Was "Son" of Punggol actually a "Pawn" of Punggol by PAP?

[Confuseous]

So, what did Punggol residents make of a colorectal surgeon who was ‘arrowed’ for the job, or the PAP for treating the by-election as a sparring contest and rite of passage for new blood, knowing full well their track record of losses in the past? Did the PAP put the greenhorn Dr Koh on the spot because they could ‘afford’ to lose Punggol East, and they were just afraid of slotting a more experienced and valuable candidate against WP? How bad, really, did the PAP want Punggol East? Was Koh mere ‘sacrificial lamb’, part of the PAP masterplan, that the loss would prepare the Pawn of Punggol for an easier fight when he returns with a vengeance as part of a team of PAP old dogs in a future GRC?

- http://everythingalsocomplain.com/2013/01/27/pap-blaming-punggol-east-loss-on-by-election-effect/

 

[kopiuncle]

i think in the first place, to be credible in any political commentary, it's best not to label people dogs. once you do that, the article is only fit for the garbage bin

the same applies to people who want to describe Singaporeans. calling them sinkees or sinkins is bad taste and you too lose the credibility. you are just killing yourself.

and once you start using expletives and profanities to describe your opponents and those you dislike, you fall into the same credibility trap too.

but many smart people, including intellectuals, do seek profanities and vulgarities as refuges when they lost a debate or an argument.

so just be civil and nice....