Discussion:
Do We Need Oppositions? (a wee bit too long)
(too old to reply)
Tweety
2005-05-15 02:15:19 UTC
Permalink
No, Singapore has been well managed, by the able hands of senior Lee,
Lee's son, party and family members for more than 40 years. Its political
machines are well grease and much better organize than the machineries
of the late Mayor Richard J. Daley who run Chicago for twenty years in
the fifties tills the seventies. Most Americans still remember Mayor Daley's
Cook County.

The people don't want opposition, as shown by the Voting trend. In the
2001 GE the PAP obtains 75.3% of the vote cast with a 94.6% turnout.
Can you imagine more 75.3% popular vote compare with George
Bush 50.9% in the 2004 Presidential election? George Bush considers
his victory triumphant and a "political capital."

The people hate opposition, they laugh at Jeyaretnam and call Dr.
Chee useless, mad and should be lock up. They say Francis
Seow and Tang are chickens, running away instead fight till bankrupt!

What can the opposition do and who are the oppositions? They are crooks,
bicycle thieves, womanizer and liars? These coward can't stand on their on
feet. Many, turn tail and run away as soon as they smell trouble. They are
nowhere to be seen or heard before and after the election and only shown
up just before GE. One of them even left his wife in the lurch to face the our
all-powerful honest Judges. One wonder if these oppositions can do
anything for the people, when they cannot even help themselves or their love
ones! The present two opposition MP have been around for so long they have
becomes dinosaurs. I guess they are there just for show.

Can you trust opposition? Definitely not! Let me quote a whiners recent post....

From: "Observer" <***@yahoo1.com>
Date: Thu, 12 May 2005 17:51:48 +0800
NNTP-Posting-Host: 218.186.50.132
Message-ID: <42832734$***@news.starhub.net.sg>

Not good thinking.
How do you know the opposition would not
do exactly the SAME thing or WORSE than
what you claim the PAP is doing?
LOL.
Shouldn't it be called "Council of Companies Providing $$$ Transport
to the Public" since no public representatives sits on that council?
But you forget, that if your claim that PAP
has changed the laws to its benefit, what
would prevent a party to do away with election
or even change the boundaries to one huge
GRC?

Then what is your complain here?
It seems you already have a democratic system
in which you can vote out anyone you do not like.
So whats stopping you to do that that you need
to complain in this forum?
If you have all the control as you claim, you have
no excuse complaining here as its YOUR choice
all along?
Tweety
2005-05-15 02:54:03 UTC
Permalink
Wikisource: This page links to data about election
results anywhere in the world

http://wikisource.org/wiki/Wikisource:Election_Data

Singapore Legislative Council Elections 1948 - Present

http://www.singapore-elections.com/

<Suggest you bookmark for future ref>
What if we dun have Internet? You and I would
be spending weeks, months and tonnes of
money looking for the information, which take
less than a minutes in Googles search.
Without LKY we might still be shiting in
kampong, kampong?
Pierre
2005-05-15 14:45:41 UTC
Permalink
May I know what is the rate for this posting?
Post by Tweety
No, Singapore has been well managed, by the able hands of senior Lee,
Lee's son, party and family members for more than 40 years. Its political
machines are well grease and much better organize than the machineries
of the late Mayor Richard J. Daley who run Chicago for twenty years in
the fifties tills the seventies. Most Americans still remember Mayor Daley's
Cook County.
The people don't want opposition, as shown by the Voting trend. In the
2001 GE the PAP obtains 75.3% of the vote cast with a 94.6% turnout.
Can you imagine more 75.3% popular vote compare with George
Bush 50.9% in the 2004 Presidential election? George Bush considers
his victory triumphant and a "political capital."
The people hate opposition, they laugh at Jeyaretnam and call Dr.
Chee useless, mad and should be lock up. They say Francis
Seow and Tang are chickens, running away instead fight till bankrupt!
What can the opposition do and who are the oppositions? They are crooks,
bicycle thieves, womanizer and liars? These coward can't stand on their on
feet. Many, turn tail and run away as soon as they smell trouble. They are
nowhere to be seen or heard before and after the election and only shown
up just before GE. One of them even left his wife in the lurch to face the our
all-powerful honest Judges. One wonder if these oppositions can do
anything for the people, when they cannot even help themselves or their love
ones! The present two opposition MP have been around for so long they have
becomes dinosaurs. I guess they are there just for show.
Can you trust opposition? Definitely not! Let me quote a whiners recent post....
Date: Thu, 12 May 2005 17:51:48 +0800
NNTP-Posting-Host: 218.186.50.132
Not good thinking.
How do you know the opposition would not
do exactly the SAME thing or WORSE than
what you claim the PAP is doing?
LOL.
Shouldn't it be called "Council of Companies Providing $$$ Transport
to the Public" since no public representatives sits on that council?
But you forget, that if your claim that PAP
has changed the laws to its benefit, what
would prevent a party to do away with election
or even change the boundaries to one huge
GRC?
Then what is your complain here?
It seems you already have a democratic system
in which you can vote out anyone you do not like.
So whats stopping you to do that that you need
to complain in this forum?
If you have all the control as you claim, you have
no excuse complaining here as its YOUR choice
all along?
Tweety
2005-05-15 17:15:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pierre
May I know what is the rate for this posting?
You may not believe me, much , much less than wat it
cost you to post!
Steve Sundberg
2005-05-15 17:31:18 UTC
Permalink
[snip]
The people don't want opposition, as shown by the Voting trend. In the
2001 GE the PAP obtains 75.3% of the vote cast with a 94.6% turnout.
Can you imagine more 75.3% popular vote compare with George
Bush 50.9% in the 2004 Presidential election? George Bush considers
his victory triumphant and a "political capital."
94.6% turnout ... but only in the constituencies that were allowed to
vote. Voters in walk-over consitutencies were not allowed to vote, so
participation in those districts was 0%. Zero. Nada. Nothing.

