Fact: Low Thia Kiang voted against having a time limit on when to hold a By-Election

[Goh Meng Seng]

Re: Fact: Low Thia Kiang voted against having a time limit on when to hold a By-Elect

Apparently people like TFBH still cannot grasp the main principled question here, whether there are GRCs or not, the principle of democratic representation and rule of law should be upheld. You should not vote against the principle of democratic representation and rule of law because you don't like the GRC system. At most, you just abstain in protest.

Goh Meng Seng

 

[Skywalke01783r]

Re: Fact: Low Thia Kiang voted against having a time limit on when to hold a By-Elect

A silly vote came back to haunt the WP.

 

[HTOLAS]

Re: Fact: Low Thia Kiang voted against having a time limit on when to hold a By-Elect

What is a "principled question"? What is "the main principled question"? Are there subsidiary principled questions?

Are there unprincipled questions?

Apparently people like TFBH still cannot grasp the main principled question here, whether there are GRCs or not, the principle of democratic representation and rule of law should be upheld. You should not vote against the principle of democratic representation and rule of law because you don't like the GRC system. At most, you just abstain in protest.

Goh Meng Seng

 

[VickyVoon]

Re: Fact: Low Thia Kiang voted against having a time limit on when to hold a By-Elect

Hope the WP have learned a lesson from this!

 

[Perspective]

Re: Fact: Low Thia Kiang voted against having a time limit on when to hold a By-Elect

What is a "principled question"? What is "the main principled question"? Are there subsidiary principled questions?

Are there unprincipled questions?

The chaps will never be honest as we will expect. Take a time machine back to 2008 and WP had abstained instead of voting against. Take the time machine back to 4 years later today, Hri Kumar would still be saying the same things and the two chaps will be barking the same noise except not mentioning about the choice of abstention.

As if the absention was their issue. The issue is not even that WP voted against a motion "favourable" to "democracy". The issue is they want to find fault with WP.

You can say it's the same as the even more people who often find fault with PAP. I am fine with the winged mule who is a PAP supporter, even fine with Hri who toes the party line. The hypocrisy is in the other chap who had been advocating cutting the opposition slack but has, as what Scroobal said recently, no longer follows <s>his</s> its own long-standing principles. 9 out of 10 posts against an opposition party in recent days. That's fine too, because that also gives personally me the license of voting PAP in 2016 if that opposition comes bundled with a fat insect in the package, who stands with the PAP anyway, so that I end up with 2 PAPs to choose from.

The key point is the act of voting "not for" the motion (be it against or abstain) CAME with a proposed amendment. These two must obviously be read in pairs and in totality. Isn't it obvious that when I say the fat insect screwed Lee WL, "screwed" can have various meanings. If I add "behind her husband's back", then the meaning becomes more obvious, isn't it? But the chap pretends and stands along with PAP's Hri against WP in intentionally concealing such an important information they knew off.

Anyway, for those interested, SL's speech. http://wp.sg/2008/08/speech-on-motion-on-by-elections/

 

[Goh Meng Seng]

Re: Fact: Low Thia Kiang voted against having a time limit on when to hold a By-Elect

Let me put in proper perspective here.

WP has voted against the motion just because it is against GRC system? Is that "principled" decision or just an attempt to safe guard party interests, fearing that the party could be sabotaged in future if one of its MP in GRC resigned?

The answer is quite easily get. If WP is so principled in going against GRC system, so much so that it could vote against a MORE principled notion of democratic representation, then it should stop contesting in GRC during GE! By contesting in GRCs, it actually gave legitimacy to the GRC system! That is MORE DIRECT indication of supporting the GRC than voting against the principle of exercising democratic representation in GRC!

It basically means this, for practicality, even though WP is against GRC system, it understands that it cannot change it anything sooner. So, even when it is against it, it will have to contest in GRCs so to preserve and uphold the principle of democratic contests aka Democracy. It also means that even though it is against GRC system, it should at least force PAP to uphold the principle of Democratic representation in GRC as well by supporting the motion of calling for by-election in the event when there is any vacated seats within. This should be the consistent principled stance WP should take. But no, apparently it put party interests above National interests (in building democracy).

I believe WP and its members/supporters have changed. It used to uphold the "Pro-Singapore" stance but from recent happenings like Yaw-gate, it is clear that they have put party interests aka "Pro-WP" above anything else. They are not looking at what is good or best for Singapore but rather, what suits the party's interests best.

Goh Meng Seng

What is a "principled question"? What is "the main principled question"? Are there subsidiary principled questions?

Are there unprincipled questions?

