I f “Opposition Parties & their lackeys are all hopeless, good for nothing and, incapable to rise to the occasion to sieze up opportunity to act”, what are you? Are you saying that you support all that the ruling party is doing? Or are you even worse than the opposition parties whom you have totally discredited?

No matter how poorly the oppositions performed, at least I admired their courage to voice up publicly without using nicknames, which many of us dare not do so even at TOC.

Instead of criticizing oppositions, I believe we should provide constructive suggestions for improvement if we really feel that the ruling party has failed us.

This person and othrs like him/her should question the relevance of the WP, SDA etc & their contributions.

Suggestions & proposals for improved policies?

That’s just a cowardly scam to free-loading…………what’s the use of paying exorbitant salaries to LKY & his fellow u know what & the public sector big guys?

1. When there are instances of challenge in Parliament by the ruling Party, they are seen as putting their tails in between the hind legs, back-out and kept quiet!!! These are very sad events and it only happened perhaps, in our present Parliament.

2. When do we see the working Oppositions in our House actively engaged the ruling party’s MPs and openly challenge them with their own form of policies or statements OR actively table motions in Parliament to discuss and subject these motions for votes? None. And this is already 2 years since the last election. Do not tell us the Oppositions do not have directions and guidance of what they want Singapore to be like? or I suppose they are just plain followers of the ruling party and flow along and agree with them.

I mentioned “majority” earlier on because the simple fact remains that the ruling party will be “return” again to form the next government. That is why I urge all interested people in Singapore to at least stand up and put yourself up as creditable candidates in the next General Election so that we will put in place new and young blood presenting strong, convincing and opposing points in our House and challenge the ruling party’s members.

The present Oppositions and their lackeys are all “washout” and they are what we termed “politically finished”. They can go home, retired and sleep!!

.

Tell me someone who does not feel hungry by just drinking only glucose water, That can be considered as a hunger strike.

The killer was why Chee carried out the strike – over his personal sacking. I and maybe some people don’t see it had much to do with national issues. What’s more they felt that he overreacted because he would have no problems finding another job.

Can you lead the way ? or maybe we are not aware that you have been doing more than talking cock also. Care to fill us in what you have achieved in encouraging the younger Singaporeans to take a more active role in politics ?
Because it is their future. Semi retired like me with bad health is looking forward to kicking the bucket but I still think of my children and other young Singaporeans.
Be realistic Oscar, the PAP have done tremendous damage to the opposition, especially those that are deemed a threat or too active for their own good.
The PAP are extremely cunning and have a certain meaness. Tell us whether you have a strategy to deal with that.

Oscar Choy,
Does it really matter if the opp party is less than perfect ? Someone has to do the job. So when PAP contest as opp party in 1959, was PAP perfect then ?

A way to prevent opp party from arising is to let the Singaporean think that PAP is perfect and opp party has to match PAP in term of perfection. But at what price perfection is been paid ? Coverup blunder, move on etc. You get the point.

“How can a person declared publicly to be on Hunger Strike be drinking glucose at the back of his home??? How can a “cheat” in using taxpayers moneys to compensate his transport and other expenses be an upright and honourable member of our House???”
let me ask you a question whether if it is true or not, will that change your opinion on Dr Chee ? If you doesn’t like that someone, you will find other means to find fault, right ?
Now, most importantly, what are you going to do with PAP who many find more inconsistencies than Dr Chee ? Surely you read about some of their policies that make you feel so moronic and insult your intelligence.
So what are you going to do on PAP’s side ? I presume to most of us here, the answer NOTHING. If you really want to find fault with opp party, do likewise for PAP then you probably find it pointless to focus on the characters, so why not focus on the opp party’s strategy and effectiveness. So are you focusing on the wrong thing to criticize ?

To find material that shows SDP is engaging international effort to help make change in Singapore. By all means do read on SDP site even if you think that it is partisan as it updates the news on what Chee and SDP are doing. I’m sure people here are mature to figure out right or wrong.
Same for PAP. If you want to know about what PAP doing, read its site.
Don’t have to think too much whether it is a partisan or not. Use your intuition and instinct or whatever.

Now it makes sense why Chee Sook Chin was not allowed to attend the Stanford Summer Fellows on Democracy and Development Programme at Stanford University in June 2008.

It is guys like him that reinforce public opinion that Opposition is irrelevant and that Opposition exists such that voters can vote them to show anger against PAP than rather vote Opposition to put them in government. Opposition parties in Singapore must evolve to show that they are relevant and that they are connected to the people.

