why are you jealous of rich people?
they did not steal money from the temple!
so you will steal more money from the temple to get even wif them?
-
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.
Why 66.6% fear the PAP!
- Thread starter TeeKee
- Start date
why are you jealous of rich people?
they did not steal money from the temple!
so you will steal more money from the temple to get even wif them?
This has been the constant selling point of the PAP - that theirs is an A-team, with very qualified people.
Look at your PAP MPs today. Are they any different compared to the opposition MPs of today?
...
But the reason for voting opposition is to have them be your voice of conscience to the PAP.
Perhaps you might like to observe them in action. If by their deed, character and values, you gauge them to be worthy despite low education, give them a chance.
That person has a lot of courage. We should respect that.
Education doesn't make a person think better, work better or serve the people better.
It is merely to broaden his knowledge base and how a person uses it depends entirely on him.
I would say that education does help one to think better - to understand and grasp implications, abstract issues and see many sides and angles. Thus the degree of education (at least a basic degree) is needed if that person is to be a minister.
But education is not a sufficient criteria. It needs values, integrity and a desire to do something good for the people with all the power in your hands. Without these, the minister merely make laws that profit himself/herself. Education, in these circumstances, will enable him to make it seem like he is doing you a favour.
On the other hand, for an MP, education is not that important. What is important is a desire to understand the impact of ruling party's decisions to the ground and be willing to open his/her mouth to speak out when required.
Without that, the cost of voting in an opposition candidate is more than the benefits obtained.
Thus it is not that votes must be given just because a person is in the opposition. First, there is a need to know if that person can add value to our lives. And if that person can, then we should be willing to overlook the lack of education.
Because a relatively caring, lowly educated politician is always better than a brilliant self-serving one.
(No difference to what you are saying. Just that i speak from a different angle)
But education is not a sufficient criteria. It needs values, integrity and a desire to do something good for the people with all the power in your hands. Without these, the minister merely make laws that profit himself/herself. Education, in these circumstances, will enable him to make it seem like he is doing you a favour.
On the other hand, for an MP, education is not that important. What is important is a desire to understand the impact of ruling party's decisions to the ground and be willing to open his/her mouth to speak out when required.
Without that, the cost of voting in an opposition candidate is more than the benefits obtained.
Thus it is not that votes must be given just because a person is in the opposition. First, there is a need to know if that person can add value to our lives. And if that person can, then we should be willing to overlook the lack of education.
Because a relatively caring, lowly educated politician is always better than a brilliant self-serving one.
(No difference to what you are saying. Just that i speak from a different angle)
fren, you're propagating the 'myth' of the need for an A-team in parliament. This myth serves one purpose only - to keep the PAP in power and to keep the opposition out.
don't you see that the PAP, left unchecked for 40+ years, has grown up into a spoilt brat? they do as they please, and listen to no one. they talk down to us and treat us like their servants. they spend (our CPF money) as they please, investing in this and that, losing billions and having not to account for a single cent of that loss.
whether the opposition is credible or not, educated or not, it does not matter. why? because the country is run by the civil service, the perm secs and his team of civil servants. having 10, 20 or even 30 opposition MPs in parliament will not destroy the value of our HDB flats and condos.
what do we need more urgently? a credible opposition? or just any opposition? change will not come unless we start voting in the opposition regardless of credibility. credibility will follow, once the numbers are in parliament. it has always been a chicken and egg problem. it is up to us to end that problem by laying the eggs of any opposition in parliament, so that the good chickens can start to hatch.
this is the final myth that is keeping the PAP in power - that we "need" credible opposition. don't take my word for it, because i am just 6 alphabets on the screen. think for yourself and realize that the one and only way to bring change to our country, if you desire it, is to vote in the opposition, regardless of their credibility.
no one can change the way things are in Singapore except the people, born and bred of Singapore. if we don't act soon, we will not have this chance as the men and women from China and India, 'invited' by the PAP to reside here as citizens will surely vote for the hand that feeds them. the more the PAP imports new citizens, the stronger their voting base will be, and the lesser chance we'll have for effecting change.
don't you see that the PAP, left unchecked for 40+ years, has grown up into a spoilt brat? they do as they please, and listen to no one. they talk down to us and treat us like their servants. they spend (our CPF money) as they please, investing in this and that, losing billions and having not to account for a single cent of that loss.
whether the opposition is credible or not, educated or not, it does not matter. why? because the country is run by the civil service, the perm secs and his team of civil servants. having 10, 20 or even 30 opposition MPs in parliament will not destroy the value of our HDB flats and condos.
what do we need more urgently? a credible opposition? or just any opposition? change will not come unless we start voting in the opposition regardless of credibility. credibility will follow, once the numbers are in parliament. it has always been a chicken and egg problem. it is up to us to end that problem by laying the eggs of any opposition in parliament, so that the good chickens can start to hatch.
this is the final myth that is keeping the PAP in power - that we "need" credible opposition. don't take my word for it, because i am just 6 alphabets on the screen. think for yourself and realize that the one and only way to bring change to our country, if you desire it, is to vote in the opposition, regardless of their credibility.
no one can change the way things are in Singapore except the people, born and bred of Singapore. if we don't act soon, we will not have this chance as the men and women from China and India, 'invited' by the PAP to reside here as citizens will surely vote for the hand that feeds them. the more the PAP imports new citizens, the stronger their voting base will be, and the lesser chance we'll have for effecting change.
