Re: Workers "PARTY GIRL" - the reason why Lim Sia Suay, Raymond Lim win East Coast 20
I have been following some of the threads on this forum for some time now. While I have never seen the need to post here, I felt compelled to do so because of how dubious the original poster's argument is.
As public figures, politicians are naturally subject to an intense amount of scrutiny. But while it is perfectly fair to judge a politician by the quality of his/her political views, maturity, and understanding of social issues - all of which contribute to whether the person in question will be fit for public office - it is something else to bring his or her private life into the picture.
This recalls to mind the great Tin Pei Ling debate, during which everybody was crying foul over photos of her carrying a Kate Spade bag and those with her alleged ex-boyfriend. I am not about to defend Tin here, but surely, you can attack her for a great variety of reasons - including her poor awareness of public policy and social issues, not to mention the seemingly dubious way she was selected to stand for public office - without having to drag her entire personal life through the m&d. The same goes for Glenda, and any other politician in question. So what if she appears at a bar, and so what even if it's Hari Raya? She's a professional working woman, not a nun, and most certainly not a Muslim. Unless and until she shows up inebriated at a Meet-the-People's Session, or takes a swig at a Muslim event, she is perfectly entitled to visit a drinking hole.
Also, to term somebody a "JC slut" - in fact, to use the term "slut" at all - is incredibly offensive, not to mention downright sexist. Would a male candidate visiting a pub draw similar ire for his supposed moral transgressions? Or, are you singling Glenda out for criticism because she happens to be a woman? Further, I understand that Glenda was in Hong Kong the last couple of years due to an overseas job posting. To simplify it as "partying" for the last four years is a gratuitous ad hominem attack.
I, too, like politicians to be accountable to the public, but asking them to account for their personal habits - which have nothing to do with their work and is, frankly, none of anybody else's business - is hardly cutting it.
I have been following some of the threads on this forum for some time now. While I have never seen the need to post here, I felt compelled to do so because of how dubious the original poster's argument is.
As public figures, politicians are naturally subject to an intense amount of scrutiny. But while it is perfectly fair to judge a politician by the quality of his/her political views, maturity, and understanding of social issues - all of which contribute to whether the person in question will be fit for public office - it is something else to bring his or her private life into the picture.
This recalls to mind the great Tin Pei Ling debate, during which everybody was crying foul over photos of her carrying a Kate Spade bag and those with her alleged ex-boyfriend. I am not about to defend Tin here, but surely, you can attack her for a great variety of reasons - including her poor awareness of public policy and social issues, not to mention the seemingly dubious way she was selected to stand for public office - without having to drag her entire personal life through the m&d. The same goes for Glenda, and any other politician in question. So what if she appears at a bar, and so what even if it's Hari Raya? She's a professional working woman, not a nun, and most certainly not a Muslim. Unless and until she shows up inebriated at a Meet-the-People's Session, or takes a swig at a Muslim event, she is perfectly entitled to visit a drinking hole.
Also, to term somebody a "JC slut" - in fact, to use the term "slut" at all - is incredibly offensive, not to mention downright sexist. Would a male candidate visiting a pub draw similar ire for his supposed moral transgressions? Or, are you singling Glenda out for criticism because she happens to be a woman? Further, I understand that Glenda was in Hong Kong the last couple of years due to an overseas job posting. To simplify it as "partying" for the last four years is a gratuitous ad hominem attack.
I, too, like politicians to be accountable to the public, but asking them to account for their personal habits - which have nothing to do with their work and is, frankly, none of anybody else's business - is hardly cutting it.
]