The overall percentage of the total Singaporean electorate who
actually voted was probably no better than the total percentage of
Americans who voted in 2004. But at least in the US, a person can
choose to vote, or not vote, even in elections where there is only one
candidate; in Singapore, a person must vote -- except where they are
not allowed to vote because there is only one candidate.

If you want to make a direct comparison of voter participation between
Singapore and the US, then Singapore must allow ALL eligible voters
the right to vote even when there is only one candidate on a ballot.
Tweety
2005-05-15 18:10:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steve Sundberg
94.6% turnout ... but only in the constituencies that were allowed to
vote. Voters in walk-over consitutencies were not allowed to vote, so
participation in those districts was 0%. Zero. Nada. Nothing.
No one not even LKY has denied any opposition including JBJ to stand
for election. The choice to run or not to run rest on the oppositions,
the law of the land and not yours.
Post by Steve Sundberg
The overall percentage of the total Singaporean electorate who
actually voted was probably no better than the total percentage of
Americans who voted in 2004. But at least in the US, a person can
choose to vote, or not vote, even in elections where there is only one
candidate; in Singapore, a person must vote -- except where they are
not allowed to vote because there is only one candidate.
Not true, in Ohio, Florida and in many other States, eligible voters were
turns away, challenge and watever. You might consider that democracy,
but others may consider it as fraud, no?
Post by Steve Sundberg
If you want to make a direct comparison of voter participation between
Singapore and the US, then Singapore must allow ALL eligible voters
the right to vote even when there is only one candidate on a ballot.
Please do not impose your ideas, your god and your biases on others.
Action speaks louder than words. Look at yourself in the mirrors, you
may see an innocent angle, while others may see a devil.
news
2005-05-16 16:59:00 UTC
Permalink
How can strong oppositions have a fair playing field when our national press
and media are tightly controlled. It is very difficult to find strong
opposition voices in them.

How can strong oppositions have a fair playing field when their
representative is allocated a small amount of airtime during election time
public broadcast while the ruling party can have a larger share just because
they have more members in the parliament. What kind of logic is that?

How can oppositions have a fair playing field when they are systematically
eliminated through bankruptcies lawsuits and declared as mental cases?

How can we attact more oppositions to the parliament, after Singaporeans
have seen the results of being a strong opposition member in the parliament?

Can you just wake up your idea and stop posting mis-information to the
public below?
Post by Tweety
Post by Steve Sundberg
94.6% turnout ... but only in the constituencies that were allowed to
vote. Voters in walk-over consitutencies were not allowed to vote, so
participation in those districts was 0%. Zero. Nada. Nothing.
No one not even LKY has denied any opposition including JBJ to stand
for election. The choice to run or not to run rest on the oppositions,
the law of the land and not yours.
Post by Steve Sundberg
The overall percentage of the total Singaporean electorate who
actually voted was probably no better than the total percentage of
Americans who voted in 2004. But at least in the US, a person can
choose to vote, or not vote, even in elections where there is only one
candidate; in Singapore, a person must vote -- except where they are
not allowed to vote because there is only one candidate.
Not true, in Ohio, Florida and in many other States, eligible voters were
turns away, challenge and watever. You might consider that democracy,
but others may consider it as fraud, no?
Post by Steve Sundberg
If you want to make a direct comparison of voter participation between
Singapore and the US, then Singapore must allow ALL eligible voters
the right to vote even when there is only one candidate on a ballot.
Please do not impose your ideas, your god and your biases on others.
Action speaks louder than words. Look at yourself in the mirrors, you
may see an innocent angle, while others may see a devil.
Tweety
2005-05-16 12:24:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by news
How can strong oppositions have a fair playing field when our national press
and media are tightly controlled. It is very difficult to find strong
opposition voices in them.
There are many strong opposition here, they like the rest only tok, tok cock and
nutting else. You blame the govt for these useless fools? Maybe the govt should
olso find good opposition for the oppositions, Nah?
Post by news
How can strong oppositions have a fair playing field when their
representative is allocated a small amount of airtime during election time
public broadcast while the ruling party can have a larger share just because
they have more members in the parliament. What kind of logic is that?
The airtime belong to the public and since the opposition can mastered only
about 34%, what's wrong with that? Do you wanna the opposition blah, blah,
blah all day, day in and day out in TV just like this NG?
Post by news
How can oppositions have a fair playing field when they are systematically
eliminated through bankruptcies lawsuits and declared as mental cases?
The court and IMH and not the govt does the thigy you mentioned. In a way it's
good otherwise we will be spam with not emails but TV spam.
Post by news
How can we attact more oppositions to the parliament, after Singaporeans
have seen the results of being a strong opposition member in the parliament?
Wat, wat you toking???
Post by news
Can you just wake up your idea and stop posting mis-information to the
public below?
I am serious of getting you and others to start an org to do away with GE. Wanna
join me?

