The Politics of Fear in Singapore
-
Originally posted by jojobeach:
No Atobe.. he's just a civil servant.
I would have loved to agree with you, but unfortunately - if the Bear is a Civil Servant, he has not shown his capacity to be 'civil', nor is he a 'subservient servant' towards fellow Singaporean.If he is Civil Servant, he has not been 'civil' in calling CSJ a whore seeking whoring attention.
Neither could he be a 'servant' when he behave like a prostitute selling his conscience to cut a fellow Singaporean - when CSJ had done no more but to dare to expose the evil that has been done towards Singaporeans.
Like a prostitute who understand how to attract attention to the whorish ways - the Bear is no better than being the ‘Drama Queen’ in this Speaker's Corner, seeking the spotlight with his own audacious shock and awe methods in abusing CSJ.
No matter how much one believes that CSJ has done damage to himself or to politics in Singapore - it does not do justice in calling CSJ a whore.
-
Originally posted by Atobe:
I would have loved to agree with you, but unfortunately - if the Bear is a Civil Servant, he has not shown his capacity to be 'civil', nor is he a 'subservient servant' towards fellow Singaporean.If he is Civil Servant, he has not been 'civil' in calling CSJ a whore seeking whoring attention.
Neither could he be a 'servant' when he behave like a prostitute selling his conscience to cut a fellow Singaporean - when CSJ had done no more but to dare to expose the evil that has been done towards Singaporeans.
Like a prostitute who understand how to attract attention to the whorish ways - the Bear is no better than being the ‘Drama Queen’ in this Speaker's Corner, seeking the spotlight with his own audacious shock and awe methods in abusing CSJ.
No matter how much one believes that CSJ has done damage to himself or to politics in Singapore - it does not do justice in calling CSJ a whore.
I agree that Ah Bear shouldn't be using such insult, as it is obviously Slander. And by doing so .. he discredits himself.
CSJ .. in my personal opinion is a brave man.. willing to be a sacrificial lamb. A martyr no doubt.. but obviously not a very good politician.
Ah Bear.. on the one hand is receiving government salary.. but on the other .. hates his own employer... a confused soul perhaps.
But as long as CSJ continues his reckless ways... he becomes a liability as an opposition leader .
Perhaps.. it would be better for CSJ to position himself as the fighter/warrior , and put someone else who is more politically savvy to front the SDP.
But is he willing to give up the leadership role to ensure success for SDP ?
-
Originally posted by jojobeach:
I agree that Ah Bear shouldn't be using such insult, as it is obviously Slander.
CSJ .. in my personal opinion is a brave man.. willing to be a sacrificial lamb. A martyr no doubt.. but obviously not a very good politician.
Ah Bear.. on the one hand is receiving government salary.. but on the other .. hates his own employer... a confused soul perhaps.
But as long as CSJ continues his reckless ways... he becomes a liability to many of us who wants to see an opposition capable of taking on the Pappy group. Perhaps that is what frustrates him.
A frustrated person is an impotent person.
It reveals itself in its worst possible ways by degrading CSJ further, when CSJ has already been grinded into the ground by the PAP machinery.
What is recklessness ?
It is a matter of one's judgment guided by personal values in a set of circumstances, and in which different persons will give different judgment.
In India, was it reckless for Ghandi to even begin the national movement to gain independence for India ? If Ghandi did not perform his act of seeming recklessness - what would have been the outcome for India ?
Given the intransigent attitude of the White supremacists in South Africa, was it reckless for Nelson Mandela to even attempt to break down the walls of apartheid ? Could the apartheid system have been broken without the struggles from Mandela and his generation of activists ?
Given the existing untenable position in one's life that has become an "accepted routine", should the action to break this routine be considered reckless ?
If one do not break the vicious cycle of the routine, will progress ever be made ?
Given the state of politics in Singapore, how should one break the "unconstitutional walls" that the PAP meticulously and inocuously build into the routine life of ordinary Singaporeans - to prevent any Singaporean from legitimately exercising the constitutional rights to challenge the PAP's position ? -
Originally posted by Atobe:
A frustrated person is an impotent person.
It reveals itself in its worst possible ways by degrading CSJ further, when CSJ has already been grinded into the ground by the PAP machinery.
What is recklessness ?
It is a matter of one's judgment guided by personal values in a set of circumstances, and in which different persons will give different judgment.
In India, was it reckless for Ghandi to even begin the national movement to gain independence for India ? If Ghandi did not perform his act of seeming recklessness - what would have been the outcome for India ?
Given the intransigent attitude of the White supremacists in South Africa, was it reckless for Nelson Mandela to even attempt to break down the walls of apartheid ? Could the apartheid system have been broken without the struggles from Mandela and his generation of activists ?
Given the existing untenable position in one's life that has become an "accepted routine", should the action to break this routine be considered reckless ?
If one do not break the vicious cycle of the routine, will progress ever be made ?
