Why the new MDA rules won't hurt the PAP

[steffychun]

They don't really ask questions, but rather they seek clarifications. They are too timid to seriously question the way Singapore is fundamentally run.

When JBJ was in charge of WP, he did just that, and the party became a target for the PAP. Lee Kuan Yew went out of his way to destroy the WP and very nearly did. I think LTK and the present leaders are too fixated about ensuring the WP's survival (or rather, preventing its destruction) to ask the questions that truly need to be asked. What they need to realise is that times have changed now. The PAP will not be able to destroy the WP, at least not in the same way as was done before. I would like to see the WP probe deeper into issues instead of just skirting around the surface. Seriously, their contribution to the ministerial pay debate and the Population White Paper debate was quite disappointing. It is time for them to be more aggressive, or NOTHING will change.

I disagree. Look at parliamentary records of speeches made by Pritam Singh. They ask. It's the way parliament in structured that prevents WP from actively filing motions continuously. JBJ heck cared about defence or foreign relations.

WP is trying but there entirely structure is built to accommodate the PAP. Ministers are not bound to legally answer all questions. The Speaker is definitely not impartial when picking MPs--PAP MPs and Ministers get more chances to reply than WP or oppo gets to rebut.

 

[steffychun]

LOL.

Well, either Low Thia Khiang is a master tactician, or he is just afraid to get himself into too much trouble.

I know which one is more believable!

He's not afraid. If he was afraid he would be there.

 

[bryanlim1972]

Really? You think it is a racial issue?

If that's the case, why are the Taiwanese so politically aware, including the less-educated ones?

Why does India have a far greater respect for rule of law and constitutional law? I don't imagine the Indian government implementing internet media licensing regulations for instance.

Of course its not a race issue, sam loves obfuscating the issue whenever someone hits too close to the truth.

U rightly pointed out, political education is the key, but the Pap has the door firmly shut on that front.

Many would point to 2011 as the awakening of singaporeans from their almost 50 year political slumber. The ever growing income divide will naturally stir the middle class into action.

 

[Bigfuck]

New MDA rules hurt Singapore. Laws lower in hierarchy cannot supersede higher laws, something practiced all round the world, or we have a mess. If this precedent goes through, it is technically possible to have the penalty for a traffic ticket violation to be accorded with death by firing squad, something even criminal violations and not administrative violations, cannot do. We have crossed the line, and objective 3rd parties in the world can see it. It would be interesting to see a library fine violation leading to the execution of a member of Parliament or police regulations or army regulations allowing for a coup of the government because they feel it is in the best interest of stupid Singaporeans. We are there. Since they can trivialize every response by Singaporeans, should the day come when they are removed forcibly, the rationale will be over reaction by the ruling Leegime and that the people are just spring cleaning and rebranding Singapore. We are there but we can see clown political noise makers not picking these important facts but spend more time in healing their hurt pride over WP.

 

[escher]

Kick out all those motherfuckers in white in 2016

When that is done, the kangaroos will all be gone together with the fucking poodles
Running dogs will be hiding in the drains and sewers

 

[CPT (NS) BRANDON]

Kick out all those motherfuckers in white in 2016

When that is done, the kangaroos will all be gone together with the fucking poodles
Running dogs will be hiding in the drains and sewers

You need to be realistic.

LKY has already made a decision some time ago regarding this matter.

He said: "Singaporeans should not assume that they can change their government".

He also said: "The PAP is the government, and the government is the PAP. I make no apologies for that."

Finally, he also stated: "If there was a freak result and a rogue government came into power, we would have to call in the SAF."

All these statements clearly confirm his stance on this matter. He has already made his stand abundantly clear - the PAP will continue to govern, and the people cannot and shall not vote the PAP out of power.

 

[steffychun]

You need to be realistic.

LKY has already made a decision some time ago regarding this matter.

He said: "Singaporeans should not assume that they can change their government".

He also said: "The PAP is the government, and the government is the PAP. I make no apologies for that."

