Punggol East By-Election coming ? MP steps down
-
Rational_Parent:
[/quote]Hahahahaha!!!! Where did you get the quote from? :goodpost:[/quote]Me. :razz:pirate:
[quote=\"octoberbaby\"]Now how to differentiate Singapore Citizens? Native and New?
That one I already answer before[quote](1) new SC
(2) grew up in Singapore SC
(3) I was born in Singapore SC
(4) my grandparents were here since before independence SC
(5) my great-grandparents were here since before the war SC
(6) my great-great-great-great grandparents were here since before Sir Stamford Raffles SC
(7) my ancestors were here since before Sang Nila Utama SC; and
(8) my ancestors did not walk out of Africa but spontaneously evolved from indigenous orang utans SC.
http://www.kiasuparents.com/kiasu/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=39012&start=450
Just saw LTK's Chinese speech on Youtube. He effectively said that the WP will insist on being a rational opposition, and that it is unrealistic to expect WP to be able to work with all the other opposition parties for the sake of 'opposition unity'.
Let's see how it pans out with the PAP haters. :evil: -
3Boys:
This is really farnee…one wrote so vehemently to support one side but in the end voted for the OTHER party. Haha…I guess ultimately, we are all rational people who will vote for the BEST candidate (according to our own sets of criteria as to what is best), and not vote for whatever party blindly.
Heck, I voted opposition last time.pirate:
I am not firmly in the opposition camp. Heck, I voted PAP the last time. ... -
pirate:
No lah! 3Boys just forcing all of us here to look at issues from different/opposite angles/perspectives nia, instead of just having one-way track thinking only. Cannot be so adamant with one-sided view that we lost sight of helicopter view mah.
But it's still 3Boys fault for always being on the opposite side. :stompfeet:
-
kamom:
However, there is another article in Yahoo! saying we do not need another MP from WP. Claimed that WP had done close to nothing after GE2011.Your son isn't the only one :rotflmao:
By the way, this guy has more or less sum up what WP has done so far. I agree with him.
http://sg.news.yahoo.com/your-view--workers%E2%80%99-party-has-redefined-singapore-politics-062702731.html
http://sg.news.yahoo.com/blogs/singaporescene/another-workers-party-mp-055050532.html
WP in their rally earlier tried to rebut this right? -
concern2:
Am sad to see that government resources are not being shared and distributed for the benefits of ALL residents. There must be some kind of formula (maybe based on population size or land area) in distributing resources, and it should not be based on which party is in charge of the constituency. Improving and building infrastructure of a constituency is using government money, not party money right?
Why, you are ready to vote for me if I can convince you is it? :evil:3Boys:
So the policies that WP are proposing do not require taxpayers money?
Of course it requires Tax payers' money! BUT:
1) The the oppositions voiced about HOW the money is spent. Ministerial salary is one of them. There is also healthcare and social services. It is about funds distribution. If I remember correctly, only ONE out of the rest of the 80+ (Denise Phua) voiced about Ministerial salary in parliament before. They pushed for it because they felt it was the right thing to do. Of course, talk is cheap, that's what you would say. Try suggesting that at work and see if you get :spank:
2) Town councils performance will not be judged based on how much money they get out of the people. Finding out why and how people are not able to make payments instead of sending off legal letters to residents who fail to pay on time. The PAP town councils appraise themselves by the amount of money they can squeeze out of the people, and how they are able to manage the funds with investments. (source: http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/390407/1/.html) So, who's the gambler here?
3) The oppositions face difficulties trying to raise funds.
As I understand, they tried to hold a cycling event which was rejected by the police (source: http://sgforums.com/forums/10/topics/276400).
The activities that they propose to be held are deemed as having 'the potential for public disorder and mischief, and may disrupt community life\", while those that are done by PAs are considered \"community services\"? :slapshead:
What are the other events/ activities that are \"not allowed\"?
In his speech at Post Hougang By-election held at NUS, LTK said,
\"The PAP government punishes them by withholding infrastructure development and improvement to the estate.
The Main Upgrading Program and Interim Upgrading Program were not extended to Hougang. As for the Lift Upgrading Program (LUP), Hougang was thrown to the end of the queue. As of today, LUP work has not even started for about 80% or more of the HDB flats in Hougang.\"
(source: http://wp.sg/2012/06/mr-low-thia-khiangs-speech-at-post-hougang-by-election-dialogue-organised-by-nuss/)
This is what PAP SUPPORTERS CONDONE WHEN THEY VOTE FOR THE PAP - to see other Singaporeans being unequally treated. It is no longer about WHO PAYS, WHO GETS, it is EVERYONE PAYS, BUT PAP SUPPORTERS GET.3Boys:
If they come to power they will spend WP money and not taxpayers money on programs?
