Mrs Lina Chiam is the only true opposition in the parliament

[virus]

why bother... the ones leading the country does not even come close to 2nd world mentality and still stuck to kampung thinking that the village head called pinkie is still the rajah but keep priasing him as yang de pertuan agong. really mountain far from capital and emperor.

 

[KuanTi01]

We are a nanny state. And Papa always knows best.

Wanna change things? Vote the Pappies out.

In a nanny state, everything is state- controlled and staged- managed. There is no change unless changing diapers is considered change. Time to change govt.

 

[glockman]

Anything the PAP can conjure up will become law. The slow erosion of freedom is a well-tested and effective method used by authoritarian regimes. Unless the people do something about it. But I am not holding my breath, sinkies being sinkies.

 

[Sinkie]

Sorry but I think SPP Lina is ill-advised. The new law restricts consumption of alcohol only in public places at night. In other words, you cannot drink at a void deck at 11pm. However you can drink at a void deck at 3pm, you can also drink at a coffeeshop at 11pm. It does little to curtail the freedoms of the unrowdy.

You also cannot bring the alcohol away after 10.30pm. Such regulations are already in place by NEA for convenience stores except that it is 11pm. Coffeeshop also face the same regulations. It makes little difference to take away the alcohol at 10.30 when you cannot buy it after 11.

The bill targets only a selected group. Guess what? It's not just the Indian workers.

I really doubt she's ill-advised. The points she made are very valid and fair. You don't conduct strip search and have an over arching poodle invading into your privacy, on the basis of enforcement of a law that is not precise and not fine-tuned. For example, If one buys liquor at 10:25pm, does it mean he must consume the liquor by 10:30pm, because the law says he must not be in possession of liquor after 10:30pm?

Does not make for fair implementation of the law, for it is ambiguous. Anything that is still ambiguous, it should never be bull-dozed into law, but properly consulted with a wide cross section of representatives from all stake-holders. Again, she mentioned about the lack of broad representation of all stakeholders in the consultation. Meaning the consultation is pure wayang, in want of a better word. Hence, Lina Chiam is right. She is doing the right thing and not just doing the thing right.

 

[Sinkie]

Zeroo is PAP IB. A genuine PAP supporter will not be interested in playing one oppo party against another.

The PAP IB targets 2 parties mainly:

1. WP, because it is the biggest threat to the PAP in terms of winning middle-ground votes and getting in Parliament. Hence most of the bombardment is now aimed at WP.

2. SDP, because it is a significant threat in terms of influencing the people's mentality towards a more liberal and left-wing ideology. In the short term, this may not win a lot of votes from the middle ground, but in the long term it will affect the ability of a conservative, right-wing govt to maintain its power. Expect them to continue to use the MSM to demonize CSJ and rehash the old stuff.

Some of the credit for the increasing openness in public discourse, more spirited single-cause activism, and young people's stridency in speaking up politically can be attributed to Speakers' Corner and SDP activists pushing the envelope in earlier years. Of course, social media, the internet and global anti-authoritarian movements like Occupy and Arab Spring play a great part as well.

Clearly if a common layman like me can see through the fallacy, hard headedness, impulsiveness and ambiguity of passing such a law hastily like this one, just as Lina Chiam can see through its shallowness and ambiquity in implementation, I really cannot understand why the rest of them cannot. This is a telling sign of how bills can be bull-dozed, even with opposition representation or lack of, if it is complicit and compliant to some other party's party whip. The rest is pure lumparliament wayang.....smoke and pyrotechnics playing to the gallery, but totally not meant to be effective and decisive.

The acid test is does it make sense to the common man. If it does not make sense to a common layman like me or you or another law-abiding citizen, I'm sure it will not make sense to a lot of the general population and MPs should represent the general population, rather than just its own constituents, if you're talking about party level politics, since the erectorate should have the right to choose to vote or not to vote and who to vote for, even a whore can represent them if this is what the erectorate wants.

 

[Primus]

I hope u guys are sincere.

 

[whorejinx]

Lina Chiam the only true opposition ah?

Then I better join either PAP or ISIS.

:oIo::oIo::oIo::oIo::oIo:

 

[virus]

No point joining fap. Their membership down their familee line dwindling. Their cock story is the only thing growing

 

[tanwahp]

I really doubt she's ill-advised. The points she made are very valid and fair. You don't conduct strip search and have an over arching poodle invading into your privacy, on the basis of enforcement of a law that is not precise and not fine-tuned. For example, If one buys liquor at 10:25pm, does it mean he must consume the liquor by 10:30pm, because the law says he must not be in possession of liquor after 10:30pm?

Does not make for fair implementation of the law, for it is ambiguous. Anything that is still ambiguous, it should never be bull-dozed into law, but properly consulted with a wide cross section of representatives from all stake-holders. Again, she mentioned about the lack of broad representation of all stakeholders in the consultation. Meaning the consultation is pure wayang, in want of a better word. Hence, Lina Chiam is right. She is doing the right thing and not just doing the thing right.

The problem with your argument is that even democratic countries have policed strip search powers and time curfews. The arguments apply to loitering on the streets at 10.25 but what if you cannot reach home by 10.30. So what should the USA, UK government do? Not set time bar for anything?

The only point I can agree with you is the fake consultation. Then again, I don't think the other opposition MPs considered the bill with that in mind at all; we all know the kind of PAP we have, but the merits of the bill.

 

[Sinkie]

Lina Chiam the only true opposition ah?

Then I better join either PAP or ISIS.

:oIo::oIo::oIo::oIo::oIo:

you think you can suka suka join PAP or ISIS, izzit? you need to hv ur brain seriously examined.

believe they'll reject u outright.

 

[Sinkie]

The problem with your argument is that even democratic countries have policed strip search powers and time curfews. The arguments apply to loitering on the streets at 10.25 but what if you cannot reach home by 10.30. So what should the USA, UK government do? Not set time bar for anything?

The only point I can agree with you is the fake consultation. Then again, I don't think the other opposition MPs considered the bill with that in mind at all; we all know the kind of PAP we have, but the merits of the bill.

Don't get me started on 'democratic countries'. Show me a truly democratic country and I'll show you a flying pig. Also, tell me which country has strip search powers for liquor consumption act. Time curfews? Which country? Dun just regurgitate what the MSM prostitutes to you.
USA, UK are not exemplary examples of what we should follow. They're failures unless you're still having the pinkerton syndrome, then I should recommend you to become an SPG and continue merrily and unashamedly lick their balls.

 

[vtran2684]

let see if she wins properly in the next GE. If she does then TS argument is true.

 

[Sinkie]

let see if she wins properly in the next GE. If she does then TS argument is true.

What kind of logic is this? She wins does not mean she is the only true opposition, isn't this plain obvious already?

And zeroo is your political barometer, is it?