Finally, he also stated: "If there was a freak result and a rogue government came into power, we would have to call in the SAF."

All these statements clearly confirm his stance on this matter. He has already made his stand abundantly clear - the PAP will continue to govern, and the people cannot and shall not vote the PAP out of power.

No one is all powerful. From Hitler to Stalin

 

[escher]

Please lah so far I've never seen the regime puting a foot wrong.

Governing in perpetuity is a distinct possibility.

LKY forever not going to eat joss sticks and candlewax?

You dream on.

And when he eats his joss sticks and give us our giant YUM SENGS, the people hand chosen by LKY for their viciousness and corruption deep in their soul remain friends and united not not front stab and back stab each other?

You dream on

 

[PrinceCharming]

He said: "Singaporeans should not assume that they can change their government".

He also said: "The PAP is the government, and the government is the PAP. I make no apologies for that."

Finally, he also stated: "If there was a freak result and a rogue government came into power, we would have to call in the SAF."

All these statements clearly confirm his stance on this matter. He has already made his stand abundantly clear - the PAP will continue to govern, and the people cannot and shall not vote the PAP out of power.

Excellent. I hope Old Fart's views are firmly entrenched in the consciousness of the PAP, especially the younger cohort.

There's hope for the opposition.

 

[PrinceCharming]

LOL.

Well, either Low Thia Khiang is a master tactician, or he is just afraid to get himself into too much trouble.

I know which one is more believable!

Thanks for the above post. Xie xie, Nandri, Terima kasih.

I know now whose side you are on

 

[HTOLAS]

That's not 'realistic'; it's defeatist. LKY's statements were made without bases in fact. Who makes up the SAF? As for the Gurkhas, let's remember once again that they are seconded to the SPF from the British and have a British Commander. So long as the opposition does not say anything like 'We'll send the Gurkhas home', the British would be loathe to be seen supporting a failed dictatorship.

Finally, cast your mind back to the 1980s. Given what you saw at the start of the decade, would you have thought any of the scenarios possible?

• the breakup of the USSR
• the fall of the Berlin Wall
• Liverpool losing its domination of English football.

You need to be realistic.

LKY has already made a decision some time ago regarding this matter.

He said: "Singaporeans should not assume that they can change their government".

He also said: "The PAP is the government, and the government is the PAP. I make no apologies for that."

Finally, he also stated: "If there was a freak result and a rogue government came into power, we would have to call in the SAF."

All these statements clearly confirm his stance on this matter. He has already made his stand abundantly clear - the PAP will continue to govern, and the people cannot and shall not vote the PAP out of power.

 

[kukubird58]

Finally, he also stated: "If there was a freak result and a rogue government came into power, we would have to call in the SAF."

hahaha...i think you are bullshitting here...
pse show me the source/link and i will apologise to you without any reservations....

 

[HTOLAS]

Hahaha. There you go again.

hahaha...i think you are bullshitting here...
pse show me the source/link and i will apologise to you without any reservations....

 

[kukubird58]

Hahaha. There you go again.

hahaha....u got a problem or u still struggling to come down from your high horse about LKY doing a UDI???

 

[ray_of_hope]

That's not 'realistic'; it's defeatist. LKY's statements were made without bases in fact. Who makes up the SAF? As for the Gurkhas, let's remember once again that they are seconded to the SPF from the British and have a British Commander. So long as the opposition does not say anything like 'We'll send the Gurkhas home', the British would be loathe to be seen supporting a failed dictatorship.

Finally, cast your mind back to the 1980s. Given what you saw at the start of the decade, would you have thought any of the scenarios possible?

• the breakup of the USSR
• the fall of the Berlin Wall
• Liverpool losing its domination of English football.