I am a born again PAP.
Post by news
Post by Tweety
Post by Steve Sundberg
94.6% turnout ... but only in the constituencies that were allowed to
vote. Voters in walk-over consitutencies were not allowed to vote, so
participation in those districts was 0%. Zero. Nada. Nothing.
No one not even LKY has denied any opposition including JBJ to stand
for election. The choice to run or not to run rest on the oppositions,
the law of the land and not yours.
Post by Steve Sundberg
The overall percentage of the total Singaporean electorate who
actually voted was probably no better than the total percentage of
Americans who voted in 2004. But at least in the US, a person can
choose to vote, or not vote, even in elections where there is only one
candidate; in Singapore, a person must vote -- except where they are
not allowed to vote because there is only one candidate.
Not true, in Ohio, Florida and in many other States, eligible voters were
turns away, challenge and watever. You might consider that democracy,
but others may consider it as fraud, no?
Post by Steve Sundberg
If you want to make a direct comparison of voter participation between
Singapore and the US, then Singapore must allow ALL eligible voters
the right to vote even when there is only one candidate on a ballot.
Please do not impose your ideas, your god and your biases on others.
Action speaks louder than words. Look at yourself in the mirrors, you
may see an innocent angle, while others may see a devil.
lobert lo
2005-05-17 01:00:50 UTC
Permalink
Low Thia Khiang and Chiam See Tong are not just tok cock,
they are doing well for their respective constituency,
that's why they have been voted in again.
Post by Tweety
Post by news
How can strong oppositions have a fair playing field when our national press
and media are tightly controlled. It is very difficult to find strong
opposition voices in them.
There are many strong opposition here, they like the rest only tok, tok cock and
nutting else. You blame the govt for these useless fools? Maybe the govt should
olso find good opposition for the oppositions, Nah?
Post by news
How can strong oppositions have a fair playing field when their
representative is allocated a small amount of airtime during election time
public broadcast while the ruling party can have a larger share just because
they have more members in the parliament. What kind of logic is that?
The airtime belong to the public and since the opposition can mastered only
about 34%, what's wrong with that? Do you wanna the opposition blah, blah,
blah all day, day in and day out in TV just like this NG?
Post by news
How can oppositions have a fair playing field when they are systematically
eliminated through bankruptcies lawsuits and declared as mental cases?
The court and IMH and not the govt does the thigy you mentioned. In a way it's
good otherwise we will be spam with not emails but TV spam.
Post by news
How can we attact more oppositions to the parliament, after Singaporeans
have seen the results of being a strong opposition member in the parliament?
Wat, wat you toking???
Post by news
Can you just wake up your idea and stop posting mis-information to the
public below?
I am serious of getting you and others to start an org to do away with GE. Wanna
join me?
I am a born again PAP.
Post by news
Post by Tweety
Post by Steve Sundberg
94.6% turnout ... but only in the constituencies that were allowed to
vote. Voters in walk-over consitutencies were not allowed to vote, so
participation in those districts was 0%. Zero. Nada. Nothing.
No one not even LKY has denied any opposition including JBJ to stand
for election. The choice to run or not to run rest on the oppositions,
the law of the land and not yours.
Post by Steve Sundberg
The overall percentage of the total Singaporean electorate who
actually voted was probably no better than the total percentage of
Americans who voted in 2004. But at least in the US, a person can
choose to vote, or not vote, even in elections where there is only one
candidate; in Singapore, a person must vote -- except where they are
not allowed to vote because there is only one candidate.
Not true, in Ohio, Florida and in many other States, eligible voters were
turns away, challenge and watever. You might consider that democracy,
but others may consider it as fraud, no?
Post by Steve Sundberg
If you want to make a direct comparison of voter participation between
Singapore and the US, then Singapore must allow ALL eligible voters
the right to vote even when there is only one candidate on a ballot.
Please do not impose your ideas, your god and your biases on others.
Action speaks louder than words. Look at yourself in the mirrors, you
may see an innocent angle, while others may see a devil.
Tweety
2005-05-17 02:01:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by lobert lo
Low Thia Khiang and Chiam See Tong are not just tok cock,
they are doing well for their respective constituency,
that's why they have been voted in again.
Can't you see, beside these two dummies who else dare to jump
into the political suicide arena? How many more bankruptcies do
you need to wake up? Even if you dare to jump into suicidal arena,
imagine Bad Boy, Observer, Kilometrico and Di Die Di will be
calling you? Also the laughter too...

