For advertisement

Sample

2/27/2006

lky welcomes good opposition

the mood seems to have changed. the tone set by lky and his message to chiam and low to put up good men to contest came out quite genuine. gather some good men and win a grc, serve well and pave the way for more opposition members in parliament. this is a welcome change. but how many good men will take the bite? how many will brave the possibilities of being ridiculed for the smallest demeanour in their lives? how many have not pee along the roadside in their younger days? how many have not climbed the fence to steal a few rambutans? how many have not taken a few pieces of papers from the office for their private use? how many have not called their wives or girlfriends using office phone and time? everyone is human and erred in some ways, or being playful or mischievious at times, smell the wild flowers, paint the town red. but if coming out to stand for public office means having their laundries hanged up for public scrutiny, then not many good men will come forward. only a few monks and priests will deem themselves worthy enough to stand. or those who know they will not be exposed by being in the right camp will have the cheek to stand. and walk around like saints. unless such stigma of running down potential candidates are no longer in the cards, many good and decent men, who have strayed a little, will not offer themselves to serve. and we will have those who have nothing to lose to come out screaming and fighting. politics is a dirty game but need not be made too dirty.

21 comments:

Matilah_Singapura said...

Balls to him lah, the motherfucking thug.

His idea of "good" opposition is an opposition who doesn't really "oppose" - in other words, no dissent. A lame-ass opposition who is agreeable almost all the time.

And I KNOW that politics is fixed, directed and planned in sg. The top dogs are scared of outright democracy (as they should be. I don't trust democracy either)

So this is the way: the powers that be actually CHOOSE who should be in opposition and who shouldn't. CSJ and JBJ are just too "disagreeable". Because they have a lot of balls and principles, these 2 won't compromise, so to Lee Cane You and his ball-lickers CSJ and JBJ are "dangerous".

The political process in Singapore is totally corrupt. The PAP generally is an efficient govt, and runs the place smoothly - just take money from the citizens and everything will be cool.

And with that, I've never had any contention - until thngs cock up and the true market kicks in.

Many people think I'm being "unreasonable" with my Matilah Singapura prediction, because they see their precious cuntry is "First world" and "rich" and "hip". But all this glitz, pomp and world-class doth not a cuntry make.

The lies and deceit - the general day to day workings of the politics - is the nail in the coffin of Singapore.

The govt think the cuntry belongs to them, and do not at all trust the people to run it.

Frankly, it should be the other way around.

redbean said...

can't argue with your comments.

what is good or bad, will turn out the opposite. if we do not have serious and good opposition, the country will go to the dogs eventually. one day it will be hijacked by a group of 'saints' but really satan incognito. and lo, all will be wiped out.

that is the real risk of a nation without genuine contenders to offer as alternative govt. the saints will become insane, and still think it is very saintly.

Elfred said...

Reddie, we are waiting for you then to provide the '...have serious and good opposition...' then.

Best wishes.

It's always everyone wanting to play hero in front of girls... but in front of granites, now that's another thing. :D

redbean said...

elfred,

to get into politics here, you must either be a pedigree, a monk or a priest. all these i do not qualify.

also, once you are in a blog or in a forum, you better stay out of politics. everything you posted online can be used against you.

now you see.

Elfred said...

Nay. Discussion pertaining the interest of the nation by its member in the republic based on individual views, especially on politics and governance are allowed unless necessarily malicious in nature.

Besides, many of the super-7 also tell us to put OB markers aside, and there has been calls for speaking up. And not forgetting the need for feedbacks and assessment of our leaders who will have impact on our life.

As educated individuals, such discussions are rightly promoted by the government. Besides, even MM Lee is well known to listen to the people.

And let's be fair to the local politicians. Don't just assume that they are petty, idiotic, despotic unreasonable and uneducated assh0les can trust people to be mature enough to choose that they can't enjoy discussions and criticisms.

We must show them good respect and be concern about our nation, no matter if I am just an ordinary nobody in Singapore.

Of course, if the government can offer a good golden handshake for my 30years existence in Singapore for me to settle elsewhere, local concerns would be none of my bloody business, and I can't be bothered whether Annabel Chong become the minister or William Hung gets to run A*Stars.

Not to mention... YP members are rather critical as well, not to mention a retiree.

Don't underestimate our great wise leaders.

If any reporter thinks I am wrong, please go through our leaders and tell us which of them are/is so ignorant, petty, low-class and lousy in standard and cannot even be gracious and humble enough to contain a nobody's discussion...

I'd sue the reporter immediately for defamation on behalf for our great leaders.

redbean said...

you are right elfred. the mood is now more receptive of opposing views. there is a loosening of the iron grip and people are encouraged to speak up. and they are listening.

and i also agree with you that speaking up comes with responsibilities. that is the position i stated many times before. if you want people to listen to you, you can't go and abuse them straight in the face and then say listen to me. you got to be reasonable. respect is both ways.

and the least we can do as concerned citizens, is not to libelise or defame anyone. we shall just stick to issues and say our peace. if people listen, good. if people choose not to agree with our views, that is their choice.

reasonableness is the word. and i hope to attract more reasonable people here to engage in fair discussion and criticism. poking at people is alright as long as it is not overdone.

