Shanmugam vs Sylvia Lim on Woffles Wu

[Goh Meng Seng]

Dear Scroobal,

I think you shouldn't try to help in grooming complacency in WP MPs or Sylvia. If nobody actually points out their incompetency or where they have went wrong, they won't be able to improve. They will suffer exactly the same fate as PAP ministers and MPs, complacency will set in when only compliments were appreciated.

It is pretty obvious that Sylvia's performance in this debate is substandard and that is already a very polite and mild way of putting it. She didn't parry nor thrust. Maybe she is just trying to be a good lecturer who will answer every questions raised (by her students) instead of playing her role as MP effectively.

Her response is anything but strong retort, very feeble attempt to hold her own ground which is in the first place, unnecessary. LTK came to her rescue but she still didn't get it straight immediately.

Shan is good in avoiding direct answer to question and apparently, he has prepared himself sufficiently. In contrast, Sylvia seems to be lost in the process, lack of preparation. She should learn not to answer directly but to throw a curve ball back to Shan. There are loopholes in Shan's argument but she wasn't able to throw them back at him. Even if her preparations are lacking, she should just say that the session is for the Minister to answer any queries from the people's representatives, not for the Minister to ask the representatives back questions. And she should put it nicely, her questions here will allow the Minister the much needed opportunity to answer to Singaporeans who have doubts on his Ministry and system and he could refuse to answer if he choose to. That would shut him up.

When there is a problem or inadequacies, we should not be afraid to bring them up or even criticise the performance of opposition MPs. This will only do them good in the long run as they will learn to keep up and improve themselves. Just like YSL's case; people who are in know have kept quiet and it snowballed into a big bomb in the end. They shouldn't just keep quiet about the flaws and inadequacy; this will do them no good.

Goh Meng Seng

All the opposition had to do was raise the question in Parliament. Shanmugam did no favours for him, the SGC and the Govt when he cast aspersions on the Sylvia and questioned her motives rather than answer the question. He was promptly put in his place by her retort.

 

[myfoot123]

Dear Scroobal,

I think you shouldn't try to help in grooming complacency in WP MPs or Sylvia. If nobody actually points out their incompetency or where they have went wrong, they won't be able to improve.Goh Meng Seng

WP has done no wrong. They are playing by PAP game to hit the enemy's wound nearest to you and yes, Silvia has done some damage on Shanmugam already which is a success. Good strategy given the limited space and time available in parliament.

 

[scroobal]

It would not be wise for WP or anyone in opposition to pursue this at length due to limited resources, access to files and the sensitive nature. WP gave him a rope and as far as the public is concerned Shanmugam hanged himself.

There is no need to tighten the knot or determine the time of death for this epsiode.

LTK failing to hang WKS over Mas Selamat I would agree is a blunder, a lost opportunity and he froze. This is not such as a case.

Dear Scroobal,

I think you shouldn't try to help in grooming complacency in WP MPs or Sylvia. If nobody actually points out their incompetency or where they have went wrong, they won't be able to improve. They will suffer exactly the same fate as PAP ministers and MPs, complacency will set in when only compliments were appreciated.


Goh Meng Seng

 

[lockeliberal]

Dear Scroobal


I would add that you have raised a relevant point. The cost of justice and how the rich can afford better representation. Perhaps another issue I would suggest is the tendency for the PAP to criminalize everything and anything and to structure the offences in such a way as to penalise those less well off.

GMS, Scroobal. Take a taxi, ask ard. How many people do u know of who have cheated or sought someone to take their demerit points so as to game the system ? Why was that very act criminalised when previously it was a minor offence under the Road Traffic Act. Lets be honest here, what Dr Wu did cuts across all boundaries, something which rich poor, and the not so rich have all done unless everyone here is a saint.

Is there a logic to the desire to criminalize every minor offence for the sake of adminastrative convience ? For example if I speed, it would be demerit points under the Road Traffic Act, If I speed and I am drunk its a criminal conviction and if I speed drunk and kill someone it might be manslaughter depending on precedence. But yet by the very logic of the Singapore Government, If I seek to game the demerit point system , it become automatically a possible criminal offence. Why not just a harsher penalty under the Road Traffic Act ?

I nearly fell out of my chair laughing when the Law Minister sought to justify criminilization of Marriage of Convience by justifying saying that it was a problem because it had grown from five cases a year to well 12 in the first half of one year. Is that a problem to justify criminilization ? Technically, from the way the law is phrased as long as any consideration changes hand in any overseas marriage you are liable for up to ten years jail. Some poor uncle taxi driver marrying a thai, vietnamese etc would fall as a criminal if he married and then failed and got a divorce.