Why dun you forget about opposition, be a born again PAP like me.
Let these sob whiners die like pigs and they really deserve it.
lobert lo
2005-05-20 13:06:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tweety
Post by lobert lo
Low Thia Khiang and Chiam See Tong are not just tok cock,
they are doing well for their respective constituency,
that's why they have been voted in again.
Can't you see, beside these two dummies who else dare to jump
into the political suicide arena? How many more bankruptcies do
you need to wake up? Even if you dare to jump into suicidal arena,
imagine Bad Boy, Observer, Kilometrico and Di Die Di will be
calling you? Also the laughter too...
Why dun you forget about opposition, be a born again PAP like me.
Let these sob whiners die like pigs and they really deserve it.
Have you forgotten our NCMP Steve Chia lah!
There are more oppositions in the last election,
more in coming election.
Der Zählmeister
2005-05-21 06:10:41 UTC
Permalink
he's not a fool. he knows what he's doing. he's got a job that earns
him a comfortable living. with the spare time he has, he participates
in forums to mock lesser mortals, and is enjoying himself very much.



news wrote:
...
Post by news
Can you just wake up your idea and stop posting mis-information to the
public below?
...
Tweety
2005-05-21 16:55:08 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 21 May 2005 14:10:41 +0800, Der Zählmeister <***@mozilla.com.sg>
wrote:

I do enjoy reading the whining, bitching posts here.
I olso enjoy their suffering, cuz the deserve it.

I mean it I really enjoy it.
Post by Der Zählmeister
he's not a fool. he knows what he's doing. he's got a job that earns
him a comfortable living. with the spare time he has, he participates
in forums to mock lesser mortals, and is enjoying himself very much.
...
Post by news
Can you just wake up your idea and stop posting mis-information to the
public below?
...
w-o-r-l-d-p-i-s-s-e-d
2005-05-17 11:27:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steve Sundberg
If you want to make a direct comparison of voter participation between
Singapore and the US, then Singapore must allow ALL eligible voters
the right to vote even when there is only one candidate on a ballot.
That's not exactly correct, Steve.

If there's only one candidate for that constituency representing PAP,
that means the oppositions are not interested in contesting for that
particular area. You can't blame PAP for that.

As mentioned to Madcow before, they wanna win PAP in the game, they gotta
play by PAP's game rules. The oppositions have only themselves to blame
for forsaking their pursuit in public representation to the extent
whereby PAP can take advantage of the electoral process by force majure.

_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 120,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account
news.new
2005-05-18 00:22:12 UTC
Permalink
Yes you are right. If opposition choose to loss on day 1. They are the one
to blame.
No one else.
Post by w-o-r-l-d-p-i-s-s-e-d
Post by Steve Sundberg
If you want to make a direct comparison of voter participation between
Singapore and the US, then Singapore must allow ALL eligible voters
the right to vote even when there is only one candidate on a ballot.
That's not exactly correct, Steve.
If there's only one candidate for that constituency representing PAP,
that means the oppositions are not interested in contesting for that
particular area. You can't blame PAP for that.
As mentioned to Madcow before, they wanna win PAP in the game, they gotta
play by PAP's game rules. The oppositions have only themselves to blame
for forsaking their pursuit in public representation to the extent
whereby PAP can take advantage of the electoral process by force majure.
_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 120,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account
Tweety
2005-05-18 01:06:21 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 18 May 2005 08:22:12 +0800, "news.new" <***@netscape.net> wrote:

Use your brain and think: At the very best you opposition can only poll 30%!
and not that not counting the whiners here and elsewhere.