Elfred said...

You see, Reddie... I always support the government as best as I could. You gotta give the ministers face and speak up as they want you to.

If they start calling and you go around suing people for feedback-ing on national or civil or organisational issues, you obviously look down on MM Lee and PM Lee.

My very good reasonable-ness is also this: If people gotta vote people gotta have to discuss about what they are voting, including things such as policies, A*stars, the leacheous ice-cream man, the smelly sewages bla bla bla.

It's not very nice at times but... Singapore is not bloody Indonesia, only civil servants who are very unhappy with the cabinet will go around picking problems on people responding to the call the fulfill their rights of duty to the national election bu their big mouths.

I have been out-spoken since birth. I don't see why the govt should allow or not on such discussions or criticism. It's not just a rights of people, it's just important to show that a 100% educated population under a wise government ain't all dummies and complete idiots...

And if any reporters dare report the government is such a bum in disallowing critics and like to sue people for expressions, they should be sued lah...

You only fear because of your instinct to fear the unknown. For outspoken critics as myself... my mouth is surely much bigger than the guts.

Of cos lah... don't make stupid comment as such: Philip Yeo f___ his maid and have many children all over the world, and that's a fact.

I'd be surprised if you don't get into a trouble... even if it's the truth. That's the peculiar thing about the law here one needs to observe.

But if you say: Philip Yeo f___ his maid and have many children to support the national population campaign and that's a fact...

Then you'd have a interesting case, because while the choice of word over Sex and F--- isn't that nice, you have a fact that He does support a national policy, and you are discussing national issues using him to illustrate, and your fact is stated but refer naturally to the national concern, instead of the mentioning of his maid's relation with him.

Just for people's awareness.

When you are discussing issues of national concern which is natural for your voting effort, it is a patriotic duty of the republic. Of course, unless election is not allowed and Singapore embraces fundamentalism... that's another thing altogether.

You can remove the privy court but you can't remove the election in a republic. Though, of course, you can circumvent certain problem.

Yes... be reasonable. But support the government's call is more important. So speak up.

redbean said...

that is the contradiction. when people dare not speak up, you complain that people are apolitical or apathetic, not interested in national affairs.

when people talk about national issues, you get uncomfortable and nervy and glare at the ob markers, scrutinising every word to nitpick at the right moment.

so again, head i win, tail you lose.

Matilah_Singapura said...

elfred said: >> I always support the government as best as I could.<<

Well, despite my yammerings to the totalitarian state, the s'pore govt is good at JUSTICE with regard to contract law, and its uncompromising position on the initiation of violence.

In other words, it keeps the peace so that those who are selfishly pursuing their dreams, can do so without being interfered with. This of course, like all EXTORTION comes at an expensive cost, in singapore:

The govt has TOTAL MONOPOLY and they have the ABSOLUTE POWER to raise taxes and imposts, and to make LAWS.

So the govt, being run by (arrogant) imperfect humans, are apt, ocaasionaly to tax too much and make too make STUPID LAWS (like the 3/4/ tank rule).

Since they are arrogant and all-powerful, they really do not have to counternance any dissent, disagreement or disapproval.

Case in point: everytime they raise the MP's salaries, there is mass dissent, disagreement and disapproval. Yet nothing happens.

redbean said...

where are the mass dissent and disapproval? no demo, do talks, no shouting. i think the people agree to the increase and that they deserve the high pay. non issue. that is why they are confident of being re elected and with bigger majority votes.

the people love the party. this is the best we have.

Matilah_Singapura said...

So... PAY lah! Wat to do?!?

Elfred said...

I never get nervous. For what? The thing to look out for are some totally petty grassroots act-smart people. They are from where come those who thought people should behave like rats and be like themselves.

To an extent, that's true. From the army of MPs, I am aware of the kinda (amature) 'leadership' they are conducting.

Always remember this, they slight people because Singapore's cultural level is real low, and it is very easy for such immature civilisation to have some people in superior mentality that the commoners are basically idiotic... which is to a very good extent so.

I have encountered numerous Singaporeans online and offline, and I must say... these people who are interested are no better than Mr Goh MS himself.

Matilah,

Actually, you do not really understand... or you have misunderstood. The PAP, under MM Lee, is still reasonable. In the earlier years, Singapore faced continuous disruptions and the barbaric force which kept people (whom many are migrants and unstable) in line and for a steady party to proceed with the building.

But MM made a very critical mistake... his governance over the years have been 'too pragmatic' and resort to a completely rigid and barbaric-inclined style, which leads to the current issues we are facing. In truth, real confucius and such ain't like this. Which means through this time, his failure to realise he needed very much in the 70s to strengthen his political thinking rendered his ability to further reform the governance of both Singapore and PAP, and enhance Singapore into a nation... a civilisation.

Which is why you can Dr Wong Kah Yuan still expresses implicit negativity of offering help and mentioning it becoming a habitual issue... (of reliance).

