Wong Kan Seng said cake now bigger for opposition

[elephanto]

Sometimes, LTK really deserves the PEP politician tag as described by Chau Ve Nist.

Adopting the same 'all or nothing' mentality that you and CVN had advocated, Barisan's Dr Lee Siew Choh regarded 'parliamentary democracy as sham' and like you, ' refused to dignify or lend legitimacy to the hated PAP', so walked out of the House to back their conviction - the rest is history & an entrenched PAP Parliament was born.

 

[Perspective]

Adopting the same 'all or nothing' mentality that you and CVN had advocated, Barisan's Dr Lee Siew Choh regarded 'parliamentary democracy as sham' and like you, ' refused to dignify or lend legitimacy to the hated PAP', so walked out of the House to back their conviction - the rest is history & an entrenched PAP Parliament was born.

The chap has never been disappointed with the PAP. Demeriting the opposition from a disappointed opposition supporter angle has become a favourite modern tactic since after 2006 GE because after years since the net was born they know demeriting from a PAP angle hasn't worked. They call it OIA or Online Infernal Affairs.

 

[jw5]

I don't understand Mr Wong's last statement at all.
Mr Low just said that he won't take up an NCMP seat. He added that if his party insists he take it, he will probably have to resign from the party.
Mr Wong then replies that Mr Low is trying to open a backdoor.
I thought Mr Low just clarified that he will not be opening any backdoors?
Am I missing something here? Can someone please help me to clarify?

 

[sampierre]

Adopting the same 'all or nothing' mentality that you and CVN had advocated, Barisan's Dr Lee Siew Choh regarded 'parliamentary democracy as sham' and like you, ' refused to dignify or lend legitimacy to the hated PAP', so walked out of the House to back their conviction - the rest is history & an entrenched PAP Parliament was born.

Elephanto,

For Godf's sake, please DO NOT MISLEAD samsters here by saying that the reason for Barisan's walkout of Parliament was due to lack of parliamentary democracy!! Would appreciate if you could read up on the events leading to the walkout and boycott of the 1968 GE.
I want to be very clear : I am NOT asking the 2 useless Oppostion MPs to walkout of Parliament, and neither am I asking the Oppostion to boycott the GE completely. The fact is Worker' Party has rejected the NCMP scheme and as well as the GRC system, so they should walk the talk by boycotting all GRC contests and I honestly think that ALL Opposition parties should do likewise. Just stick to the single wards even though there are only 12 to be contested. YES, we should NOT dignify or lend legitimacy to the very UNFAIR playing field created by the PAP in every GE !!

 

[Sideswipe]

The fact is Worker' Party has rejected the NCMP scheme and as well as the GRC system, so they should walk the talk by boycotting all GRC contests and I honestly think that ALL Opposition parties should do [/B]likewise. Just stick to the single wards even though there are only 12 to be contested. YES, we should NOT dignify or lend legitimacy to the very UNFAIR playing field created by the PAP in every GE !!

In mature democratic countries, if a major opposition party decided to boycott elections for some reasons, the ruling party have to listen to the oppositions demands, make necessary changes so that all parties are willing to contest elections.

For us, PAP will love it if our oppositions refuse to contest any GRC. PAP don't care about public opinions. They think it's even better if our oppositions don't contest the 12 SMC seats too. They will take walkover in every constituency as history have proven.

Boycotting GRC that is 85% of seats don't solve our problems. If our oppositions play the "unfair game", still there are chances of winning, giving up mean game over.

 

[Perspective]

I don't understand Mr Wong's last statement at all.
Mr Low just said that he won't take up an NCMP seat. He added that if his party insists he take it, he will probably have to resign from the party.
Mr Wong then replies that Mr Low is trying to open a backdoor.
I thought Mr Low just clarified that he will not be opening any backdoors?
Am I missing something here? Can someone please help me to clarify?

Now you get a taste of the meaning "stupid".