How could you win? Be like me and become a born again PAP.
Post by news.new
Yes you are right. If opposition choose to loss on day 1. They are the one
to blame.
No one else.
Post by w-o-r-l-d-p-i-s-s-e-d
Post by Steve Sundberg
If you want to make a direct comparison of voter participation between
Singapore and the US, then Singapore must allow ALL eligible voters
the right to vote even when there is only one candidate on a ballot.
That's not exactly correct, Steve.
If there's only one candidate for that constituency representing PAP,
that means the oppositions are not interested in contesting for that
particular area. You can't blame PAP for that.
As mentioned to Madcow before, they wanna win PAP in the game, they gotta
play by PAP's game rules. The oppositions have only themselves to blame
for forsaking their pursuit in public representation to the extent
whereby PAP can take advantage of the electoral process by force majure.
_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 120,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account
news.new
2005-05-18 00:23:00 UTC
Permalink
Yes, why will one vote them or their party if they choose not to form a
government on day 1 ?
Post by w-o-r-l-d-p-i-s-s-e-d
Post by Steve Sundberg
If you want to make a direct comparison of voter participation between
Singapore and the US, then Singapore must allow ALL eligible voters
the right to vote even when there is only one candidate on a ballot.
That's not exactly correct, Steve.
If there's only one candidate for that constituency representing PAP,
that means the oppositions are not interested in contesting for that
particular area. You can't blame PAP for that.
As mentioned to Madcow before, they wanna win PAP in the game, they gotta
play by PAP's game rules. The oppositions have only themselves to blame
for forsaking their pursuit in public representation to the extent
whereby PAP can take advantage of the electoral process by force majure.
_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 120,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account
Tweety
2005-05-18 01:07:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by news.new
Yes, why will one vote them or their party if they choose not to form a
government on day 1 ?
Cuz, they got no balls. Vote PAP and become a born again PAP
Post by news.new
Post by w-o-r-l-d-p-i-s-s-e-d
Post by Steve Sundberg
If you want to make a direct comparison of voter participation between
Singapore and the US, then Singapore must allow ALL eligible voters
the right to vote even when there is only one candidate on a ballot.
That's not exactly correct, Steve.
If there's only one candidate for that constituency representing PAP,
that means the oppositions are not interested in contesting for that
particular area. You can't blame PAP for that.
As mentioned to Madcow before, they wanna win PAP in the game, they gotta
play by PAP's game rules. The oppositions have only themselves to blame
for forsaking their pursuit in public representation to the extent
whereby PAP can take advantage of the electoral process by force majure.
_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 120,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account
yansimon52
2005-05-16 00:43:13 UTC
Permalink
I for one is not saying that our present Gov is useless...

Well, some credits should be given to them on how they managed Sg in an
orderly manner and that's how we survive especially, we are just a tiny
island with no natural resources.... to survive thru political
stability and hopefully, transparency of the laws...

But, just that, as everyone here believe, we could do better, making a
better lace for all sgian to live in.... What I am saying is, more
consideration on welfare for those unfortunate... and desperate poor.
Cause, the cost of living is simply to high!!!!

Yeah, old man is around to monitor, how about if, old man is gone???

Are our younger generation with different aspiration and thinking could
carry on with the present system of running SG?

You see, during the hey days, those old guards, all come with good
face's feature and always implementing policies with the people at
heart.....ie. entering CBD, a motoriat could avoid paying the $4
charges by having 4 passengers(in the car), an alternative.. but,
nowadays. everywhere, you find ER gantries, no alternatives given to
motorist to avoid paying further charges....LTA once mentioned that,
with the ERPs, they would then slowly reviewed ARF charges and rd tax,
to make the owning a car much cheaper...
What have they done till now???
Tweety
2005-05-16 01:22:14 UTC
Permalink
On 15 May 2005 17:43:13 -0700, "yansimon52" <***@hotmail.com> wrote:

You fucking bastard! You wanna more good years? You wanna Swiss
living and now you bitch and whine now?

Serve you right and it aren't gonna be any better regardless how much and how
long you whines!

I am a born again PAP supporter and I hope the PAP and Lee rule forever!
Post by yansimon52
I for one is not saying that our present Gov is useless...
Well, some credits should be given to them on how they managed Sg in an
orderly manner and that's how we survive especially, we are just a tiny
island with no natural resources.... to survive thru political
stability and hopefully, transparency of the laws...
But, just that, as everyone here believe, we could do better, making a
better lace for all sgian to live in.... What I am saying is, more
consideration on welfare for those unfortunate... and desperate poor.
Cause, the cost of living is simply to high!!!!
Yeah, old man is around to monitor, how about if, old man is gone???
Are our younger generation with different aspiration and thinking could
carry on with the present system of running SG?
You see, during the hey days, those old guards, all come with good
face's feature and always implementing policies with the people at
heart.....ie. entering CBD, a motoriat could avoid paying the $4
charges by having 4 passengers(in the car), an alternative.. but,
nowadays. everywhere, you find ER gantries, no alternatives given to
motorist to avoid paying further charges....LTA once mentioned that,
with the ERPs, they would then slowly reviewed ARF charges and rd tax,
to make the owning a car much cheaper...
What have they done till now???
yansimon52
2005-05-17 17:16:11 UTC
Permalink
Hey Tweety, don't bet too high stake mah!!!

