For advertisement

Sample

2/03/2006

general election: prelim round 5

after the initial exchanges of a few blows, all has quieten down. both sides are reassessing their positions. who has done the right things and is on the upper hand after the brief encounter? pap started by attacking the wp manifesto as a time bomb and a poison and demanded condescendingly that the wp must change its manifesto or else. it is a talk down tactic by the strong against the weak and it puts the wp on the defensive, giving the impression that wp has erred seriously and pap knows best. this immediately drew response from the opposition as a high and mighty attitude and undemocratic. a bullying tactic. how are all these gesturings being perceived by the voters? would the voters bite the pap reasoning and say yes wp is dangerous and up to no good. cannot be trusted to be given the vote. or would the voters said, well, all these are political stance and may even say, stop the bullying. if the later, then it will put the pap in a not so comfortable start. a big bully small contest. and then there were some follow up comments that pap sure win. would this be taken by the voters as jumping the gun or taking them for granted? arrogance? the issues are simmering and probably both parties are discussing their positions after the initial standoff. anyone gains an upper hand?

2 comments:

abao said...

Seems like most of the people who have not bought or read the manifesto online has fallen for the PAP's taunt, judging from some of the reactions from sgForums and the mass media. Moreover, the media has done nothing but to create the perception that the WP's manifesto is dangerous. Luckily, the manifesto is now availiable online, but I doubt people will even bother to take a look.

redbean said...

some of the points in the manifesto need some modifying. grcs, rcs, cccs, presidency all can be looked at to serve the nation and people well. they are useful but how useful and to who.

this is only a few exchanges of shadow boxing. the wp can use the whole election campaign to explain their positions.

the forums and mass media have their own inherent biases. so not that reliable from a neutral point of view.