Another example of "stupid" is the post right under yours, where it says "boycott" and "don't boycott" at the same time.

 

[elephanto]

Elephanto,

For Godf's sake, please DO NOT MISLEAD samsters here by saying that the reason for Barisan's walkout of Parliament was due to lack of parliamentary democracy!! Would appreciate if you could read up on the events leading to the walkout and boycott of the 1968 GE.

Sampierre,
It is you who should read up & not put words in my mouth.
Read carefully.

I wrote: the Barisan walkout because Dr Lee Siew Choh felt 'parliamentary democracy is dead' - HIS VIEW ..... I have never said that democracy was dead at that time was a fact as you are insinuating here.

With regards to your BOYCOTT call, makes sense in theory but you think the electorate would empathize, the opposition today will agree ? And when they don't agree, you would start to condemn & belittle them again .... sheesh !

 

[jw5]

I don't understand Mr Wong's last statement at all.
Mr Low just said that he won't take up an NCMP seat. He added that if his party insists he take it, he will probably have to resign from the party.
Mr Wong then replies that Mr Low is trying to open a backdoor.
I thought Mr Low just clarified that he will not be opening any backdoors?
Am I missing something here? Can someone please help me to clarify?

I went to dig up this old thread because I am still bewildered by his comment.
Can anyone help me to explain?

 

[KuanTi01]

With due respect, the cake analogy is most inapt and insincere. In more ways than one,the ruling regime is shrinking the cake not enlarging it. It never intends to share the cake. Perhaps the pie analogy is better because it's always a pie in the sky as far as sharing with the opposition is concerned. The many roadblocks and obstacles time after time and aimed at the opposition speak volumes.

 

[Ramseth]

I went to dig up this old thread because I am still bewildered by his comment.
Can anyone help me to explain?

Mr. Wong was implying that Mr. Low would be opening a backdoor for a less deserving candidate to take the NCMP if he refused if he lost. A challenge and a compliment all in one.

 

[jw5]

With due respect, the cake analogy is most inapt and insincere. In more ways than one,the ruling regime is shrinking the cake not enlarging it. It never intends to share the cake. Perhaps the pie analogy is better because it's always a pie in the sky as far as sharing with the opposition is concerned. The many roadblocks and obstacles time after time and aimed at the opposition speak volumes.

Actually, the cake IS bigger but it's still for the pap chaps.
Many years ago, we would know who the ministars were and perhaps the ministars of state, but most of us would be hard pressed to name more than a handful of backbenches or parliamentary secretaries or other appointment holders.
Nowadays, everybody and his dog seems to be in the news, and each of them seems to have some pet project or "noble" goal or pet peeve to make himself more prominent. Everyone nows makes comments and has their own little empire, which they try their utmost to enlarge.

 

[jw5]

Mr. Wong was implying that Mr. Low would be opening a backdoor for a less deserving candidate to take the NCMP if he refused if he lost. A challenge and a compliment all in one.

So Mr Wong was saying that Mr Low was trying to open the backdoor for another person, while shutting the door on his own face?
When has the phrase "opening a backdoor" ever referred to another person?
These folks never fail to baffle me with their comments and remarks.
Perhaps their intelligence far surpasses us common peasants.
Or then again, perhaps not.

 

[Debonerman]

 

[KuanTi01]

Actually, the cake IS bigger but it's still for the pap chaps.
Many years ago, we would know who the ministars were and perhaps the ministars of state, but most of us would be hard pressed to name more than a handful of backbenches or parliamentary secretaries or other appointment holders.
Nowadays, everybody and his dog seems to be in the news, and each of them seems to have some pet project or "noble" goal or pet peeve to make himself more prominent. Everyone nows makes comments and has their own little empire, which they try their utmost to enlarge.

Perhaps so. But it is always crumbs for the opposition! The cake whether bigger or smaller is reserved for the Paps.