Take it easy bros...
Tweety
2005-05-17 18:21:33 UTC
Permalink
On 17 May 2005 10:16:11 -0700, "yansimon52" <***@hotmail.com> wrote:

That post was three days ago and I change by the minutes! :-)
Post by yansimon52
Hey Tweety, don't bet too high stake mah!!!
Take it easy bros...
Der Zählmeister
2005-05-21 06:12:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by yansimon52
Hey Tweety, don't bet too high stake mah!!!
Take it easy bros...
the fact of the matter is: Tweety can afford to bet big.
Tweety
2005-05-21 16:56:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Der Zählmeister
the fact of the matter is: Tweety can afford to bet big.
Hey, be careful they may wann a sue, sue me
even when I am a bron again PAP.
yansimon52
2005-05-22 00:49:09 UTC
Permalink
Yah what, most of us here were just using decent language but, he
prefer to place higher stake hard word like 'bastard', mother's chee
bye and so on... LOL..LOL..LOL...
Der Zählmeister
2005-05-22 01:26:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by yansimon52
Yah what, most of us here were just using decent language but, he
prefer to place higher stake hard word like 'bastard', mother's chee
bye and so on... LOL..LOL..LOL...
although he does not have a PhD or is a minister, or a doctor or a
lawyer, he legally earns in one month what the "whiners" earn in one
decade or life-time(s). he has that kind of skill.

he can afford to buy properties all over the world. i don't know
whether he is really a born-again PAP supporter. but one thing for
sure: if anything goes wrong, one plane ticket ... pssssst and he's
off. i mean he **CAN** do it **IF** he wants to. but the "whiners"
**CANNOT**. they are stuck. that's the point.
news.new
2005-05-22 03:24:26 UTC
Permalink
Sure, one can buy properities all ovr the world.
But I surely do not want some taxi driver to manage my CPF account, surely
not someone who only know how to shount on the street !!!
Post by Der Zählmeister
Post by yansimon52
Yah what, most of us here were just using decent language but, he
prefer to place higher stake hard word like 'bastard', mother's chee
bye and so on... LOL..LOL..LOL...
although he does not have a PhD or is a minister, or a doctor or a
lawyer, he legally earns in one month what the "whiners" earn in one
decade or life-time(s). he has that kind of skill.
he can afford to buy properties all over the world. i don't know
whether he is really a born-again PAP supporter. but one thing for
sure: if anything goes wrong, one plane ticket ... pssssst and he's
off. i mean he **CAN** do it **IF** he wants to. but the "whiners"
**CANNOT**. they are stuck. that's the point.
a***@gmail.com
2005-05-16 04:39:51 UTC
Permalink
In any given government, be it the monachy of old, the communism (that
is almost extinct) or democracy, any single party (or person) that
holds on to power and rule absolutely will inevitably leads to
corruption and civil unrest.

This is becoz of human nature: Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Look into history and you will see tons of examples. Dynasties are
formed, risen in power, then fall apart.

Do we need opposition in Singapore?

This is a difficult question to answer. This is becoz we can't say for
sure at what 'stage' we are in. Are we still in our early years, where
the goverment is still young and relatively less corrupt? Are we coming
into age, where corruption is about to boom? Are we dying?

Different ppl have different views.

While I will agree that our current 'opposition' parties doesn't appear
to amount to much, I say that some form of 'opposition' to the
government is required. It need not neccessary means that we MUST vote
into power opposition parties, rather, the ppl must have the mentality
to question the government. They must realise that it is not the
government who are accountable but themselves.

Often, we hear ppl say that the government is too powerful, that we
cannot do anything. That is often untrue. It is sometime used by those
against the government as an arguement that we should overthrow the
government. More often, it is used by those too lazy to do anything.

Furthermore, we must also question those who act in the name of
'Opposition' as well. We have to be sure that their motives are for the
benefit of Singapore, and not just for the sake of opposing. Or worse,
for their own benefit.

The individual must be able to decide on their own. They must learn,
continue improving themselves so that they can make intelligent,
imformed decisions. They must be able to see pass the motives of the
various parties, and decide what is best for themselves.

Sadly, most are unwilling to make that effort.

She who dances without much effort.

While, by law, we must vote, the law do not ask us to vote for anyone.
If we choose not to vote, we can simply void our vote. The law requires
our presense at the voting stand and put in a piece of paper, NOT
whether we should vote or not.
Tweety
2005-05-16 05:13:42 UTC
Permalink
On 15 May 2005 21:39:51 -0700, ***@gmail.com wrote:

We are coming close to fifties years of one man in power.
In 500 years someone other than yourself will be saying "early years"?
Post by a***@gmail.com
sure at what 'stage' we are in. Are we still in our early years, where
the goverment is still young and relatively less corrupt?
Observer
2005-05-16 09:48:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by a***@gmail.com
government is required. It need not neccessary means that we MUST vote
into power opposition parties, rather, the ppl must have the mentality
to question the government.
Kah..kah..kah..
So when are you going to show
how YOU "question the government",
Another hypocrite and a LIAR....LOL.
Tweety
2005-05-16 12:26:11 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 16 May 2005 17:48:34 +0800, "Observer" <***@yahoo1.com> wrote:

