mollymeek (![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small} mollymeek) wrote,@ 2008-07-27 09:16:00 |
|
Win back Singapore
Well, if it's considered criminal to go against the PAP or its policies, I don't think I would mind at least some sort of criminals. Furthermore, what has all the Yellow Ribbon campaigns done to you, Minister? Nothing? Aren't we supposed to acknowledge that ex-criminals (and I'm not referring to anyone who became "criminal" because of his political stance) have been rehabilitated (or punished, since Singapore since to prefer punishment) and we should accept them into society. I thought we shouldn't discriminate against people simply because they have a criminal record. Just because one hasn't done anything criminal--or just because one hasn't (yet) been caught for doing anything criminal--it does not mean that one is credible. Similarly, just because somebody has a criminal record, it does not mean that he lacks competence and credibility.
After all, how much credibility and capability is needed to make the people pay more and more for less and less? And implement solutions that create more problems while costing lots of money. Some twisted logic perhaps. But Molly shouldn't digress. For things like that don't happen in Singapore, do they?
And CNA or SM Goh, do I detect an insinuation that opposition parties are offering criminals (or their equivalents) as candidates? I can't be too sure of this. But, elsewhere, I don't see how SM Goh has a right to criticize Hougang MP Mr. Low Thia Khiang for not doing more as an opposition MP:
Why does the stupid bimbo Molly Meek think that SM Goh doesn't have the right to make such a criticism?
Well, SM Goh should ask himself what has happened to opposition candidates who have a broader view of the role of the opposition? Ironically, opposition MPs with a narrow definition of their roles would seem to me to be the ideal opposition MPs to the PAP (if there is to be any at all, of course).
In any case, it's just a claim that Mr. Low doesn't offer solutions. Let's see if Mr. Low retorts that. Even if the claim is valid, one wonders how solutions offered by opposition MPs would be treated? I imagine:
Chorus: "What? You are saying that there should be more welfare??!!!!"
*80 MIW takes turns to pounce on one hapless opposition MP, accusing him of harboring dangerous thoughts, of wanting to destroy Singapore, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc . . .*
I also happen to think that no solution is better than solutions such as GST hikes to help the poorby making them poorer and ERP to deal with traffic jams to diffuse the congestions to larger parts of the island. And dealing with inflation by keeping wages low, switching to fish when chicken gets too expensive, launching a campaign (which costs money) to get people to eat frozen meat instead of fresh meat--while the solution-creators are paid well enough to feast on the best sashimi daily.
Of course, we have to give Mr. Goh some credit for trying to sound nice and open. He even gives the grassroots leaders of the Hougang division some advice:
Speaking of studying the accounts, blogger Mr. Wang has helpfully studied the accounts for Aljunied Town Council. Of course the funds are properly used and no reserve is being eaten into:
That's what great leadership means. (I suppose grassroots leaders over at Aljunied have given the right people their due credit.) The opposition has a lot to learn. And that's why Mr. Goh believes:
throne seat and is the MP illegitimately.
It is also another thing to resort to childish propaganda, gerrymandering or relocating voters just to win "back" a particular ward from the opposition. Why don't you try winning over people instead?
Meanwhile, Molly hopes that Singaporeans will win back Singapore from the men in white.
[SM Goh says,] "In India, the world's largest democracy, several criminals have been elected into Parliament and some are serving jail terms, including one convicted murderer who is waiting for his appeal to be heard.
"But recently, they were brought out to vote [Wait a second. Who are "they"? You said criminals were elected. then you said "they" were brought out to vote. Are you talking about the voted or the voters?] because a confidence motion on the government was hanging in the balance. They were of course then returned to jail. But can you imagine MPs with criminal records holding the future of Singapore in their hands?"
So the Senior Minister hopes the opposition too would look for good candidates so voters will be given a real choice." [CNA]
Well, if it's considered criminal to go against the PAP or its policies, I don't think I would mind at least some sort of criminals. Furthermore, what has all the Yellow Ribbon campaigns done to you, Minister? Nothing? Aren't we supposed to acknowledge that ex-criminals (and I'm not referring to anyone who became "criminal" because of his political stance) have been rehabilitated (or punished, since Singapore since to prefer punishment) and we should accept them into society. I thought we shouldn't discriminate against people simply because they have a criminal record. Just because one hasn't done anything criminal--or just because one hasn't (yet) been caught for doing anything criminal--it does not mean that one is credible. Similarly, just because somebody has a criminal record, it does not mean that he lacks competence and credibility.
