will not lead to 'regret'?

Is it not better to ask the oppositions to prove themselves first before voting them? Is it not better to use your vote to help the credible oppositions so that a two or three party system will emerge? Is it not better to spoil your votes in this election so that in the next, the parties will work harder to get the swing votes? Are these not better than voting in imbecile, redundant oppositions who will pressure the PAP to concede to their agendas or voting in those oppositions who will use their power to benefit themselves? It boils down to values and vision, self-reliance instead of opposition-reliance and a committment to use your votes to vote in proven people instead of airy-fairy suppositions.

 

[rusty]

My apologies if I misread your post.

Let me take your point again that you vote them in and then after a term, if they did not perform then vote them out.

You already have the track record of Chiam See Tong and Low Thia Kiang. Can you list their performance for the last term? Base on your list, is it worth keeping them or should one or both be voted out, according to your post #1. (Your current post change it to evaluation only after the requisite numbers are in)

How can you be assured that those oppositions you vote in will NOT do machinations of their own? Especially if you advocate not evaluating them for now.

How can you be so sure that those elected will opposed the PAP? In the case of WP, they do not oppose for opposition's sake.

How can you be so sure that opposing the PAP will not lead them to passing laws that abolish the death penalty and imposing minimum wages that lead to higher inflation and structural imbalance that neccessitate changes to the employment laws?

How can you be so sure that people who do not vote the oppositions are fearful of the PAP and intimidated by them?

Most of all, how can you be so sure that the 'urgency' you mentioned will not lead to 'regret'?

Is it not better to ask the oppositions to prove themselves first before voting them? Is it not better to use your vote to help the credible oppositions so that a two or three party system will emerge? Is it not better to spoil your votes in this election so that in the next, the parties will work harder to get the swing votes? Are these not better than voting in imbecile, redundant oppositions who will pressure the PAP to concede to their agendas or voting in those oppositions who will use their power to benefit themselves? It boils down to values and vision, self-reliance instead of opposition-reliance and a committment to use your votes to vote in proven people instead of airy-fairy suppositions.

The urgency to install the required minimun of 28 opp Mps is important so as to prevent further bull dozing of policies detrimental to the people.
With only 2 members in parliament which is way below the requirement, they can't even stop the bullzoing by PAP, how can they perform?
This is precisely the perception the PAP want to create and we have been fooled!
To bring in the 28 members is the first stage and a historical one if it happens.
Their duty is not to govern or oppose but to debate every policy proposed and get feedbacks from the ground not from PAP grassroots. If a policy is detrimental to the people or deemed to enhance the PAP, the 28 members vote NO GO.
It's like an approval process. The current debates in parliament is ineffective when the Whip is raised as in the case of Lim Boon Heng's disagreement on the casino.
I understand your concerns on the oppositions future behaviors.
Well, nothing is secured or permanent in life. One also cannot be sure what the new members in PAP would do in future either.
Young man, let's cross the bridge when we see one.
Meanwhile let us put a brake on the runaway train before it's too late.