Transposing the Rudd-Gillard contest onto Singapore: PAP will never learn

steffychun · Jul 1, 2013

Gillard and Rudd had their supporters and haters. But Gillard lost the leadership contest and is replaced by the lesser of the two devils.

Would it be better if there was a leadership contest and vote against LHL?

Kuailan · Jul 1, 2013

white maggots had no balls to do it even thou they know
Looney had his wifee in Toomasick, conflict of interest
also wont dare to raise its voice! or go against it why?
cos oldman berry powderful. One word from him will cause
the downfall!

HTOLAS · Jul 1, 2013

Gillard eventually lost the leadership struggle within the Labor Party because she was deeply unpopular with voters, i.e. she'd have led Labor to a massive defeat. With Rudd at the helm, Labor has a chance to claw back some support.

With that in mind, there is absolutely no reason why someone within the PAPzis would want to depose Dear Leeder - he got them 60% of the votes! As I'd said so many times before, the PAPzis cannot be held entirely responsible for their behaviour. They are behaving this way simply because Singaporean voters have time and again refused to vote for alternatives.

steffychun said:
Gillard and Rudd had their supporters and haters. But Gillard lost the leadership contest and is replaced by the lesser of the two devils.

Would it be better if there was a leadership contest and vote against LHL?

Poomer · Jul 1, 2013

HTOLAS said:
Gillard eventually lost the leadership struggle within the Labor Party because she was deeply unpopular with voters, i.e. she'd have led Labor to a massive defeat. With Rudd at the helm, Labor has a chance to claw back some support.

With that in mind, there is absolutely no reason why someone within the PAPzis would want to depose Dear Leeder - he got them 60% of the votes! As I'd said so many times before, the PAPzis cannot be held entirely responsible for their behaviour. They are behaving this way simply because Singaporean voters have time and again refused to vote for alternatives.

The PAP propaganda machine has to take much credit for this. They have deeply ingrained in a large group of susceptible peasants the notion that Singapore will burn the moment oppies take over. Reinforced by the constant 'we will fix you'.

leetahbah · Jul 1, 2013

steffychun said:
Gillard and Rudd had their supporters and haters. But Gillard lost the leadership contest and is replaced by the lesser of the two devils.

Would it be better if there was a leadership contest and vote against LHL?

With the old man still around, nobody dare to challenge the prince.. for democracy sake, leadership contest should be there..

Narong Wongwan · Jul 1, 2013

Poomer said:
The PAP propaganda machine has to take much credit for this. They have deeply ingrained in a large group of susceptible peasants the notion that Singapore will burn the moment oppies take over. Reinforced by the constant 'we will fix you'.

Vile pappies also play dirty........read my sig and also the key word.......gerrymendering.......but 60.1% dumbfucks are just as culpable

Poomer · Jul 1, 2013

Narong Wongwan said:
Vile pappies also play dirty........read my sig and also the key word.......gerrymendering.......but 60.1% dumbfucks are just as culpable

they cover all the bases don't they. By showing a little bit more finesse than our northern neighbour, they don't get so much flak. But sooner or later, Singaporeans will wake up to their wayang. Actually it's just plain sad, some people who vote PAP, are
1. those who vote for continuity (like some who are afraid change might affect their ricebowl)
2. those who really buy the propaganda that ST sells us (stupid people)
3. those who don't care but just vote for PAP lo (blindly)
4. those from the older generations (some of them really trust PAP in general and LKY specifically)
5. those who are rich (when you are rich, no point in changing the status quo)
6. those who still think PAP is bad, but still not to the extent they should be sacked (people must really see brimstone and fire before they wake up their idea)
6. those who are hardcore PAP supporter (not many actually, look at their turnout during rallies)

this is what I concur from talking to my fellow Singaporeans, this is how some of them few and is not a generalisation of certain segments of the population.