Locke

All the opposition had to do was raise the question in Parliament. Shanmugam did no favours for him, the SGC and the Govt when he cast aspersions on the Sylvia and questioned her motives rather than answer the question. He was promptly put in his place by her retort.

His subsequent answers to the question was neither convincing nor even partially addressed the concerns expressed by citizens.

There was no need for anyone to probe further. This episode has left an indelible mark on the prosecutorial service, the Police for not investigating when the allegations were first raised and the judiciary. Shanmugam and the Govt failed to address this in Parliament.

Lets not nitpick about petty issues. We all know there are so many holes. Do we need to count the holes and know where they are exactly.

Within the legal fraternity, some think his counsel managed to argue his case well and precedents cited for the certain charges to be applied. That those who went in did not have quality representation. Sadly it reflects poorly on administration of justice in this country where situations which are not complex draws outcomes that are so far apart. Well its took the celebrity son of an ex-judicial commissioner and an ex-NMP to have sentencing guideline that stood for many years to be overturned. That tells a story and that story has mot changed.

This episode will remain and will continue to haunt the PAP.

 

[Goh Meng Seng]

Well, not everyone is so discerning actually. Only hardcore opposition supporters would say that Sylvia has scored some points or done some damage. Objectively speaking, what was presented: Sylvia is ill-prepared, totally lost during that sparring session. It would be quite self-deceiving to believe otherwise. The only saving grace comes from LTK himself.


Goh Meng Seng

WP has done no wrong. They are playing by PAP game to hit the enemy's wound nearest to you and yes, Silvia has done some damage on Shanmugam already which is a success. Good strategy given the limited space and time available in parliament.

 

[Papsmearer]

Re: To Hang The Woffle Dog ?

The Dr Wu's case is a "populist" case which doesn't need any POLICY COMMITMENT from WP, thus it is viewed as "EASY TARGET", unlike the "Ministerial Salary" issue which ends up in a mess when WP was to commit itself politically by giving its own policy deliberation that ended up with the MX9 embarrassment and ideological incoherence.

Soft targets like these cases will be used in parliament. To debate on policy details and perspective will need more expertise in policy analysis and careful formulation of policy stance.

Goh Meng Seng

I am quite shocked by what you are saying. If I hear u correctly, you are saying your party and the oppo in general did not have sufficent expertise to analyse policies and formulate an opposition stance? Are there no platforms that the opposition campaigned on? I would already have thought that every oppo party has well thought out policies on what they want to do if they do win power. What kind of expertise do you need to formulate a critique of the govt. policies? E.g. Govt. says GST helps the poor, your researcher can bring up a dozen case examples of the opposition. U bring this up in Parliament and whack them with your own research and data. We all know the PAP will not reverse their GST policy, but it makes them look like the lying bastards that they are and it makes the oppo look like they are trying to help the man on the street.

 

[Goh Meng Seng]

Re: To Hang The Woffle Dog ?

It is a fact that opposition parties don't really have any formal think tank backing them up, unlike the ruling party which could utilize all sorts of govt think tanks like IPS and such.

But it doesn't mean that opposition parties may not have the abilities to do some indepth policy analysis and studies, in spite of the lack of full data and information. However, due to the apparent lack of think tank capabilities and the lack of formal education in economics and statistics in most of the MPs, even when a policy stand or idea has been put up, there will always be a lack of confidence in bringing it up. This is because in parliament, it is not just reading off a prepared written script but you will need a strong understanding of certain economic principles before you could really DEBATE it thoroughly, taking shots from PAP and firing back.

PAP is able to dominate policy discourses in parliament and in mainstream media for so many years basically due to the weakness of opposition parties in policy analysis. Last GE, it is kind of different when I brought on the HDB issue hard on and basically hitting hard on each rebuttals that MBT and HDB had provided. They avoided direct open live debate with me because this is going to be a very different ball game when you have an opponent who have the knowledge, logic and indepth and all rounded perspectives on such an important topic. It will make them look very bad, especially so after so many years of dominance in policy discourse, they cannot accept that they could be beaten on the very policy foundation of HDB that have given their base political capital for all these years.

You don't need complex statistical data to make that important point, but just consistency and coherence in your policy ideology and directions. Most of the time, people miss the most fundamental logic in their policy discourse that expose grave contradictions within. The MX-9 issue is basically a flaw on fundamental logic: You cannot say that you want to achieve market competitiveness in remuneration and yet, representative of the workers' salary growth because inherently, the growth rates of salaries for different groups or segment of income are very different. People who don't have a strong grasp of economic logic will make such fundamental mistakes.

