Political Implications of 6.9 Protests

[aurvandil]

We still have the BN's way of cheating to stay in power. The key lesson from Malaysia GE 2013 is that it does not work in an urban environment where you have hordes of people armed with cellphone cameras documenting your every move and then loading it up onto the Internet for all to see.

If that is the case I say PAP is truly screwed. Any heartlander who can connect with the people will be labelled as insincere. Any person with high flying career will be seen as cut from the same aristocratic cloth as previous mandarins.

In any case the PAP is likely to face an even harder task trying to recruit candidates for 2015/16 because very few people of character will want to be seen as helping to prop up a regime that no longer cares for Singaporeans or acts in their interest. All that is left for PAP will be those half baked souls. The downward spiral will be unstoppable.

 

[Thick Face Black Heart]

We still have the BN's way of cheating to stay in power. The key lesson from Malaysia GE 2013 is that it does not work in an urban environment where you have hordes of people armed with cellphone cameras documenting your every move.

The PAP might as well just turn off the lights.

 

[Satyr]

The PAP might as well just turn off the lights.

The PAP is Mitt Romney - rich, old, white (MIW) and percieved to be indifferent to the common man. Faced with a Barack Obama type , it will be curtains.

 

[WongMengMeng]

Dear GMS

The key factors affecting the success or not of any opposition party in Singapore are based on the following building blocks.


a. Party Branding
b. People ( Candidates )
c. People ( Voters)
d. PAP

They reinforce and work hand in hand and any success or failure is a result of judgement calls based on relative plus and minuses of each factor across the board. I would not discount one factor entirely and believe that its removal will be made up by the other three.


Locke

Dear Locke(Liberal?),

Do you care to respond to the below from another thread. Otherwise, IMHO, forummers should take whatever you say on any issue with a huge pinch of salt. Yes, I am impeaching your credibility.

Cheers,

Dear Sammyboy Forummers,

I like to inform you that a member of the Attorney General’s Chamber (“AGC”) is in SammyBoy. His nick is LockeLiberal.

Set out below is his post #41 from the thread Looking Beyond the Persecution of Tey Tsun Hang (“the Thread”) and my response.

Posts #35, #38 and #39 of the Thread, referred to in my response, will appear in the next post here so that you can judge for yourself if I am correct in my assessment that LockeLiberal is from the AGC and panicked.

Singaporeans, read this post and the following carefully and make your own judgment. If like me, you come to the reasonable conclusion that the mass zapping and PAP IBs orchestrated chatter thereafter in the Thread is a vain attempt to prevent a feared exposure of the AGC’s involvement in IB activities, then you MUST vote the PAPzis out in 2016. Your taxpayers’ money have been used to fund these FIXING activities.

Please Twit, Facebook or otherwise transmit these message to as many Singaporeans as possible if you agree with my assessment.

A massive turnout at Hong Lim on 1st May will send out your message LOUD AND CLEAR.

Cheers, WMM.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Locke,

No you didn’t laughed. You PANICKED.

Within a minute or so of my having posted #38 and #39 of thread titled Looking Beyond the Persecution of Tey Tsun Hang (“the Thread”) in response to your very lawyerly sounding #35, your taxpayer funded IBs zapped me 9 times in rapid succession to bring my rep points from +125 down to -23.

Probably so that you can redeem yourself by posting #41 of the Thread before I make any more postings. A PANICKY attempt at damage control is what I see. You claimed to have ZERO legal training in this posting #41. I did have a roaring good laugh after saw that panicky mass zapping. Almost fell off my chair.

Here’s why. A person with “ZERO legal training” will not be able to respond in this manner to forummer Rumpole:

Dear Rumpole,

I would like to address your concerns vis sa vis the "springing of statements". The new CPC in place whether one goes through a criminal discovery process or not allows for defence lawyers to have sight of all the statements of the accused. Under the new rules, of discovery, any evidence to be used by the prosecution has to be disclosed at Pre Trial conference. There are however still several areas to be worked on which further lobbying might assist om.

a. Disclosure of key witness statements pre trial, in full and not at the discretion of the prosecution.

b. Recording of accused statements and whether it should be recorded or not and with a lawyer present or not.





Locke

It takes a person with intimate knowledge of the criminal litigation process to be able to respond with such admirable clarity and precision. Gotcha PAP IB and member of the AGC!