That was my original premise when i first started out in sammyboy.com that what matters is a presence in parliament - not their quality - but their presence. And the question - should we vote opposition in, encourage them, let them grow or should we vote in opposition who only want to make a difference and willing to speak up for us.
During this time i get to see a bit of the opposition scene as expressed in this forum.
As a result, i no longer believe that singapore will ever have a good opposition at all.
It is just my belief, at the moment.
1/3 of the voters are probably highly dissatisfied with the PAP. That leaves 2/3, a portion of which are on the fence. For this portion, the opposition needs to show their value.
Two years more and we will have another election.
During this time i get to see a bit of the opposition scene as expressed in this forum.
As a result, i no longer believe that singapore will ever have a good opposition at all.
It is just my belief, at the moment.
1/3 of the voters are probably highly dissatisfied with the PAP. That leaves 2/3, a portion of which are on the fence. For this portion, the opposition needs to show their value.
Two years more and we will have another election.
Last edited:
My opinion is that the only forward is for more opposition party members to get into parliament.
The way I see it, civil activism, opposition outside parliament, protests at Hong Lim Park, complains made over the internet, can only get us so far.
I think that this government for all the criticism of them, really want to do what is best for Singapore in the long term. More importantly, they think that they know what is best, and they want to be seen by the world to be doing their best and achieving something.
This is where opposition MPs in parliament making speeches on behalf of the citizens and making the government accountable for everything they do, instead of just doing what they think is right, is the way forward.
(1) The question: "how to get some of the 2/3 to vote opposition"
(2) Is it by:
and
if you answer (ii), then you are saying that the opposition have the power, by what they do, to change some of the 66.6%'s minds.
(4) Today it appears that the opposition's strategy is to rely on the mistakes of the ruling party to create a level of dissatisfaction that will cause some of the 66.6% to sway over. Thus the power lies both in the hands of the 66.6% and the PAP not to make big boos-boos.
Repeating this technique again and again will likely result in the continuation of the two opposition MPs (maybe less 1) and dominant PAP in the next election. Until such time when LKY passes on and the PAP fragmented and parties emerge from within the PAP to create a viable multi-party system. Again the power resides in the PAP.
(5) And this leads back to the question:
(2) Is it by:
(i) exhorting these 2/3 to vote opposition? (they had already decided, so how will words help to change their minds?)
or
(ii) showing the value of the opposition to these 2/3?
(3) If you answer (i) then you are saying the power lies in the 66.6%'s handsor
(ii) showing the value of the opposition to these 2/3?
and
if you answer (ii), then you are saying that the opposition have the power, by what they do, to change some of the 66.6%'s minds.
(4) Today it appears that the opposition's strategy is to rely on the mistakes of the ruling party to create a level of dissatisfaction that will cause some of the 66.6% to sway over. Thus the power lies both in the hands of the 66.6% and the PAP not to make big boos-boos.
Repeating this technique again and again will likely result in the continuation of the two opposition MPs (maybe less 1) and dominant PAP in the next election. Until such time when LKY passes on and the PAP fragmented and parties emerge from within the PAP to create a viable multi-party system. Again the power resides in the PAP.
(5) And this leads back to the question:
can the opposition influence some of the 66.6%?
by taking away some of the fear, giving hope by virtue of their examples and leadership, and then saying, "I did all i could - the rest is up to you!"
sorry fren, if you read lky's memoirs and speeches carefully, you'll see that his one and only interest is to remain in power, everything else is a by product of this desire. doing what is 'best for singapore' insofar as it helps to keep them in power. driven by this self interest, their policies will be 'short' term (5-10 years) rather than generational (in the country's interest).
eg by keeping wages low, it provides short term competitiveness for our country, being temporarily attractive to MNCs who will come to give (cheap) jobs to the people, keeping them happy and hence voting PAP. no real innovation takes place in an economy that relies primarily on low wages to keep business costs low. contrast the highly innovative economies (USA, Japan etc) that all have high levels of min. wages.
eg by selling HDB flats at market price, they keep existing hdb prices high, keep home owners happy (and hence voting PAP), while sacrificing the interest of young singaporeans who will find it harder and harder to make their first home purchase.
etc etc
PAP is a selfish party driven by their self interest of maintaining their grip on power. the people, citizens, are just mere tools for them to manipulate in order to serve their prime directive - retain power.
hi guys!!! just vote for any alternative parties or even independent candidate. why??? they can't do anything because there are not many of them in the parliament!!! even a butcher come to my area to run for election, i will give him my vote. you don't need those doctors or lawyers in parliament!!! what do they do now??? think!!! they only follow pap agenda!!!
Similar threads