But having said all these, HDB is only one policy aspect where we could possibly expose their inherent contradictions of asset-enhancement and the fundamental aim of HDB providing basic, affordable housing for ALL Singaporeans. To attack other policies effectively, more indepth studies and analysis will be needed. The recent attempt by SDP to tackle Healthcare policy is a good start. But that involves a lot more economic principles and logic, that include risk-sharing, insurance policy aim and such. Of course there are already well established healthcare policies elsewhere in the world like Canada, French and Taiwan but still, we will need to look into every aspects of their policies before adapting them to our system.

You will realize that WP didn't really hold any formal public consultation exercise on policy matters in recent months or years. SDP and NSP have been doing it more often. However, before you do public consultation on specific policy, you must first have at least intermediate understanding of the policy issues at hand so to have fruitful outcomes from such public consultation exercise.

It will take time for opposition parties to evolve in terms of policy analysis and hopefully they will catch up fast on the learning curve.

Goh Meng Seng

I am quite shocked by what you are saying. If I hear u correctly, you are saying your party and the oppo in general did not have sufficent expertise to analyse policies and formulate an opposition stance? Are there no platforms that the opposition campaigned on? I would already have thought that every oppo party has well thought out policies on what they want to do if they do win power. What kind of expertise do you need to formulate a critique of the govt. policies? E.g. Govt. says GST helps the poor, your researcher can bring up a dozen case examples of the opposition. U bring this up in Parliament and whack them with your own research and data. We all know the PAP will not reverse their GST policy, but it makes them look like the lying bastards that they are and it makes the oppo look like they are trying to help the man on the street.

 

[myfoot123]

Re: To Hang The Woffle Dog ?

It is a fact that opposition parties don't really have any formal think tank backing them up, unlike the ruling party which could utilize all sorts of govt think tanks like IPS and such.

Goh Meng Seng

Frankly I don't see what NSP has done. In fact I see SDP did more work despite severals punishments they received from the ruling party. Dr Chee is more perservere than anyone else. The policies that you brought up during the last watershed election is not new, they were talk of the town and discussed in this forum too. No research is needed, just look around will do. Even the blind know what went wrong with PAP and there is no need to discuss with public to find out the truth. PAP know what went wrong with their policies but it is the denial part that pissed off many people.

Tan Jee Say, Kenneth have done several sound economy research and attack PAP on several fronts, but how much votes did they receive? Does research truly work for winning votes, an instant success or a place in parliament? Take your case of HDB policies which you were certain of good weapon, does it throw MBT out of Tampines? No, but you were thrown out instead (via resignation). With that, we should learn some lessons from here that some popular policies might not gain you a place in parliament because we still have 60% DAFT voters need to tackle slowly.

Due to limited resources, dont you think it is wise to Instead aiming for PAP weak policies which PAP promised to discuss or fool the voters, we should aim for PAP weak spots (like woffle wu case, the NPB bikes..etc) and the rest can be discussed later. A pillar will not collapse overnight, but several little cracks and holes should not be overlooked.

With the above glaring scenarios, WP has learned the strategy well - moderate but no less picking up its momentum based on its available resources.

All we need WP to do is to keep tickling those loopholes and remind PAP there was this concerns going on in the public arena. Opposition do not have the resources, but they can "borrow" it by keeping PAP awake, all the time, of what went wrong and PAP will start scrambling around to form committees, looking for answers to WP's question - thus probably ended with a better solutions and kudos to WP initiatiives. Who can do better than WP? other opposition are outside parliament now.

Whether I am a hardcore supporter of opposition is beside the point, the point is we don't have many opposition in parliaments and we should treasure whatever results our voters have given us. If people love to have WP in parliament so be it, you cannot say you don't like them or disagree with them because you have never like WP regardless of what they did - good or bad,

 

[Television]

Re: To Hang The Woffle Dog ?

GOH MENG SENG, WHY YOU BACK Tan Kin Lian?

 

[tanwahp]

Well, not everyone is so discerning actually. Only hardcore opposition supporters would say that Sylvia has scored some points or done some damage. Objectively speaking, what was presented: Sylvia is ill-prepared, totally lost during that sparring session. It would be quite self-deceiving to believe otherwise. The only saving grace comes from LTK himself.


Goh Meng Seng

Let's be honest, when it comes to WP, you'll keep to maintaining the quota of 90% discredits 10% credits. It would have been 100% if you didn't want to be seen as being unobjective by forummers here. I don't think WP is that bad, just not 90% bad. I would definitely give WP above 50%, even if it is 51%.