Sideswipe · Jul 1, 2013

Narong Wongwan said:
Vile pappies also play dirty........read my sig and also the key word.......gerrymendering.......but 60.1% dumbfucks are just as culpable

gerrmandering happens everywhere.

one key reason for those long ruling parties fall from power is always party internal splits: defection of people to opposition or breakaway party split votes. if the pap doesn't self-destruct from within, the opposition would face a mammoth task to win future elections.

steffychun · Jul 1, 2013

HTOLAS said:
Gillard eventually lost the leadership struggle within the Labor Party because she was deeply unpopular with voters, i.e. she'd have led Labor to a massive defeat. With Rudd at the helm, Labor has a chance to claw back some support.

With that in mind, there is absolutely no reason why someone within the PAPzis would want to depose Dear Leeder - he got them 60% of the votes! As I'd said so many times before, the PAPzis cannot be held entirely responsible for their behaviour. They are behaving this way simply because Singaporean voters have time and again refused to vote for alternatives.

He's unpopular with 40%

ILovePAP · Jul 1, 2013

steffychun said:
Gillard and Rudd had their supporters and haters. But Gillard lost the leadership contest and is replaced by the lesser of the two devils.

Would it be better if there was a leadership contest and vote against LHL?

LHL is doibg an excellent job. Dont be DAFT!

Poomer · Jul 1, 2013

ILovePAP said:
LHL is doibg an excellent job. Dont be DAFT!

So... which one are you?

Poomer said:
they cover all the bases don't they. By showing a little bit more finesse than our northern neighbour, they don't get so much flak. But sooner or later, Singaporeans will wake up to their wayang. Actually it's just plain sad, some people who vote PAP, are
1. those who vote for continuity (like some who are afraid change might affect their ricebowl)
2. those who really buy the propaganda that ST sells us (stupid people)
3. those who don't care but just vote for PAP lo (blindly)
4. those from the older generations (some of them really trust PAP in general and LKY specifically)
5. those who are rich (when you are rich, no point in changing the status quo)
6. those who still think PAP is bad, but still not to the extent they should be sacked (people must really see brimstone and fire before they wake up their idea)
6. those who are hardcore PAP supporter (not many actually, look at their turnout during rallies)

this is what I concur from talking to my fellow Singaporeans, this is how some of them few and is not a generalisation of certain segments of the population.

ILovePAP · Jul 1, 2013

I believe PAP is the only party FIT and ABLE to RUN Singapore. The rest are CRAP.

jw5 · Jul 1, 2013

Poomer said:
they cover all the bases don't they. By showing a little bit more finesse than our northern neighbour, they don't get so much flak. But sooner or later, Singaporeans will wake up to their wayang. Actually it's just plain sad, some people who vote PAP, are

7. You forget the PAWS (porlumpar asslicking wannabe sycophants). Those that want something from the pap or want to get a benefit from being associated with them.
Most of them only think they can get ahead by being a PAWS, they end up being deeply disappointed at not haivng their objectives achieved.

neddy · Jul 1, 2013

steffychun said:
Gillard and Rudd had their supporters and haters. But Gillard lost the leadership contest and is replaced by the lesser of the two devils.

Would it be better if there was a leadership contest and vote against LHL?

If you have spoken to the staff at the PM office after 2007 election win, you will know that Julia Gillard is the lesser of 2 evils.

If you want to compare, Kevin Rudd may even be worse than Lee Kuan Yew, in that he is a workplace psychopath.

Psychological tendencies of workplace psychopaths identified by Clarke are that they are superficially charming, have a grandiose sense of self-worth, a need for excitement and are pathological liars. They also have an absolute lack of remorse, a lack of guilt for what they do and are parasites who live off other people and take credit for other peoples work.

Workplace psychopaths are initially valued in their organizations because they attain success at any cost but over time they damage the organization because they over-promise and cannot deliver.

Workplace psychopaths have a devastating affect on organizations and co-workers.

Kevin Rudd has demonstrated many of the characteristics outlined by Clarke.

Some are the manner he dealt with Scores night club, his portrayal of his ‘homeless’ childhood, his description of himself as an economic conservative a socialist and a social democrat, his description of himself as a Christian socialist, his constant big-noting and blabbering, his treatment of department heads making some wait all day without meeting them, the turnover of staff in his office, the 20/20 talkfest was an overt attempt to take credit for other peoples work.

freedalas · Jul 2, 2013

steffychun said:
Gillard and Rudd had their supporters and haters. But Gillard lost the leadership contest and is replaced by the lesser of the two devils.