You want examples of how SDP effected international pressure. Hereś one:

In 2007, Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) invited to a SDP forum were banned from speaking. The same MEPs subsequently screened ¨Singapore Rebel¨ in the European Parliament which contributed to the easing of the Films Act. The same MEPs also negotiated the EU-Singapore Free Trade Agreement and they shifted the weighting on Singaporeś human rights records significantly such that PAP has no choice but to ease up political restrictions.

“I have already said my views are my views. So why are you lumping what you think SDP is thinking?”
I started by saying “Although you can’t speak for others” so it is quite clear that the whole paragraph is not directed at you. Maybe it’s my poor English again.

“If it was meant to be a general point than make it to the general. When you make it a query to me, I am of the impression that is you want me to answer something for which I did not say.”
I am quite clear you are not with SDP. I think we are making general points, no? If you feel it is not appropriate to answer then don’t. So far I never challenge people who skipped certain things I raised because it’s not my style.

In any case, have I said I am super human and not prejudice.

Well then say so! Why say it as like this I think lim was accused of the same, and I guess he is human too.

It sounds like I am accusing lim of not being a human.

In any case, have I not said I am super human and not prejudice.

When you repond to me this is what you say:

Although you can’t speak for others, the whole thrust I saw was to paint WP, or SDA, as being below SDP and if not enough, NMPs and websites. The SDP seems to think that when the WP and SDA falls, they will be the only lobbying power left. My view is only that WP/ SDA may not outshine others but others did not outshine them other. There’s no need to prove it by going to the extent of picking needles from eggs. Time will tell if the SDP is doing it rightly, but I think their biggest obstacle may be the same as the PAP. Too much trying to speak up for itself and compare to others until it turns people off.

I have already said my views are my views. So why are you lumping what you think SDP is thinking?

Again I am not SDP. So how can I answer for them?

More to the point how can I answer what YOU THINK others are thinking about?

If it was meant to be a general point than make it to the general. When you make it a query to me, I am of the impression that is you want me to answer something for which I did not say.

“Or misrepresenting my survey intent for some it is not.”
Did I? I didn’t understand the crux of your the different survey patterns at first but now I do. But I don’t think I don’t think I misrepresented it. Even if I did my admission of not understanding it has overturned such a “misrepresentation”.

“Or that I am somehow a spokes person for other people.”
Did I?

Actually I had more rebuttals at the detailed level that I think are inconsistent and illogicial but if I go into it, your supporter will say I am nitpicking – which may be true. Please don’t say I have a problem with your view. You have the right to hold your view but it’s my right too to say that your view is inconsistent or illogical – and your right again to say I am wrong. That’s what this whole thing is about.

I am not against you for picking inconsistencies in in my argument. Hey, I am sure there are many. You can pick as much as you like. That is the point of a debate. You present your view, I present my view, you poke inconsistencies in my views and I yours.

What I object to is you trying to misrepresenting my views. Like implying I accuse lim of something which I did not suggest by taking everything out of context. Or misrepresenting my survey intent for some it is not. Or that I am somehow a spokes person for other people.

If you want to speak for yourself go ahead. But don’t speak for others. They can speak for themselves.

“How many people agree with you here ?”
And how many people agree with you? Since you were the first to say “other people” when it’s only you. After more than 100 posts I never even dare say that people agree to my view.

“Here you go again… just like Lim”
So what if I am like Lim? It’s a valid question – how many people do you represent?

“Of course, be more focus but do focus on the main point and topic and not suddenly stray to something less than relevant.”
The main point – as I kept repeating – is that people want to prove that SDP is far better than SDA or WP and I think it’s not the case. You have the right to pick whatever is in your favour and I have the right to pick mine. Who is to say who is turning the conversation out of point?

I guess none of us are holier than thou. We went about this maybe in the same way, and are more or less equal in merit and guilt throughout the conversation. Only the angle and side is different. As long as we recognize that we are flawed, prejudiced and saying things that others may not agree, then let the others be the judge.

I only want to say that I point out things which I see as inconsistent, illogical and non-factual, and left subjective opinions alone. Opinions produce different results. A few blind people thinks an elephant feels like a fan, rope or tree but one of them says he feels something like mercury, I will point out where his he actually touching?

Actually I had more rebuttals at the detailed level that I think are inconsistent and illogicial but if I go into it, your supporter will say I am nitpicking – which may be true. Please don’t say I have a problem with your view. You have the right to hold your view but it’s my right too to say that your view is inconsistent or illogical – and your right again to say I am wrong. That’s what this whole thing is about.