You have rightly pointed out the attitude of hardcore WP supporters when it comes to supporting WP is quite, well, hardcore. But it is no different from those hardcore against WP. The difference is the side they are taking but the attitude is the same. Same goes to hardcore PAP and hardcore anti PAP. That is why you shouldn't be holier than thou.

 

[Goh Meng Seng]

I am pretty honest in my assessment. If you consider getting caught red handed in plagiarism, failing in policy debate on ministerial salary and the mishandling of YSL saga, CSM inability to seize that opportunity to wrestle Vikram down due to his Nigerian Scam insinuation plus the Png Eng Huat's fumble during by-elections are not enough examples of WP's glaring mistakes, I really don't know what to say. But maybe you are right, I should be more lenient, giving WP 51% for having a good ground work system.

Goh Meng Seng

Let's be honest, when it comes to WP, you'll keep to maintaining the quota of 90% discredits 10% credits. It would have been 100% if you didn't want to be seen as being unobjective by forummers here. I don't think WP is that bad, just not 90% bad. I would definitely give WP above 50%, even if it is 51%.

You have rightly pointed out the attitude of hardcore WP supporters when it comes to supporting WP is quite, well, hardcore. But it is no different from those hardcore against WP. The difference is the side they are taking but the attitude is the same. Same goes to hardcore PAP and hardcore anti PAP. That is why you shouldn't be holier than thou.

 

[ConyuConhee]

Re: To Hang The Woffle Dog ?

Nope. I think you have problems in understanding my point.

Whether I am in parliament or not, it doesn't really matter to me and I will continue to speak up. Small audience big audience don't really matter as long as you got it right.

But from another angle, if you get into parliament and you start to fumble like that, then it will be very very ugly. It is a double edged sword and WP MPs should have very good experience to share with you on that.

Goh Meng Seng

whatever you choose to believe
but do me and other voters a favour if you decide to participate in the next election
PLEASE STAY AWAY FROM THE EASTERN PART OF SINGAPORE
dun wish to spoil vote just because of you

 

[kingrant]

As long as GMS isnt in parliament on the Opp bench, nothing that any Opp party does will suffice. A case of sour grapes.

 

[GoldenDragon]

Re: To Hang The Woffle Dog ?

It is a fact that opposition parties don't really have any formal think tank backing them up, unlike the ruling party which could utilize all sorts of govt think tanks like IPS and such.

It will take time for opposition parties to evolve in terms of policy analysis and hopefully they will catch up fast on the learning curve.

Goh Meng Seng

Looking for another job? Looks like this forum is your only destination.

 

[Narong Wongwan]

Re: To Hang The Woffle Dog ?

Looking for another job? Looks like this forum is your only destination.

Can ask boss make him a moderator....

 

[Goh Meng Seng]

Re: To Hang The Woffle Dog ?

Well, at least NSP did try and they are going to have a public consultation on ISA and a forum on HDB housing policy.

Stating what is wrong with any policy is not that difficult but to specifically point to the incoherence or the mechanism that went wrong is totally another cup of tea. You may think HDB issues have been big hoohaa before I talked about it but no man, what you see are just symptoms of the problem -- High HDB prices but there are a lot more policy connectivity other than pricing. These were slowly reviewed by MBT in the process of making responses to my attacks and other criticisms rolling in the internet.

You may think putting up policy views on HDB is simple but you are dead wrong. For example, there are people who just declare, stop PRs from buying HDB flats! WP came up with MORE SUBSIDIES for first time buyers but do these really solve the fundamental problems? Nope. The problem is GROWTH RATE of HDB flats is FASTER than Income GROWTH. This is not due to the shortage of subsidies nor because PRs are buying HDB flats. This is due to the pricing mechanism that linked new HDB prices to open market prices that are affected by factors like interest rates, liquidity, demand, expectations etc that does not take into account wage factors. Property inflation is higher than normal inflation or wage growth. This is what makes HDB totally disconnect from wages of Singaporeans and thus, REAL AFFORDABILITY. The problems are "cover up" by extended mortgage loan periods (using 30 years mortgage instead of 20) etc. These are policy details that need expertise in economics and indepth research, not just anyhow hantum one. WP ended up with that simplistic "give more subsidies to first HDB buyers" basically they don't understand what the key fundamental problems.

As for the suggestion of banning PRs from buying HDB flats, that would have disastrous impact on the whole property market.... HDB resale market will collapse! It will only benefit private property owners because if PRs cannot buy HDB, then the demand on private properties will surge. This will worsen the income-wealth disparity.

As I have said, if you think it is easy to talk about HDB policy then you are really underestimating the depth and difficulties of policy trade offs.

I think voters are more demanding nowadays. Merely poking at loopholes in parliament will not meet their expectations any more. They want more value add, at least some policy directions or leads where the nation can think about.