Would it be better if there was a leadership contest and vote against LHL?

In places like Australia, there are people within the party that are good enough to mount a leadership challenge. For the PAP, LKY had very successfully ensured that no one within the party can mount such a challenge as he had very deliberately chosen people that are simply not up to it. I am not saying LHL is a good leader, all I am saying is that LKY had very cunningly pre-empted any such challenge by putting people of absolute zero qualities (past and present people like Wong Kan Seng, Mah Bow Tan, Khaw Boon Wan, Lim Swee Say, Raymond Lim, Teo Chee Hean, Lui Tuck Yew, Tan Chuan Jin).

In other words, such a scenario will never happen. For the real change that Singapore needs to alleviate the sufferings of the people, the only solution is to vote them out.

scroobal · Jul 2, 2013

Unlike 1st world Westminster model form of government, Singapore does not operate a caucus where MPs of the ruling party decide on the leader. That leader's position in the UL, OZ etc is not determined by parliamentary elections but by his ability to retain the confidence of his parliamentary colleagues.

Toh Chin Chye as result of attempted coup de tat engineered by PAP leftist members, fronted quite gullibly by father of current Court of Appeals Judge VK Rajah, copied the vatican model where the leadership appoints the cadres who then pick the leadership. It is a closed loop system. Cadres are carefully picked and a Chinese wall exist between branches so collusive behaviour of any sort is reduced.

In essence, any internal revolt or mutiny is virtually impossible. When GCT took power there was a sense that a second faction will emerge to form 2nd base of power. Though there was much momentum, it never did materialise. His followers were generally English speaking supervisors, managers and teachers etc. They were not politically savvy. GCT also conceptualised the GRC while old man was nearing he end of his term and it was thought that it would provide him another possible base but old man continued to lead PA even when he stepped down.

Since then it continues as it is just that there is very little interest from the Lee clan as time has taken its toll, the younger ones are not interested and most of them are more interested in fund management. With substantial endowment and political autocracy being frowned upon, it is no longer cool. The term benevolent dictatorship which in the past was a polite form for acceptance, nowadays it would be a subject of ridicule and joke.

So who will fill the void? The scions of lesser lights that were part of the first and second generation of MP? Maybe.

steffychun · Jul 2, 2013

scroobal said:
Unlike 1st world Westminster model form of government, Singapore does not operate a caucus where MPs of the ruling party decide on the leader. That leader's position in the UL, OZ etc is not determined by parliamentary elections but by his ability to retain the confidence of his parliamentary colleagues.

Toh Chin Chye as result of attempted coup de tat engineered by PAP leftist members, fronted quite gullibly by father of current Court of Appeals Judge VK Rajah, copied the vatican model where the leadership appoints the cadres who then pick the leadership. It is a closed loop system. Cadres are carefully picked and a Chinese wall exist between branches so collusive behaviour of any sort is reduced.

In essence, any internal revolt or mutiny is virtually impossible. When GCT took power there was a sense that a second faction will emerge to form 2nd base of power. Though there was much momentum, it never did materialise. His followers were generally English speaking supervisors, managers and teachers etc. They were not politically savvy. GCT also conceptualised the GRC while old man was nearing he end of his term and it was thought that it would provide him another possible base but old man continued to lead PA even when he stepped down.

Since then it continues as it is just that there is very little interest from the Lee clan as time has taken its toll, the younger ones are not interested and most of them are more interested in fund management. With substantial endowment and political autocracy being frowned upon, it is no longer cool. The term benevolent dictatorship which in the past was a polite form for acceptance, nowadays it would be a subject of ridicule and joke.

So who will fill the void? The scions of lesser lights that were part of the first and second generation of MP? Maybe.

I was thinking if there is say a pro-"other than LHL" faction within the PAP, it might restore them their lost proportion of citizen votes. Not that I'm pro-PAP but they should take heed from this Gillard-Rudd affair.

