Workers' party unveils manifesto, where is NSP manifesto??

[RonRon]

THE Workers' Party (WP) on Saturday unveiled its manifesto and campaign slogan at its party headquarters along Syed Alwi Road.

Titled Towards A First World Parliament, the manifesto contains 15 points on a diverse range of national issues like economic growth, the electoral process, public housing and the judiciary.

The WP slogan for the looming general election, which is widely believed to happen within the next few weeks, is 'Vote for Workers' Party, towards a first world parliament'

Leading the panel at the press conference was WP chairman and Non-Constituency MP Sylvia Lim. Other panellists included likely candidates Mr Pritam Singh, Mr Gerald Giam, Mr Png Eng Huat, Mr Yaw Shin Leong and Mr Md Faisal Abdul Manap.

Party chief and veteran MP Low Thia Khiang was also present but he is not part of the panel.

In 2006, WP launched its manifesto about four months before the elections.

It sparked off a war of words between the government and WP leaders, prompting calls from at least three ministers to the party to change four points which they said were 'timebombs', but the opposition party stuck to its guns.

Read the full report in this week's edition of The Sunday Times.

 

[Velma]

NSP manifesto.

1. I believe there are UFOs.
2. Read point 1.

 

[Sideswipe]

in parliamentary democracies, political parties prepare electoral manifestos which set out prospective legislation should they win sufficient support in an election to serve in government.

since WP are not going to form or be part of the new govt after elections, their manifesto serves not much purpose.

 

[Forvendet]

NSP manifesto.

1. I believe there are UFOs.
2. Read point 1.

NSP manifesto ammendment:

1. Believe in UFO
2. Accept whomsoever party jumper
3. Don't take care of ward

in parliamentary democracies, political parties prepare electoral manifestos which set out prospective legislation should they win sufficient support in an election to serve in government.

since WP are not going to form or be part of the new govt, their manifesto serves not much purpose.

All political parties should have their own manifestos. Not having enough in numbers to form government now doesn't mean won't have enough in numbers to form government in future.

 

[yellow_people]

All political parties should have their own manifestos. Not having enough in numbers to form government now doesn't mean won't have enough in numbers to form government in future.

The electorate votes for the candidate or party that can best serve their needs in the PRESENT and not what the candidate or party can do for them 50 years into the future. Get it?

WP leaders have already admitted they are not ready to form the govt and their candidates need experience running town councils and debating in parliament. This is the 'high premium" Teo CH refers to. Yet Sylvia Lim sidesteps the issue and talks about 15-20% of the seats like she is bargaining in a street bazzar.

The WP also agree with the form and substance of the PAP govt as they have demonstrated time and time again.

So what really is the point in voting for WP now when they aren't ready in the first place?

Yaw Shin Leong, who voted for the PAP was even included in the WP panel that unveiled the manifesto. Yet, Sylvia Lim has the audacity to suggest the opposition work towards the 30 seats target to block constitutional amendment. Somebody should have asked Sylvia Lim point blank right there and then, if any of her party members plan on voting for the PAP.

-

 

[GoldenDragon]

NSP manifesto ammendment:

1. Believe in UFO
2. Accept whomsoever party jumper
3. Don't take care of ward

4. Must have Macaugate

 

[Forvendet]

4. Must have Macaugate

You mean Macao GoldenDragon Hotel Room ### with cardkey to the door?

 

[Velma]

NSP manifesto ammendment:

1. Believe in UFO
2. Accept whomsoever party jumper
3. Don't take care of ward



All political parties should have their own manifestos. Not having enough in numbers to form government now doesn't mean won't have enough in numbers to form government in future.

4. Must be naive.

 

[Velma]

4. Must have Macaugate

Haha nice one bro.

5. Defence budget to be transferred for UFO budget.
6. FTs to be replaced by aliens.

 

[Forvendet]

FTs to be replaced by ETs.

 

[Velma]

FTs to be replaced by ETs.

Open the floodgates of Earth to ETs!

 

[gerard126333]

The electorate votes for the candidate or party that can best serve their needs in the PRESENT and not what the candidate or party can do for them 50 years into the future. Get it?

WP leaders have already admitted they are not ready to form the govt and their candidates need experience running town councils and debating in parliament. This is the 'high premium" Teo CH refers to. Yet Sylvia Lim sidesteps the issue and talks about 15-20% of the seats like she is bargaining in a street bazzar.

The WP also agree with the form and substance of the PAP govt as they have demonstrated time and time again.

So what really is the point in voting for WP now when they aren't ready in the first place?

Yaw Shin Leong, who voted for the PAP was even included in the WP panel that unveiled the manifesto. Yet, Sylvia Lim has the audacity to suggest the opposition work towards the 30 seats target to block constitutional amendment. Somebody should have asked Sylvia Lim point blank right there and then, if any of her party members plan on voting for the PAP.