A classic case of fucking whiner bastard! This sob will one day jump down his
leased pigeon hole!
Post by Observer
Post by a***@gmail.com
government is required. It need not neccessary means that we MUST vote
into power opposition parties, rather, the ppl must have the mentality
to question the government.
Kah..kah..kah..
So when are you going to show
how YOU "question the government",
Another hypocrite and a LIAR....LOL.
w-o-r-l-d-p-i-s-s-e-d
2005-05-17 11:20:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tweety
No, Singapore has been well managed, by the able hands of senior Lee,
Lee's son, party and family members for more than 40 years. Its
political machines are well grease and much better organize than the
machineries of the late Mayor Richard J. Daley who run Chicago for
twenty years in the fifties tills the seventies. Most Americans still
remember Mayor Daley's Cook County.
PAP still need oppositions for show. Otherwise people outside will think
that S'pore is run by a dictator and have no demokracy.
_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 120,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account
news.new
2005-05-18 00:20:56 UTC
Permalink
Good aoopsition yes.
Opposition who own talk > no thank you.
Post by w-o-r-l-d-p-i-s-s-e-d
Post by Tweety
No, Singapore has been well managed, by the able hands of senior Lee,
Lee's son, party and family members for more than 40 years. Its
political machines are well grease and much better organize than the
machineries of the late Mayor Richard J. Daley who run Chicago for
twenty years in the fifties tills the seventies. Most Americans still
remember Mayor Daley's Cook County.
PAP still need oppositions for show. Otherwise people outside will think
that S'pore is run by a dictator and have no demokracy.
_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 120,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account
Tweety
2005-05-18 01:12:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by news.new
Good aoopsition yes.
Opposition who own talk > no thank you.
Dumb shit, how could you decide which is good and bad when you dun even have any
to select?

Look at it this way: The smart one either migrate, become born again PAP or keep
quite. While only dummies run and almost everyone went bankrupt!
Post by news.new
Post by w-o-r-l-d-p-i-s-s-e-d
Post by Tweety
No, Singapore has been well managed, by the able hands of senior Lee,
Lee's son, party and family members for more than 40 years. Its
political machines are well grease and much better organize than the
machineries of the late Mayor Richard J. Daley who run Chicago for
twenty years in the fifties tills the seventies. Most Americans still
remember Mayor Daley's Cook County.
PAP still need oppositions for show. Otherwise people outside will think
that S'pore is run by a dictator and have no demokracy.
_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 120,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account
Ceciro
2005-05-20 19:38:12 UTC
Permalink
The question is not whether Singapore needs opposition or not, but
rather whether the PAP Government have the balls to amend the
constitution and statutes to ban opposition altogether???.

Again, does PAP have the balls???
news.new
2005-05-21 23:31:52 UTC
Permalink
You should put the question otherway round.
We need a opposition if they are strong, good and originazed. And not though
just know how to shount in the street!
Post by Ceciro
The question is not whether Singapore needs opposition or not, but
rather whether the PAP Government have the balls to amend the
constitution and statutes to ban opposition altogether???.
Again, does PAP have the balls???
Tweety
2005-05-21 23:51:37 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 22 May 2005 07:31:52 +0800, "news.new" <***@netscape.net> wrote:

Than I ask you how do we get strong, good and organized?
You forget to include "SMART one" you fucking stoopid!

Strong - would you dare to go into the political arena and get sue, sue till you
go bankrupt and penniless?

http://singabloodypore.civiblog.org/blog/_archives/2005/5/9/663876.html

Good - Sure we got two good one and these two good useless one can do nuthing.

http://www.newsintercom.org/index.php?itemid=170

Organized - You dare to organize? They will "nip you in the bud" just like the
Catholic group..

http://www.singaporedemocrat.org/index.php?id=informations/hallofshame.html

Smart - The smart ones migrate or shut up and only dummies and stoopid one
whines and bitch here.
Post by news.new
You should put the question otherway round.
We need a opposition if they are strong, good and originazed. And not though
just know how to shount in the street!
Post by Ceciro
The question is not whether Singapore needs opposition or not, but
rather whether the PAP Government have the balls to amend the
constitution and statutes to ban opposition altogether???.
Again, does PAP have the balls???
news.new
2005-05-22 03:22:56 UTC
Permalink
You must ask these question to the opposition.
They are once very strong. Check with some of them, then they split within
themself. Even the CST is not belong to where he came from anymore !!!
Post by Tweety
Than I ask you how do we get strong, good and organized?
You forget to include "SMART one" you fucking stoopid!
Strong - would you dare to go into the political arena and get sue, sue till you
go bankrupt and penniless?
http://singabloodypore.civiblog.org/blog/_archives/2005/5/9/663876.html
Good - Sure we got two good one and these two good useless one can do nuthing.
http://www.newsintercom.org/index.php?itemid=170
Organized - You dare to organize? They will "nip you in the bud" just like the
Catholic group..
http://www.singaporedemocrat.org/index.php?id=informations/hallofshame.html
Smart - The smart ones migrate or shut up and only dummies and stoopid one
whines and bitch here.
Post by news.new
You should put the question otherway round.
We need a opposition if they are strong, good and originazed. And not though
just know how to shount in the street!
Post by Ceciro
The question is not whether Singapore needs opposition or not, but
rather whether the PAP Government have the balls to amend the
constitution and statutes to ban opposition altogether???.
Again, does PAP have the balls???
Ceciro
2005-05-26 15:10:20 UTC
Permalink
It was not the opposition parties that started to enact laws to ban or
limit freedom of speech, expression, political participation and etc.