On the other hand, I feel pity for you. A lawyer is first and foremost an officer of the Court. Engaging in IB activities to help the PAPzis FIX anybody is not only against the rules of professional ethics, but downright degrading.

Please send my warm regards to your boss, the AG, Mr. Steven Chong. Perhaps, he or someone else high up made you do this thankless and unethical errant.

Yours Sincerely,


WongMengMeng
(NotMyRealName)

 

[lockeliberal]

Dear "Call me Ishmael " Wong.

Frankly at the last count in that thread you started, It was by means of democratic affirmation that almost all present said that I was not a lawyer and I was not from AGC. Your OCD and persistence to the contrary amuses me to no end.

So lets have a face to face meeting at my club together with Mr Goh who is a public figure and a friend. So that you can verify to your hearts content that I am not that great white whale and more like the innocent gold fish who got unwittingly caught. I will pay for the drinks.



Locke

Dear Locke(Liberal?),

Do you care to respond to the below from another thread. Otherwise, IMHO, forummers should take whatever you say on any issue with a huge pinch of salt. Yes, I am impeaching your credibility.

Cheers,

 

[WongMengMeng]

Frankly at the last count in that thread you started, It was by means of democratic affirmation that almost all present said that I was not a lawyer and I was not from AGC. Your OCD and persistence to the contrary amuses me to no end.

Frankly, this is not a poll. There is nothing democratic about this. We are not electing you for anything. Nice Jedi Mind trick, but it ain't gonna work.

You and your ilk like to speak in riddles. So exactly what the fark does OCD mean? Officer Cadet Detention? You think I was detained for something while at OCS? Your ISD and CPIB people truly are a bunch of clowns and goons. What a waste of TAXPAYERS' MONEY.

I repeat :

CONTRADICTION ONE

You claimed to have ZERO legal knowledge which is a contradiction of your claim to have been fucked by the system and therefore used your layman intelligence to acquire legal knowledge to protect yourself.

CONTRADICTION TWO

You claimed to have ZERO legal knowledge and yet are able to describe with precision and clarity what changes to the criminal litigation process are being lobbied over. Lobbied over means not yet made public. Only those who are a party to the negotiations will know these. Defence lawyers, prosecutors, judges, legislative draftsmen, these are the only reasonable suspects.

So lets have a face to face meeting at my club together with Mr Goh who is a public figure and a friend. So that you can verify to your hearts content that I am not that great white whale and more like the innocent gold fish who got unwittingly caught. I will pay for the drinks.

You are terribly bad at pretending to be innocent. I don't want your drinks. For all I know, you may already be one of those jokers who I drink and chit chat with regularly in the Bar Room at the High Court premises. I don't care who knows you. PAP is known to plant moles in "opposition" parties. The name Desmond Choo rings a bell? All I care is that Samsters should be aware of the two contradictions mentioned above and read all that you write in this forum with a HUGE PINCH OF SALT. If Mr. Goh vouches for you for no good reason, then perhaps Samsters should take what he writes with a huge pinch of salt too.

A word of advice for you and your ilk - he who seeks to deceive others by lying needs to have a good memory and be calm under pressure. If you had these qualities, you would not have fallen into your own trap. Chilli crab anybody?

Cheers,

 

[lockeliberal]

Dear "Ishmael Wong '

Its called OCD, obsessive compulsive disorder. Take a Chill Pill, or better still Prozac. Should help temper those irrational mood swings and paranoid tendencies seeing AGC under every bed and in every shadow.

My knowledge of the criminal process has been explained by others, If you still are unable to accept it then please refer to the above and a double dose of the chill pill.

One can chose to believe what Mr Goh says or not says, but the offer of drinks and dinner at my club in the presence of a verified public figure and identity still stands.

You should know as well as any other that in litigation when one party offers his statement up for verification by an independent expert and the other refuses the same process, the balance of probabilities is usually decided by the Judge in favor of the party that chose to verify.


Cheers

Locke

Frankly, this is not a poll. There is nothing democratic about this. We are not electing you for anything. Nice Jedi Mind trick, but it ain't gonna work.

You and your ilk like to speak in riddles. So exactly what the fark does OCD mean? Officer Cadet Detention? You think I was detained for something while at OCS? Your ISD and CPIB people truly are a bunch of clowns and goons. What a waste of TAXPAYERS' MONEY.

I repeat :

CONTRADICTION ONE

You claimed to have ZERO legal knowledge which is a contradiction of your claim to have been fucked by the system and therefore used your layman intelligence to acquire legal knowledge to protect yourself.