This is what some of our dear PAP supporters think. That's why they want to choose a rich dad, not a poor dad, not realizing they are the ones paying. 
It seems that the government would rather sacrifice the well being of the residents and use it (resources) as a weapon to control, gain power and to maintain power. Is this a correct mindset? Aren’t people staying in the opposition ward part of Singapore? In “punishing” people staying in the opposition ward, it really disregards the role of the government to serve the nation and its people. -
anyone read this convincing piece? btw, who's calvin cheng? NMP? what did he raise in parliament b4?
http://sg.news.yahoo.com/blogs/singaporescene/another-workers-party-mp-055050532.html
In the run-up to the by-election of Punggol East, it is clear, that final fight comes down to the two largest parties in Parliament: The People’s Action Party (PAP) and The Worker’s Party (WP).
The Worker’s Party chairman Sylvia Lim stated very early that this by-election was going to be a report-card on the PAP. Some political observers have commented that this is even more so than in Hougang, a Worker’s Party stronghold. And although the WP’s party candidate Lee Li Lian has recently admitted that the by-election would also be a barometer of the WP’s record, it seems that more questions are still being asked about the PAP rather than the WP.
This is natural. Being the incumbent, the PAP has much to prove after a water-shed election that saw an entire GRC falling for the first time to the opposition. It is also natural and obvious that this election, like all elections, would be a barometer of a ruling party’s record.
However, as even the leader of the WP Low Thia Kiang has admitted, time needs to be given to PAP to see whether it can solve the problems of Singaporeans, and to see the effects of its policy changes. Thus, contrary to the battle-cry of the opposition, I believe that this by-election is not so much a report-card on the PAP, but rather on the WP.
When one draws up a report card for a political party, nothing does better as a guide than their own campaign promises. The most striking thing about the WP’s campaign in GE 2011 was its overarching rhetoric of a “First World Parliament”.
It is also arguable that it was this promise, and its alluring pitch of a ‘co-driver’ elected to ‘slap’ the ruling party when it veers off-course, the seductive promise of check-and-balance, and the ideological insistence that an opposition in Singapore was necessary, that toppled George Yeo’s team in Aljunied.
But has it delivered on its promise working towards of a First World Parliament? Has it been the effective check-and-balance it promised the voters it would be? Has the co-driver performed?
The strangest thing that struck me during the GE campaign of 2011 was the WP’s strident rhetoric that electing it to Parliament would foster more debate, and thus help Singapore progress towards a ‘First World Parliament’.
No motions by WP
What was strange and extremely disturbing to me was that for a party that values debate so highly, in the 21 months that I served as Nominated Member of Parliament, the WP was curiously passive on the debating front. One has to understand that in Parliament, asking parliamentary questions is de riguer and does little to contribute to ‘debate’.
Any parliamentarian who has a burning issue to debate must surely know that the best and only way to force such a debate is to file a full motion, which compels the whole of parliament to put aside all other business and really debate the issue, concluding with a vote by all present Parliamentarians.
In the 21 months that I was NMP the WP filed precisely ZERO motions.
They did not even file any adjournment motions that would have given them a chance to speak at length, rather than just ask a question. In the first 21 months since GE 2011, the Workers Party has filed merely one adjournment motion (by NCMP Yee Jenn Jong), and another by Sylvia Lim just to withdraw it again.
In contrast, my former parliamentary colleague Viswa Sadasivan filed a full motion during his very first parliamentary sitting, which not only made Cabinet Ministers rise to rebut him, but even caused then Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew to speak in Parliament for the first time in years, and in the process teaching a nation the meaning of the word `hifalutin’.
The question then to ask of the WP is then this: For a party that campaigned on the promise of more debate as part of their march towards a ‘First World Parliament’, whither the debate? Surely if you have an alternate vision for Singapore, a vision burning to be articulated in full, asking questions would not suffice? Surely if even a Nominated Member of Parliament can force the whole of government, including its most senior statesman, to focus their attention on a ‘hifalutin’ issue and engage in robust debate, then a party with six elected members of Parliament, two NCMPs , and an alternate vision for Singapore can do so much more?
The oft-heard refrain that because the WP has no chance of winning a debate there is no point in starting one, is a massive cop-out. The House in any Westminster Parliament is not only a legislative chamber, but also a debating chamber. Not being able to win a debate, does not mean an issue is not worth debating, especially if one is a politician elected on a promise of more debate.
This is not about politicking as Low Thia Kiang has recently said. This is not about being an irrational or unreasonable opposition. This is about keeping one’s election promise – if one sells the electorate a vision, and if they elected one on this vision, then one had better live up to it.