Ash007 · Jul 2, 2013

You just described what most CEOs are like. It seems most CEO have psychopathic tendencies as well. He already took over, no point talking about Gillard anymore. The important question would be can he win the election. Sure, he is a psychopath, sure he works his colleague hard with his many demands, but compared to the mad monk, I'll rather vote for labor. Have you seen Abbott babble? The question should be which are the lesser evil, Abbott or Rudd. If it was Turnbull vs Rudd it'll be a very very interesting fight.

neddy said:
If you have spoken to the staff at the PM office after 2007 election win, you will know that Julia Gillard is the lesser of 2 evils.

If you want to compare, Kevin Rudd may even be worse than Lee Kuan Yew, in that he is a workplace psychopath.

Psychological tendencies of workplace psychopaths identified by Clarke are that they are superficially charming, have a grandiose sense of self-worth, a need for excitement and are pathological liars. They also have an absolute lack of remorse, a lack of guilt for what they do and are parasites who live off other people and take credit for other peoples work.

Workplace psychopaths are initially valued in their organizations because they attain success at any cost but over time they damage the organization because they over-promise and cannot deliver.

Workplace psychopaths have a devastating affect on organizations and co-workers.

Kevin Rudd has demonstrated many of the characteristics outlined by Clarke.

Some are the manner he dealt with Scores night club, his portrayal of his ‘homeless’ childhood, his description of himself as an economic conservative a socialist and a social democrat, his description of himself as a Christian socialist, his constant big-noting and blabbering, his treatment of department heads making some wait all day without meeting them, the turnover of staff in his office, the 20/20 talkfest was an overt attempt to take credit for other peoples work.

neddy · Jul 2, 2013

Ash007 said:
You just described what most CEOs are like. It seems most CEO have psychopathic tendencies as well. He already took over, no point talking about Gillard anymore. The important question would be can he win the election. Sure, he is a psychopath, sure he works his colleague hard with his many demands, but compared to the mad monk, I'll rather vote for labor. Have you seen Abbott babble? The question should be which are the lesser evil, Abbott or Rudd. If it was Turnbull vs Rudd it'll be a very very interesting fight.

I have worked with many CEOs, they are tough but have not reached the level of psychopath yet.

I am not talking about Gillard, I am talking about the coming Australian Economic Recession, the first in 22 years.
And I am talking about how the mad monk and Joe Hockey know what Australia is in for, but Kevin Rudd do not give a damn!
He is a bloody good salesman and nothing else.

He has no regard for anyone. I have his ex-staff working with me. He disregard for processes and taking short-cuts was scary.

He use more fuck words in one sentence than anyone else. It is hokkien pengs and chinese towkay combined.

Anyway, I have most of my exit strategy in place in case Australia falls apart under Rudd.

Travellor · Jul 2, 2013

neddy said:
I have worked with many CEOs, they are tough but have not reached the level of psychopath yet.

I am not talking about Gillard, I am talking about the coming Australian Economic Recession, the first in 22 years.
And I am talking about how the mad monk and Joe Hockey know what Australia is in for, but Kevin Rudd do not give a damn!
He is a bloody good salesman and nothing else.

He has no regard for anyone. I have his ex-staff working with me. He disregard for processes and taking short-cuts was scary.

He use more fuck words in one sentence than anyone else. It is hokkien pengs and chinese towkay combined.

Anyway, I have most of my exit strategy in place in case Australia falls apart under Rudd.

i also wanna know....abbott or rudd would be the ruin of australia?

i think oz still stands a better chance with rudd, crazy foul mouthed bastard or not......

Transposing the Rudd-Gillard contest onto Singapore: PAP will never learn

Alfrescian

Alfrescian

Alfrescian (Inf)

Alfrescian

Alfrescian

Alfrescian (Inf)

Alfrescian

Alfrescian (Inf)

Alfrescian

Alfrescian (Inf)

Alfrescian

Alfrescian (Inf)

Moderator

Alfrescian (Inf)

Alfrescian

Alfrescian

Alfrescian

Alfrescian

Alfrescian (Inf)

Alfrescian

Similar threads