After all, how much credibility and capability is needed to make the people pay more and more for less and less? And implement solutions that create more problems while costing lots of money. Some twisted logic perhaps. But Molly shouldn't digress. For things like that don't happen in Singapore, do they?
And CNA or SM Goh, do I detect an insinuation that opposition parties are offering criminals (or their equivalents) as candidates? I can't be too sure of this. But, elsewhere, I don't see how SM Goh has a right to criticize Hougang MP Mr. Low Thia Khiang for not doing more as an opposition MP:
"Mr Goh noted that the opposition parliamentarian for the area since 1991, Low Thia Khiang, believes his job is just to ask questions and check the ruling party, but not to offer solutions to problems.
Mr Goh said this is a rather narrow view of the role of an opposition. And the Senior Minister has thrown a challenge to the advisor and grassroots leaders of the Hougang division - to keep its incumbent Mr Low on his toes." [CNA]
Why does the stupid bimbo Molly Meek think that SM Goh doesn't have the right to make such a criticism?
Well, SM Goh should ask himself what has happened to opposition candidates who have a broader view of the role of the opposition? Ironically, opposition MPs with a narrow definition of their roles would seem to me to be the ideal opposition MPs to the PAP (if there is to be any at all, of course).
In any case, it's just a claim that Mr. Low doesn't offer solutions. Let's see if Mr. Low retorts that. Even if the claim is valid, one wonders how solutions offered by opposition MPs would be treated? I imagine:
Chorus: "What? You are saying that there should be more welfare??!!!!"
*80 MIW takes turns to pounce on one hapless opposition MP, accusing him of harboring dangerous thoughts, of wanting to destroy Singapore, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc . . .*
I also happen to think that no solution is better than solutions such as GST hikes to help the poor
Of course, we have to give Mr. Goh some credit for trying to sound nice and open. He even gives the grassroots leaders of the Hougang division some advice:
"Amongst the things you can do... I suggest you study the annual accounts of the town council to ensure that the funds are properly used. Check whether the arrears for S&C (service and conservancy) charges are piling up, and eating into their reserves. Make sure that enough money is put aside for cyclical maintenance.
"In your walkabouts, check on the estate maintenance. If Mr Low has done a good job, give him credit for it. If there are deficiencies, point them out to the residents. [Is this what grassroots leaders elsewhere do too? Do they point out deficiencies of the PAP MPs to residents? . . . Oops I forgot. The PAP has absolutely no deficiencies. Sorry. Sorry.] In short, play the role of an effective opposition in Hougang." (CNA)
Speaking of studying the accounts, blogger Mr. Wang has helpfully studied the accounts for Aljunied Town Council. Of course the funds are properly used and no reserve is being eaten into:
Their accumulated surplus for the year, as at 31 March 2007, was $4, 964,022. Which means that in 2006/2007, they could have spent DOUBLE the amount they actually did, on cleaning works, and still have money left over.
Just as a side point, what about their gigantic sinking funds? Check out the Aljunied Town Council's balance sheet. They have more than $90,000,000 in surpluses accumulated over the years. And yes, the bulk of which would have come from the conservancy and service fees paid by Aljunied residents. (Mr. Wang)
Just as a side point, what about their gigantic sinking funds? Check out the Aljunied Town Council's balance sheet. They have more than $90,000,000 in surpluses accumulated over the years. And yes, the bulk of which would have come from the conservancy and service fees paid by Aljunied residents. (Mr. Wang)
That's what great leadership means. (I suppose grassroots leaders over at Aljunied have given the right people their due credit.) The opposition has a lot to learn. And that's why Mr. Goh believes:
"Eventually, I believe we will win Hougang back, but whether we do or not, I think (we should) serve the people. That's what we are here for." (CNA)Good to have ambitions and aspirations, Mr. Goh. Continue to serve the people by fixing the opposition that is threatening to destroy Singapore. Though Molly will never be able to understand why the PAP seems to believe that the right and natural order of things is such that the PAP has a 100% presence in the Parliament and that all the wards really belong to the PAP. It's one thing to want PAP candidates to be elected in Hougang. It's another thing to believe that they would win Hougang "back", as though Mr. Low Thia Khiang had usurped the PAP's
It is also another thing to resort to childish propaganda, gerrymandering or relocating voters just to win "back" a particular ward from the opposition. Why don't you try winning over people instead?
Meanwhile, Molly hopes that Singaporeans will win back Singapore from the men in white.