CONTRADICTION TWO

You claimed to have ZERO legal knowledge and yet are able to describe with precision and clarity what changes to the criminal litigation process are being lobbied over. Lobbied over means not yet made public. Only those who are a party to the negotiations will know these. Defence lawyers, prosecutors, judges, legislative draftsmen, these are the only reasonable suspects.




You are terribly bad at pretending to be innocent. I don't want your drinks. For all I know, you may already be one of those jokers who I drink and chit chat with regularly in the Bar Room at the High Court premises. I don't care who knows you. PAP is known to plant moles in "opposition" parties. The name Desmond Choo rings a bell? All I care is that Samsters should be aware of the two contradictions mentioned above and read all that you write in this forum with a HUGE PINCH OF SALT. If Mr. Goh vouches for you for no good reason, then perhaps Samsters should take what he writes with a huge pinch of salt too.

A word of advice for you and your ilk - he who seeks to deceive others by lying needs to have a good memory and be calm under pressure. If you had these qualities, you would not have fallen into your own trap. Chilli crab anybody?

Cheers,

 

[WongMengMeng]

Its called OCD, obsessive compulsive disorder. Take a Chill Pill, or better still Prozac. Should help temper those irrational mood swings and paranoid tendencies seeing AGC under every bed and in every shadow.

I see. Have not heard of this thingy before. More likely that you suffer from this "disorder" than me. You seem to know a lot about it. Your IB support facilities are impressive, government doctors giving you back up at TAXPAYERS' EXPENSE. However, they missed the target by miles. What is Ishmael? A prophet or perhaps your support also asks you to test out whether someone responds to a name that is similar to "Michael". There are a lot of Michaels in Sinkieland or for that matter in the whole world. Talk about paranoid.

My knowledge of the criminal process has been explained by others, If you still are unable to accept it then please refer to the above and a double dose of the chill pill.

Your so-called explanations do not address the two contradictions I have mentioned above. Please take a chill pill for your "Inability to explain contradictions" Syndrome.

One can chose to believe what Mr Goh says or not says, but the offer of drinks and dinner at my club in the presence of a verified public figure and identity still stands.

Thank you for the offer, which I have absolutely no intention of accepting. I prefer to stalk you here in SammyBoy during my spare time. That's more my cup of tea. I'm sure there are many more PAP IBs here for me to stalk as a hobby, but I'll take it one or at most two at a time. There are many other interesting things in life for me to do.

You should know as well as any other that in litigation when one party offers his statement up for verification by an independent expert and the other refuses the same process, the balance of probabilities is usually decided by the Judge in favor of the party that chose to verify.

Excuse me, what gibberish are you talking? Whether the standard of proof is balance of probabilities or beyond reasonable doubt is generally speaking dependent on whether proceedings are civil or criminal in nature. We are not litigating here. All I am interested in is persuading forummers to take whatever you post here with a HUGE PINCH OF SALT. The basis is simple - a person who claims to have ZERO legal knowledge in one post and yet in another post sets out with precision and clarity impending changes to the criminal litigation process which are still being negotiated over by stakeholders and thus not yet made known to the public has a serious credibility issue.

The way to deal with PAP IB's or anybody else's distraction tactics is always the same - stay focused on the issues that you have picked.


Cheers ......

 

[DEDEER]

I am glad you are learning fast, though you don't know your own contradications.

What makes a good team or result in a good result depends on a lot of factors, not just one factor like "Party Branding". In a more simpler terms, you just list out all the factors that can affect performance of any opposition party in any contest that comes with a point system. Try to give points... like ground work, candidates, opponents, PAP, policy, local ground issues etc. Then you add them up as a score card for each party, tally and compare, you will get your answers.

Goh Meng Seng

Breakdown of Tan Kin Lian's 5% Presidential Election vote :

1) Party Branding : 1 %
2) Ground Work he did : 2%
3) His personality and charisma : 0%
4) Quality of competitors : -1%
5) TKL Policies : 2%
6) Local Ground Issues : 1%
7) Protest votes against PAP : 3%
8) Sympathy votes for TKL : 2%
9) Votes gained/lost because of association with Goh Meng Seng branding : -5%

Overall results : 5%

Conclusion : TKL would have still lost his deposit but he will not look like an utter moron if he did not use Goh Meng Seng as his PE advisor.