Goh Meng Seng


Afternote: I realize I have missed out one important point, i.e. retirement financing linked to HDB housing policy which is linked to 30 yr mortgage policy guidelines. It is only when the ills of the 30 yr mortgage effects on retirement financing was raised, MBT went into defensive by putting up his famous "monetize the HDB flat" for retirement. This is the key point which made his whole HDB policy unacceptable to most people when they realized that this was one of the policy implications that was planned by PAP.

Frankly I don't see what NSP has done. In fact I see SDP did more work despite severals punishments they received from the ruling party. Dr Chee is more perservere than anyone else. The policies that you brought up during the last watershed election is not new, they were talk of the town and discussed in this forum too. No research is needed, just look around will do. Even the blind know what went wrong with PAP and there is no need to discuss with public to find out the truth. PAP know what went wrong with their policies but it is the denial part that pissed off many people.

Tan Jee Say, Kenneth have done several sound economy research and attack PAP on several fronts, but how much votes did they receive? Does research truly work for winning votes, an instant success or a place in parliament? Take your case of HDB policies which you were certain of good weapon, does it throw MBT out of Tampines? No, but you were thrown out instead (via resignation). With that, we should learn some lessons from here that some popular policies might not gain you a place in parliament because we still have 60% DAFT voters need to tackle slowly.

Due to limited resources, dont you think it is wise to Instead aiming for PAP weak policies which PAP promised to discuss or fool the voters, we should aim for PAP weak spots (like woffle wu case, the NPB bikes..etc) and the rest can be discussed later. A pillar will not collapse overnight, but several little cracks and holes should not be overlooked.

With the above glaring scenarios, WP has learned the strategy well - moderate but no less picking up its momentum based on its available resources.

All we need WP to do is to keep tickling those loopholes and remind PAP there was this concerns going on in the public arena. Opposition do not have the resources, but they can "borrow" it by keeping PAP awake, all the time, of what went wrong and PAP will start scrambling around to form committees, looking for answers to WP's question - thus probably ended with a better solutions and kudos to WP initiatiives. Who can do better than WP? other opposition are outside parliament now.

Whether I am a hardcore supporter of opposition is beside the point, the point is we don't have many opposition in parliaments and we should treasure whatever results our voters have given us. If people love to have WP in parliament so be it, you cannot say you don't like them or disagree with them because you have never like WP regardless of what they did - good or bad,

 

[Goh Meng Seng]

Re: To Hang The Woffle Dog ?

Nah, I have vast interests and this forum is merely my entertainment.

Goh Meng Seng

Looking for another job? Looks like this forum is your only destination.

 

[tanwahp]

I am pretty honest in my assessment. If you consider getting caught red handed in plagiarism, failing in policy debate on ministerial salary and the mishandling of YSL saga, CSM inability to seize that opportunity to wrestle Vikram down due to his Nigerian Scam insinuation plus the Png Eng Huat's fumble during by-elections are not enough examples of WP's glaring mistakes, I really don't know what to say. But maybe you are right, I should be more lenient, giving WP 51% for having a good ground work system.

Goh Meng Seng

We are not talking about ground system, so if you feel the way you feel, there is no need to patronize by giving 51%. The number of examples you brought up basically covers every Parliament sitting, so I can safely say that it is 90% and above.

Too bad, the only thing I agree with is Png's fumble, although he is someone I like more than other WP MPs. WP could also do better in the ministerial salary debate. As for the others, I don't agree. Plagiarism has long been ruled out. When the originators give the green light for use in any way, I don't even see how that can even be plagiarism. It can be anything from careless use to whatever, I don't see how that can be plagiarism. You might as well say it was a gay act. I don't think YSL case was mishandled. I also don't even know that there was a "opportunity to wrestle Vikram down due to his Nigerian Scam" as Vikram himself apologized for the remark. So I give 80% to WP overall.

 

[GoldenDragon]

Re: To Hang The Woffle Dog ?

Can ask boss make him a moderator....

Do not insult bro GMS. He needs a nicer sounding title. Moderator sounds a little ordinary. I suggest Emeritus title for GMS. Emeritus whatever.

 

[tanwahp]

Re: To Hang The Woffle Dog ?

Like it or not, Goh Meng Seng's bias is apparent and formed. There is no way an objective person will assign credits and brickbats to various parties in the lopsided way he does it. It's his prerogative to disagree with me but since he has clearly revealed his innermost thoughts, it is natural that we will form opinions of him.

To take him seriously (at least on matters related to WP) is like agreeing with those who said WP MPs should give up their MP allowance (but not breathing a word about PAP minister salaries).