In the above list, the 2 highlighted only happened because of one man -- Gorbachev -- and his perestroika and glasnost, 2 words most people have forgotten but essentially amount to a liberalising and reformist agenda. Equally, the end of apartheid in South Africa was due to one man. No, not Mandela, as most would like to believe, but FW de Klerk, the last president of a white minority government who took the conscious decision to give up power and end aprtheid. Similarly, in 1997, the British could have hung onto Hong Kong island because it had be ceded in perpetuity to it by the Qing Dynasty. Only the New Territories and Kowloon were on 99 year leases. But the British gave up Hong Kong island to China voluntarily.

My point is this: if the person at the top, or the sovereign power, does not choose to loosen his/its grip then no change will occur.

Consequently, I believe many hardcore opposition supporters are living in a fantasy world. Change will continue to occur, but glacially, not swiftly or completely as they desire.

 

[HTOLAS]

Thanks for the response. In essence I agree with you. In all the cases mentioned (USSR, GDR and RSA), the immediate cause for the collapse of the old regimes were actions taken by the people in power. There are two noteworthy things.

First, these leaders acted the way they did because in their minds, or in the minds of their underlings (in the case of the GDR), the current systems which they ran were no longer tenable and they either had to let go or face what Tunisia and Libya would later face, and what Syria is facing now.

Second, it is not coincidental that the falls of these regimes were relatively bloodless. They were relatively bloodless because the people at the top chose to see sense and made way. Had they not, it would have been far worse than it was.

Third, on Hongkong, sure the British could have stayed legally. But they knew that China would have made life very difficult for them, and they would have been out of step with the norms of the day. Again, they gave way because their position would otherwise have been untenable.

What is the relevance to us 'opposition supporters'. We must let the Papzi government know how willing we are to stand up to them. We must let them know that if their response to losing an election is to behave the way the Chinese government did almost exactly 24 years ago (which they really can't) their positions would be untenable. They are not as hardy as Mugabe's ZANU PF because their supporters have grown too rich to be willing to suffer privations with the very few at the top. These people would rather make deals with the parties that have majority support.

In the above list, the 2 highlighted only happened because of one man -- Gorbachev -- and his perestroika and glasnost, 2 words most people have forgotten but essentially amount to a liberalising and reformist agenda. Equally, the end of apartheid in South Africa was due to one man. No, not Mandela, as most would like to believe, but FW de Klerk, the last president of a white minority government who took the conscious decision to give up power and end aprtheid. Similarly, in 1997, the British could have hung onto Hong Kong island because it had be ceded in perpetuity to it by the Qing Dynasty. Only the New Territories and Kowloon were on 99 year leases. But the British gave up Hong Kong island to China voluntarily.

My point is this: if the person at the top, or the sovereign power, does not choose to loosen his/its grip then no change will occur.

Consequently, I believe many hardcore opposition supporters are living in a fantasy world. Change will continue to occur, but glacially, not swiftly or completely as they desire.

 

[zhihau]

You need to be realistic.

let's be realistic, the old man will die. PAP will then see some upheaval :p:p:p

 

[DuYunQi]

You need to be realistic.

LKY has already made a decision some time ago regarding this matter.

He said: "Singaporeans should not assume that they can change their government".

He also said: "The PAP is the government, and the government is the PAP. I make no apologies for that."

Finally, he also stated: "If there was a freak result and a rogue government came into power, we would have to call in the SAF."

All these statements clearly confirm his stance on this matter. He has already made his stand abundantly clear - the PAP will continue to govern, and the people cannot and shall not vote the PAP out of power.

Dear friend,

I would like to ask you where you got these statements from exactly.. it would help me shorten my search on the internet.

It would be good posting on my FB, thank you.

PS OH.. I found it.. sorry to have troubled you...

http://leewatch.info/quotes/

 

[zhihau]

hahaha...i think you are bullshitting here...
pse show me the source/link and i will apologise to you without any reservations....

“Without the elected president and if there is a freak result, within two or three years, the army would have to come in and stop it”
- Lee Kuan Yew, Straits Times, Sept 16 2006

*cough cough*

 

[po2wq]

... the PAP will continue to govern, and the people cannot and shall not vote the PAP out of power.

peasants shud do exactly juz dat ...

c if he dare 2 carry out his threats ...