 

[Ramseth]

Re: Fact: Low Thia Kiang voted against having a time limit on when to hold a By-Elect

Let's be clear about this. WP is against the GRC system. But as it is, the only way to gain more parliamentary representation is to contest and win more GRCs. What's the risk of winning an GRC? The risk is if one member resigned or expelled or expired, the hard won seats are put at risk again. It's a double-edged Chinese swordsman sword, not a single-edged Japanese samurai sword, as PAP themselves have found out. What's democracy without politics? What's the difference between democracy and politics? It's apparent that it's not that you don't know but you want to play up what suits your fancies and soothes your ego.

What's democracy? It's the will or preference of the majority over the minority. What's their will and preference? I can safely say it's to live a good life regardless of who's in government. What's your say? Loud and clear, PAP is a bad government and WP is a bad opposition. What's the majority say? Only PAP and WP won MP seats.

 

[Goh Meng Seng]

Re: Fact: Low Thia Kiang voted against having a time limit on when to hold a By-Elect

That's why I say WP members like you have changed from "Pro-Singapore" to "Pro-WP" instead.

You are putting party interests above national interests and that will make inconsistency in your argument, more so for principled stance.

Goh Meng Seng

Let's be clear about this. WP is against the GRC system. But as it is, the only way to gain more parliamentary representation is to contest and win more GRCs. What's the risk of winning an GRC? The risk is if one member resigned or expelled or expired, the hard won seats are put at risk again. It's a double-edged Chinese swordsman sword, not a single-edged Japanese samurai sword, as PAP themselves have found out. What's democracy without politics? What's the difference between democracy and politics? It's apparent that it's not that you don't know but you want to play up what suits your fancies and soothes your ego.

What's democracy? It's the will or preference of the majority over the minority. What's their will and preference? I can safely say it's to live a good life regardless of who's in government. What's your say? Loud and clear, PAP is a bad government and WP is a bad opposition. What's the majority say? Only PAP and WP won MP seats.

 

[Goh Meng Seng]

Re: Fact: Low Thia Kiang voted against having a time limit on when to hold a By-Elect

Actually, I find it very amusing for such thinking here.

Do you seriously think that by opposing such motion would prevent opposition party like WP from suffering setbacks if one of their GRC MP suddenly vacate his/her seat? That is really wishful thinking. If you don't fix the time frame for PM to hold by-elections in GRC and give FULL UNCHECKED power of discretion to him, he would simply call for by-election ASAP for opposition GRC if there is any vacated seat. He would not do likewise to his own PAP GRC!

That is really silly of you to think that WP MP should vote against such motion to protect itself from such restriction or enhanced checks on PM's discretionary power. Of course, unless you think PAP would be so nice and for some unknown reasons, treat WP so well and not to call for by-elections if any WP MP in Aljunied vacate the seat! Really shake head here.

Goh Meng Seng

Let's be clear about this. WP is against the GRC system. But as it is, the only way to gain more parliamentary representation is to contest and win more GRCs. What's the risk of winning an GRC? The risk is if one member resigned or expelled or expired, the hard won seats are put at risk again. It's a double-edged Chinese swordsman sword, not a single-edged Japanese samurai sword, as PAP themselves have found out. What's democracy without politics? What's the difference between democracy and politics? It's apparent that it's not that you don't know but you want to play up what suits your fancies and soothes your ego.

What's democracy? It's the will or preference of the majority over the minority. What's their will and preference? I can safely say it's to live a good life regardless of who's in government. What's your say? Loud and clear, PAP is a bad government and WP is a bad opposition. What's the majority say? Only PAP and WP won MP seats.

 

[ssrrvv11]

Re: Fact: Low Thia Kiang voted against having a time limit on when to hold a By-Elect

pls lah fatty gms,

if you know better than ltk or wp then today you fatty goh/nsp would be the mp now and not them. tiu. u r really a foc pap dog.

 

[Ramseth]

Re: Fact: Low Thia Kiang voted against having a time limit on when to hold a By-Elect

That's why I say WP members like you have changed from "Pro-Singapore" to "Pro-WP" instead.

You are putting party interests above national interests and that will make inconsistency in your argument, more so for principled stance.

1. You're the one who recruited me into WP and left me orphaned behind; fortunately I have a brotherhood of orphanage by then.

2. You're the one who recruited your brother into WP who worked hard every week to attain cadreship. But when election came, you pulled him to help you in your NSP campaign. Even as a WP cadre, WP had neither objection nor complaint against him helping you. He ended up dead under your charge.

3. What's national interest? Is it for you say or decide? Re-read my monograph on democracy and weep. The majority decides, not you or me.

 

[Zatoichi]

Re: Fact: Low Thia Kiang voted against having a time limit on when to hold a By-Elect

What's democracy?