The Worker’s Party thus has far bigger questions to answer than the PAP. When the Prime Minister asked where its policy alternatives were, the answer is obvious: they lay hidden in the depths of its Manifesto. The more crucial question is why a party which campaigned forcefully for more debate and a ‘First World Parliament’ has allowed these alternative policies to remain there, rather than forcing a fundamental rethink from the government by requiring them to stoutly defend its policies in the House.
At the end of the day, the Worker’s Party did not promise to run Singapore’s town councils better. The Worker’s Party did not even promise to solve bread-and-butter issues that Singaporeans face . Instead, the Worker’s Party promised that it would be a check-and-balance, that it would be a co-driver, and that more debate would lead Singapore to a ‘First World Parliament’. It is this, this that the voters of Punggol East, and perhaps Singaporeans at large, must ultimately judge them.
If it hasn’t even delivered the one thing it promised, then the question voters need to ask is not the one WP is asking them - whether Singapore needs another PAP MP. Rather, the right question would be the exact opposite: whether Singapore needs another Worker’s Party MP, or indeed any at all.
Calvin Cheng, 37, was a Nominated Member of Parliament from July 2009 to May 2011. -
sunflower:
This is really farnee…one wrote so vehemently to support one side but in the end voted for the OTHER party. Haha…I guess ultimately, we are all rational people who will vote for the BEST candidate (according to our own sets of criteria as to what is best), and not vote for whatever party blindly.[/quote]He may not think it is funny because he's one serious and careful voter, based on his post (in red) below.
Heck, I voted opposition last time.3Boys:
[quote=\"pirate\"]
I am not firmly in the opposition camp. Heck, I voted PAP the last time. ...3Boys:
I'm not a gambler, if one makes a decision, I can only hope one makes an informed one, not roll the dice and hope for the best.concern2:
Yes, one can never be certain of the future, and that is the beauty and possibly scary thing about life and the decisions one make. 10 years ago, I did not even know I would discuss politics the way I do today. Perhaps one day, or it is already starting to happen, opposition supporters will blame incumbent supporters, perhaps incumbent supporters will blame opposition supporters, So become communist better? Then no one gets to vote better? -
chenwj:
From Wikipediaanyone read this convincing piece? btw, who's calvin cheng? NMP? what did he raise in parliament b4?
http://sg.news.yahoo.com/blogs/singaporescene/another-workers-party-mp-055050532.html
Calvin Cheng, 37, was a Nominated Member of Parliament from July 2009 to May 2011.
NMPs are supposed to be non-partisan but after it had been announced on 7 July 2009 that Calvin Cheng would be one of the nine people nominated to be NMPs it was disclosed by Today newspaper that he was a member of Young PAP, the youth wing of the People's Action Party.[56] The following day, Cheng wrote to the newspaper stating that he had formally resigned from Young PAP on 8 July, and that in any case he had been an inactive member, having never collected his membership card or attended any PAP branch activities.[57] This led to criticism that his attitude had been \"cavalier\" and \"whimsical\",[58] and that his remarks had raised doubts about the Young PAP's credibility.[59] The Constitution does not explicitly bar NMPs from being members of political parties,[60] and Gerard Ee was also a PAP member when he was an NMP. He did not feel he had to resign, as since he was not subject to the party whip he would not be prevented from expressing independent views in Parliament.[61] Despite these initial criticisms, The Straits Times reported that Cheng \"left the strongest impression on many elected Members of Parliament\", following speeches he made during his maiden budget debate in Parliament in 2010.[62] In his final speech during Budget 2011 before Parliament was dissolved for the general election that year, Cheng argued for the Government to educate the Internet generation instead of regulating the Internet to deal with threats such as \"misinformation and disinformation\", calling it \"pointless\". He went on to say that the Internet might be a \"wild card\" during the general election.[63] Subsequently, the Internet was indeed regarded as having played a crucial role in the election.[64] -
another new guy from wp after terrence tan
good speaker
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pyx3CTVDQ8k][/youtube]
finally LLL
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2GZucT4eN30][/youtube] -
This Dennis Tan is hilarious:
\"When the Bus Services Enhancement Fund was introduced under the LTA Amendment Bill last year, the Workers' Party MPs were present at the debate and spoke on the Bill. When the vote had to be taken on the Bill, there were not enough MPs in Parliament! It was six something I remember, I was there in the public gallery. There were only 21 MPs present out of 87! Now, the Deputy Speaker, because the Speaker don't know go where, chairing the session had to postpone the vote to the next day to pass the Bill. Such an important Bill when the government was going to spend $1.1 billion of your money on buses, and where are the PAP MPs? Now, what is the point of voting for one more PAP MP? Will he make a difference?\"
:rotflmao:
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login