Which is also why the incumbent fails to see another path outside Casino. And it is also why Singapore is getting short sighted. It is also why while Singapore is getting monies, we're now struggling more and more on the global front. And it is also why you see the distance between PAP and the people drifting apart; and why revitalisation got stuck.

Sigh...

Problemo. To tell you the truth, that's also why the government have let loose on NTUC but short of it got listed, and why Durai-s are getting more and fatter in this tiny island...

See Matilah? How important is political elements? It's just such unseenable line that makes the difference between hell and heaven. I'd have already been a journalist outstationed if that damn meritocracy is working instead of having such funny elements writing such hollow stuffs...

It's a big cock-up. Look at NS, look at society over our time, look at education and Tammy, look at the entire senseless governance.

Competition... why not we vote for Howards' party to run Singapore since we can just get foreign lecturers and professionals to head us? We got so much nosense precisely because of poor governance. Period.

Matilah_Singapura said...

elfred said... >>See Matilah? How important is political elements? It's just such unseenable line that makes the difference between hell and heaven.<<

Well, since I don't care a damn about politics - I think it is all evil - and in my universe there is no such thing as the man-made idea of heaven and hell.

MM Lee lived his life, did what he selfishly chose, and earned a spot in history. His party successors, although in yuour opinion, not up to the mark, are doing what they arrogantly think is the "right thing".

Fuck them all.

All cuntries get the govt they deserve.

I *know* they are gonna fuck it up. That is precisely what my Matilah Singapura premise/prediction is founded on.

:-)

redbean said...

come on you guys. we have the best government run by the best men money can buy. and yesterday in parliament it was disclosed that they are underpaid. and they did not make any noise until steve chia wanted to know how much they are being paid.

see the calibre of our leaders and the sacrifices they made for the people and nation. and underpaid some more.

you people are being too harsh.

what more to you want from such great men?

Elfred said...

I never said the successors not up to my mark... but maybe they'd be better off to lead commercial entities before Singapore sinks into some civil unrest.

I don't 'mark' them... When have healthy governance has 'marks' like this?

Matilah_Singapura said...

redbean,

well people can believe what they want: best govt, etc etc.

All I know is I'll be sipping a beer and bar-b-quing a steak when I watch the spectacular collapse of singapore on tv, in the safety of my suburban Australian home.

S'poreans will be moving around aimlessly, dazed, with a glazed look asking "What happened? How come the Holy Govt didn't save us? We pay them so much money... how could they allow this to happen?..."

redbean said...

that's what i am adopting. people say they are good, they are good. no need to quarrel about it. i still want my cpf money back.

elfred said he is good. good. just check the bottom line.

i just replied to elfred's comment about ministers being underpaid and elfred said he too. the difference is on what basis? the ministers have a benchmark to refer to. elfred, refers to what?

but that doesn't mean that the ministers are underpaid.

if i ask you to play my games based on my sets of rules. and if you do not contest my rules, then following my rules is right.

if my game says that i am a poor man if i don't earn $1 mil a month, and if i don't, then i can declare that i am a poor man.

got it? very logical but on wrong premises. but you agree or don't dispute my rules.

Elfred said...

I say I good? Hahaha...

I also replied to you in YPForum.

Have a read.

If there is a benchmark up there, there must be a benchmark down here. You cannot benchmark a broking firm's performance when the firm doesn't benchmark the managers, and the managers don't benchmark the portfolios... bla bla bla.

Reddie, you seem to be quite lacking in certain fields... Are you sure you are a civil servant for many years... not some newly graduate working in civil service for several months...???

Honestly, I find your... presentation a bit weird in comparison to what you claim of yourself. No offence.

redbean said...

elfred,

you need to come up to my level to understand what i am saying. you are just seeing a picture of a jungle and unable to see the trees. you got to see deeper to get a clearer picture of what i am saying.

you do not read something and take it superficially. you must be able to understand what is the essence of an article.

let me tell you this. i can design a compensation formula according to the objectives that you want to achieve. now does that ring a bell? if not, let me put in simpler. i can design a formula that benefits the top management, or the workers, or the shareholders. and i can give you all the justifications you want to support that formula.

now you understand? every formula is as objective or as sound as you want it to be. but it is the intention or objective of the formula that you need to question.

you are too young and inexperience to see the truth from the maze you are in.

redbean said...

i have also answer your comments in ypap. and many were just like you, taking my statement at face value. even with my hint of $500k and you could not understand.

you can only question the benchmark and the formula for the benchmark. if hsien loong uses the benchmark to support his argument, it is all very logical.

this is the same as questioning political theories. you shall go to the assumptions that the theories are built on. if you accept the assumptions, then the rest becomes logical. but the flaws are in the assumptions.

Elfred said...

Redbean, for the matter, I have never assume a lack in upper limit is a problem. I have taken your chance to express certain concerns just for the sake of arguing for this one.

Which is why this is not whether I catch no ball or not.

Look closely at my reply which ends something like this: Want higher pay then give us higher performance.

And I obviously can't be bothered even if they would be corrupted or not if they serve well.

So your explanation here is rather irrelevant, because our basis ain't obviously the same.