It is the PAP party that started to play unfair.

Therefore the question is how much unfair could they become with their
current balls. Do they have the balls to be totally unfair. Again do
PAP have the BALLS!!!

And Stop asking on what the opposition could do!!! Why should they do
anything that Singaporeans do not have the balls to finance and support.
Tweety
2005-05-26 16:21:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ceciro
It was not the opposition parties that started to enact laws to ban or
limit freedom of speech, expression, political participation and etc.
Are you not having free speech now? You can participate any political parties
can't you and who's stopping you?
Post by Ceciro
It is the PAP party that started to play unfair.
Wat unfair, you mean the PAP help and finance your election? Or
maybe the PAP should ask ppl to vote for you or even FORCE
ppl to elect you o parliament?
Post by Ceciro
Therefore the question is how much unfair could they become with their
current balls. Do they have the balls to be totally unfair. Again do
PAP have the BALLS!!!
Of could they have balls... big balls to crush your fucking arse and
lock you in prison forever or better yet sue you till bankrupt like
they did to Jeya!
Post by Ceciro
And Stop asking on what the opposition could do!!! Why should they do
anything that Singaporeans do not have the balls to finance and support.
"Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you
can do for your country......"
Ceciro
2005-05-27 10:03:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tweety
Post by Ceciro
It was not the opposition parties that started to enact laws to ban or
limit freedom of speech, expression, political participation and etc.
Are you not having free speech now? You can participate any political parties
can't you and who's stopping you?
Is there FREEDOM after the SPEECH??? By what constitutional law?
Post by Tweety
Post by Ceciro
It is the PAP party that started to play unfair.
Wat unfair, you mean the PAP help and finance your election? Or
maybe the PAP should ask ppl to vote for you or even FORCE
ppl to elect you o parliament?
Post by Ceciro
Therefore the question is how much unfair could they become with their
current balls. Do they have the balls to be totally unfair. Again do
PAP have the BALLS!!!
Of could they have balls... big balls to crush your fucking arse and
lock you in prison forever or better yet sue you till bankrupt like
they did to Jeya!
Post by Ceciro
And Stop asking on what the opposition could do!!! Why should they do
anything that Singaporeans do not have the balls to finance and support.
"Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you
can do for your country......"
Ceciro
2005-05-27 10:10:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tweety
Post by Ceciro
It was not the opposition parties that started to enact laws to ban or
limit freedom of speech, expression, political participation and etc.
Are you not having free speech now? You can participate any political parties
can't you and who's stopping you?
Is there FREEDOM after the SPEECH??? By what constitutional law?
Post by Tweety
Post by Ceciro
It is the PAP party that started to play unfair.
Wat unfair, you mean the PAP help and finance your election? Or
maybe the PAP should ask ppl to vote for you or even FORCE
ppl to elect you o parliament?
How could the opposition discover governmental corruptions when the
account books are closed to public view. Is that not unfair???.

Why laws were created to ban certain people from participating in
elections???
Is that not unfair? What is PAP afriad??? Don't they have the balls??
Post by Tweety
Post by Ceciro
Therefore the question is how much unfair could they become with their
current balls. Do they have the balls to be totally unfair. Again do
PAP have the BALLS!!!
Of could they have balls... big balls to crush your fucking arse and
lock you in prison forever or better yet sue you till bankrupt like
they did to Jeya!
How do you know that they have BALLS??? When did you SEE???
Post by Tweety
Post by Ceciro
And Stop asking on what the opposition could do!!! Why should they do
anything that Singaporeans do not have the balls to finance and support.
"Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you
can do for your country......"
Yes, all people should do good to their countries. But should the
people do good to a country that is in a position to help all but only
chose to help those it liked???
Tweety
2005-05-29 18:10:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ceciro
Is there FREEDOM after the SPEECH??? By what constitutional law?
Of course there are freedom after speech. You are free to jump from your leased
pigeon hole. You can do wat you wanted even before and after the speech.

You are free to speak anything, but beware you will be sue, sue till you have
only your underwear as your only procession.
Ceciro
2005-05-30 06:14:17 UTC
Permalink
Is not a threat to sue is a threat to freedom of speech.

If a payment is needed to speak then why do you claim it is free?
Post by Tweety
Post by Ceciro
Is there FREEDOM after the SPEECH??? By what constitutional law?
Of course there are freedom after speech. You are free to jump from your leased
pigeon hole. You can do wat you wanted even before and after the speech.
You are free to speak anything, but beware you will be sue, sue till you have
only your underwear as your only procession.
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...