-

Including you

 

[Forvendet]

The electorate votes for the candidate or party that can best serve their needs in the PRESENT and not what the candidate or party can do for them 50 years into the future. Get it?

WP leaders have already admitted they are not ready to form the govt and their candidates need experience running town councils and debating in parliament. This is the 'high premium" Teo CH refers to. Yet Sylvia Lim sidesteps the issue and talks about 15-20% of the seats like she is bargaining in a street bazzar.

The WP also agree with the form and substance of the PAP govt as they have demonstrated time and time again.

So what really is the point in voting for WP now when they aren't ready in the first place?

Yaw Shin Leong, who voted for the PAP was even included in the WP panel that unveiled the manifesto. Yet, Sylvia Lim has the audacity to suggest the opposition work towards the 30 seats target to block constitutional amendment. Somebody should have asked Sylvia Lim point blank right there and then, if any of her party members plan on voting for the PAP.

-

I by now know who you are, Encik Jufrie. You're getting personal with WP. SDP got less than 10 candidates and claim to be able to form next government. WP got between 20 to 30 and humbly admit it's not possible at the next. What do you say? Coalition? These numbers are only candidates, not even winners yet.

 

[yellow_people]

I by now know who you are, Encik Jufrie. You're getting personal with WP.

You can't even get my ethnic origin correct. Talk about getting personal.
How about focusing on the message for a change?

SDP got less than 10 candidates and claim to be able to form next government. WP got between 20 to 30 and humbly admit it's not possible at the next. What do you say? Coalition? These numbers are only candidates, not even winners yet.

SDP's well articulated response "Is the opposition capable of taking over govt?" is right here if you are bothered to read:

http://yoursdp.org/index.php/news/singapore/4692-is-opposition-capable-of-taking-over-government-

I don't need to speak for them.

It is never about the number of candidates but the quality. 87 is not a magic number to govern Singapore, simply because the PAP says so and the WP and its supporters nod their heads accordingly. What is important is the integrity of the people coming forward to serve. With the likes of LTK, SL and YSL can one say the same thing about WP?

Be that as it may, one thing is for certain - you are not going to get any progressive change with WP. They have already stated they are an alternative to the PAP. What that means is you are going to get more of the same.

-

 

[Forvendet]

It's alright pal, this is just an internet forum.

 

[yellow_people]

There is something else Sylvia Lim said that smacks double-talk (besides the YSL affair) and needs to be questioned. SL said the opposition (collectively) should try and win 30 seats at least to block constitutional amendment and deny PAP the 2/3 PAP majority.

Let us assume, this goal is achieved coming elections with the opposition winning 30 seats in total with say the WP, winning 12-15 seats of the 30. Plausible, after all, WP is Ah Beng's favorite political party.

In the event, the PAP would want to pass a constitutional amendment, that opposition MPs oppose, what are the odds that PAP and WP would work out a deal (horse trading) with WP voting with the PAP to push the constitution through?

Ex WP member, Vincent Sear, has already stated in the 3-in-1 forum when challenged, should the PAP not have the majority in parliament, the WP will most likely form a coalition with PAP against the other opposition parties.

Isn't it then possible to wonder likewise, if the opposition collectively deny PAP the 2/3 majority; WP for all the pre-election talk, might just vote with the PAP ranks to break down that 2/3 majority?


-

 

[Forvendet]

That's just a personal reading of his. I don't see anything wrong. At the state of intra-opposition disagreements now, I worry for Singapore if opposition form a coalition. Opposition disagree among themselves more than they disagree with PAP. Can't you see? Oh wait, I see, you're the prime example.

 

[yellow_people]

That's just a personal reading of his. I don't see anything wrong. At the state of intra-opposition disagreements now, I worry for Singapore if opposition form a coalition. Opposition disagree among themselves more than they disagree with PAP. Can't you see? Oh wait, I see, you're the prime example.

Vincent Sear's comments were not read in isolation. No other opposition party is calling for a collective denial of the 2/3 majority except the WP. With an agreement with PAP policies, PAP voting opposition candidates in their midst and styling themselves as an alternative and insurance to the PAP, their intentions and motives (good or otherwise) needs to be seriously questioned. There is clearly a pattern here.

For all the talk about blocking admendments to constitution, SL herself defended S Jayakumar at an IBF forum 3 years ago; stating Singapore laws and judiciary as a whole "are fair and just". Is she really serious about blocking unwarranted admendments to constitution? I doubt very much so.


-

 

[Forvendet]

I checked the WP website CEC list. I don't see his name there. As for Sylvia and WP as a whole, they can decide what they deem fit. I don't expect them to oppose PAP policy at every turn. That's my view. If they agree too much for my liking, I'll not vote for them. If they disagree to much for my liking, I'll not vote for them too. That's voter's democracy.

 

[Forvendet]

I have nothing personal against SDP too. I don't know anyone in SDP. I just disagree with the style and the dubicity of agenda and source of finance. I hate protests. I've had enough of these nonsense whilst studying in US.