in the words of Angela Oon

[Thick Face Black Heart]

• I think it's important that reason (and logic) rule our discussions. It's the only basis upon which we can come to understandings, agreements and compromises. If someone refuses to engage in rational and logical debate, I know that this person isn't interested in anything fruitful at all. On the other hand, I'm always very interested if someone disagrees with me and provides good reason for doing so. I want to be convinced, not to have opinions shoved down my throat. (PAP are you listening?)
  
  It's also important that we realise and accept that there are "lived realities", or practical difficulties, that people encounter when trying to turn rhetoric into reality. For example, there was a very interesting discussion that took place on Andrew Loh's FB page about the nitty-gritties of parliamentary procedures, most of which people don't know. (For example, there's the very obvious constraint of each individual only having limited time to pose oral questions in a Parliament with 87 MPs, 3 NCMPs and 9 NMPs. This goes for all the MPs including those from the PAP.)
  
  The whole point is that yes, emotions may run high and yes, it's vitally important to talk about ideals, principles and big concepts. But through it all we need to be reasonable people.
  
  About my political affiliation: I praise the WP when it does the right thing, but I won't hesitate to come down hard on it if I feel it's going the wrong way. (although not in public). That's because I believe that WP MEMBERS ARE THE CONSCIENCE OF THE PARTY (that's meant to be in italics rather than all-caps). They need to be the first ones to yank the party back if it's losing its way. If you're truly a WP member or supporter, you'd demand the strictest standards from your party because you really care about it. You wouldn't make excuses for it or blindly support everything it does.
  
  You need to be the ones to tell the Emperor he has no clothes before other people do.

 

[Thick Face Black Heart]

[h=5]PM Lee: "So the population grew faster than we expected, our infrastructure didn't keep up."

"Could we have predicted that we would have five years where the economy would grow brilliantly and our population would increase so rapidly?"

I don't understand the sentences above. The way the first sentence is phrased - "the population grew faster than we expected" - sounds as though the government lost control over the rate of population growth. But doesn't the government issue every single employment pass, work permit, re-entry permit and citizenship certificate? Yes, I can understand if the economic growth spurt put pressure on hiring, but at the end of the day the government had granular control over each and every foreigner that came into Singapore.

The way PM Lee puts it - "could we have predicted that...our population would increase so rapidly?" - sounds as if the government would have needed nothing less than a fortune-teller to come up with such a 'prediction'. Please lah. Isn't one of the PAP's justifications for its uninterrupted rule the claim that the surety of being in power means it can make 'long-term plans'? Yes, hindsight is always 20/20, but you didn't even need foresight or hindsight to predict that there would be problems with sudden population growth. You just needed logic.[/h]

 

[scroobal]

Personally I find Angela's comments of little value and has an overly dramatic style of writing. She went to town on the death threat that KJ and his family received. She did not even bother to surf to find out what the son was doing. She is in no position to tell the emperor that he has no clothes.

Her style is akin to kopi tiam style of talking except that it is a higher, grammatical and more suave class ( if that is a compliment). After a few beers, you hear Ah Pek telling his friends that he is a " straight talker" " never minces his words" " calls a spade a spade" " gives it as good as he gets it" " man must live by his principles" "he thinks for himself"

A direct opposite of Sylvia. When she says something you know it means something.

 

[mojito]

It's also important that we realise and accept that there are "lived realities", or practical difficulties, that people encounter when trying to turn rhetoric into reality. For example, there was a very interesting discussion that took place on Andrew Loh's FB page about the nitty-gritties of parliamentary procedures, most of which people don't know. (For example, there's the very obvious constraint of each individual only having limited time to pose oral questions in a Parliament with 87 MPs, 3 NCMPs and 9 NMPs. This goes for all the MPs including those from the PAP.)

LTK gave no excuses for their lack of impact on policies besides not denying the PAP 2/3 majority. That is an implicit acknowledgement of responsibility which is much better than lame excuses for inaction.

The whole point is that yes, emotions may run high and yes, it's vitally important to talk about ideals, principles and big concepts. But through it all we need to be reasonable people.

About my political affiliation: I praise the WP when it does the right thing, but I won't hesitate to come down hard on it if I feel it's going the wrong way. (although not in public). That's because I believe that WP MEMBERS ARE THE CONSCIENCE OF THE PARTY (that's meant to be in italics rather than all-caps). They need to be the first ones to yank the party back if it's losing its way. If you're truly a WP member or supporter, you'd demand the strictest standards from your party because you really care about it. You wouldn't make excuses for it or blindly support everything it does.

You need to be the ones to tell the Emperor he has no clothes before other people do.

Party before people eh? How familiar!