Haha, I actually posted something about that a week ago:

For those of you who are still ignorant of the true nature of so-called "democracy"
http://www.sammyboy.com/showthread.php?110718

 

[BlueWave]

Re: Fact: Low Thia Kiang voted against having a time limit on when to hold a By-Elect

2. You're the one who recruited your brother into WP who worked hard every week to attain cadreship. But when election came, you pulled him to help you in your NSP campaign. Even as a WP cadre, WP had neither objection nor complaint against him helping you. He ended up dead under your charge.

murderer

 

[Goh Meng Seng]

Re: Fact: Low Thia Kiang voted against having a time limit on when to hold a By-Elect

It is quite strange here. Whether my brother helps me or WP, we are still contributing towards the building of Democracy of Singapore. That's really a non issue. It is more of blood and brotherhood than anything else. We understood exactly what and why we are doing these, for Singapore.

But I guess over the years, you have been too engrossed in WP and lost sight of the bigger picture of Pro-Singapore. That's just too sad but it's natural of impermanence. You have lost sight of what you are really fighting for by joining WP. You have tried to defend WP in such a silly way and sometimes, despicable way.

Any activists in politics who do not hold true to the vision and principles of Democracy, will find themselves totally lost in maze of power struggles. In short, you have no principles, no vision, no morals, no soul and nothing left.

Goh Meng Seng

1. You're the one who recruited me into WP and left me orphaned behind; fortunately I have a brotherhood of orphanage by then.

2. You're the one who recruited your brother into WP who worked hard every week to attain cadreship. But when election came, you pulled him to help you in your NSP campaign. Even as a WP cadre, WP had neither objection nor complaint against him helping you. He ended up dead under your charge.

3. What's national interest? Is it for you say or decide? Re-read my monograph on democracy and weep. The majority decides, not you or me.

 

[Zatoichi]

Re: Fact: Low Thia Kiang voted against having a time limit on when to hold a By-Elect

...the vision and principles of Democracy...

But aren't you aware of this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/<wbr>Criticism_of_democracy

Popular rule as a façade
http://tinyurI.com/3bomff8

The 20th Century Italian thinkers Vilfredo Pareto and Gaetano Mosca (independently) argued that democracy was illusory, and served only to mask the reality of elite rule. Indeed, they argued that elite oligarchy is the unbendable law of human nature, due largely to the apathy and division of the masses (as opposed to the drive, initiative and unity of the elites), and that democratic institutions would do no more than shift the exercise of power from oppression to manipulation.

 

[Perspective]

Re: Fact: Low Thia Kiang voted against having a time limit on when to hold a By-Elect

I thought I was just reading a confession. A confession to its abbot, perhaps.

 

[Ramseth]

Re: Fact: Low Thia Kiang voted against having a time limit on when to hold a By-Elect

Any activists in politics who do not hold true to the vision and principles of Democracy, will find themselves totally lost in maze of power struggles. In short, you have no principles, no vision, no morals, no soul and nothing left.

Tell me something new that I don't know. I already know that anyone who disagrees with you is undemocratic, totally lost, has no principle, no moral, no soul and nothing left according to you. Except for behaving like a mad woman quarreling in the street 泼妇骂街，you have rebutted none of my points.

I'll take one point as example, like you said, brother should help brother, regardless of party affiliation or personal conviction. Isn't that nepotism?

 

[BlueWave]

Re: Fact: Low Thia Kiang voted against having a time limit on when to hold a By-Elect

It is quite strange here. Whether my brother helps me or WP, we are still contributing towards the building of Democracy of Singapore. That's really a non issue. It is more of blood and brotherhood than anything else. We understood exactly what and why we are doing these, for Singapore.

Goh Meng Seng

say until so noble, who u trying to bluff

fuck off lah. dont need you for singapore democracy :oIo::oIo:

 

[pyshock]

Re: Fact: Low Thia Kiang voted against having a time limit on when to hold a By-Elect

GMS, I guess over the years, you have been too engrossed in yourself and lost sight of the bigger picture of Pro-Singapore. That's just too sad but it's natural of impermanence. You have lost sight of what you are really fighting for by picking on WP. You have tried to destroy WP in such a silly way and sometimes, despicable way.

Any activists in politics who do not hold true to the vision and principles of Democracy, will find themselves totally lost in maze of power struggles. In short, you have no principles, no vision, no morals, no soul and nothing left.

 

[rainnix]

Re: Fact: Low Thia Kiang voted against having a time limit on when to hold a By-Elect

2. You're the one who recruited your brother into WP who worked hard every week to attain cadreship. But when election came, you pulled him to help you in your NSP campaign. Even as a WP cadre, WP had neither objection nor complaint against him helping you. He ended up dead under your charge.

Come on, using GMS family member death as a bullet to attack him is really low. I believe that David is a nice man and helping his brother is his choice. Insinuating that he caused his brother's death is hardly an argument of a gentlemen. Is it because your points are weak and GMS had better points that you start to use personal attacks on him?