Given the state of politics in Singapore, how should one break the "unconstitutional walls" that the PAP meticulously and inocuously build into the routine life of ordinary Singaporeans - to prevent any Singaporean from legitimately exercising the constitutional rights to challenge the PAP's position ?This is an interesting article I came across, found on a Harvard Law Weblog.
Please click Suggestions for Opposition Parties.
I don't think the "unconstitutional wall" is impossible to penetrate. The Worker Party has proven it achievable.
-
Teddy Bear is just an idiot that cannot even tell the severity difference between H1N1 and HIV
-
Without people like Dr Chee Soon Juan and JBJ, the world would not have known the dirty deeds of the cursed despot with a zombie wife and why he is so cursed.
-
Originally posted by jojobeach:
This is an interesting article I came across, found on a Harvard Law Weblog.
Please click Suggestions for Opposition Parties.
I don't think the "unconstitutional wall" is impossible to penetrate. The Worker Party has proven it achievable.
The Workers Party penetrated the "unconstitutional wall" ?I think they got themselves "walled in" after getting in.
Chiam See Tong and Low Thia Kiang have become window dressings in the House built by the PAP and conveniently fit the PAP propaganda that Parliamentary democracy exist in Singapore.
Both have become ineffective players in a football match played according to the set of rules arranged by the PAP.
-
Threats that I've been receiving.
Major-General Sir MoeE.Ron
Join date April 2009
First mail 18 or 19 June 2009
In way I know what you are speaking of in your signature.
for years I have heard "you are crazy!! you are Crazy!!"
Yet when I try to draw disabliity,I am told I am the model of sanity!!
Thus,I suffer the stigma of metal illness without the" benifits" such as they are.
I know the reality of remote viewing. I also know to what ends the WEST will go to deny the source of their information.
If you have told anything that that touches your conscience,than repent.
They can kill your body,Brother,but they can not touch your soul.
Second mail
Michael:
I do not know if my last message reached you. I thank in a small way I understand your signature line.
I certainly know the reality of Remote Viewing,and I pity you if you are such a viewer.
When you serve evil,it requires the price of evil.
If you know the information you have provided resulted in the loss of inocent life,repent.
If you feel you have done the right thing,wait on the judgment of GOD.
I also wait.
Third mail
you got it hossfly.they say those canes really hurt.
perhaps you will see.i
Speedguide 20 June 2009
hammer
Post 0
Join date: June 2009
This is the message that was sent:
***************
Yo,Christian Devil,Have you stalked anymore recently?
We see you!
***************
Open Falcon
Username Jabreel
Join date 20 June 2009
Post 0
Title: Oh Michael...I see you
Look out the window pervert,your redemption draweth nigh!
Stop Stalking!This Bakmi goreng looks yummy
-
Originally posted by Atobe:
The Workers Party penetrated the "unconstitutional wall" ?I think they got themselves "walled in" after getting in.
Chiam See Tong and Low Thia Kiang have become window dressings in the House built by the PAP and conveniently fit the PAP propaganda that Parliamentary democracy exist in Singapore.
Both have become ineffective players in a football match played according to the set of rules arranged by the PAP.
At least WP got one foot inside the door.
Looking at the SDP website.. it's hard to think it as a "sturdy" political party.
It reads.. they "object" to eliminating authoritarianism, building a economically stable and progressive nation.....etc etc.
For SDP to become a party people can respect and put their hopes into..they really need to shore up their public image.
-
TO All:
u need to be a virgin to do accurate remote viewing
-
Originally posted by jojobeach:
At least WP got one foot inside the door.
Looking at the SDP website.. it's hard to think it as a "sturdy" political party.
It reads.. they "object" to eliminating authoritarianism, building a economically stable and progressive nation.....etc etc.
For SDP to become a party people can respect and put their hopes into..they really need to shore up their public image.
Yes, of course LTK and CST - have each got one foot into the door.What else could they do with their individual foot inside the door ?
They could not even wriggle their toes, let alone making any attempt to present their own plans at show casing their manicured nails.
Did they use the opportunity in Parliament to confront the failed PAP policies in Parliament in the same manner as JBJ had vigorously hold the PAP to account ?
There was not even a squeak to the loss of the US$100 Billion lost by GIC and Temasek, nor was there a serious debate with Finance Minister Tharman's excuses given in defense of the loss.
Respect is given for the results that can be seen to be achieved, and even as much as the PAP will not respond immediately to the demands and demonstrations from CSJ and the SDP - so as not to give any credit to CSJ or the SDP, there are already small steps being made by the PAP to respond to the issues that CSJ and SDP has placed the spotlight on to embarrass the PAP.
The PAP has been forced to confront the issues that CSJ and the SDP has raised and cannot possibly avoid.
With the activist approach to change the set of rules that the PAP insist in having a firm grip at playing political football, the PAP has to approach each economic and social policies carefully.
CSJ will play a better role outside of Parliament then inside, as the PAP dominated parliament will ignore even having a serious debate on any issues raised by the Members of Parliament from the alternative parties.
With a Speaker of Parliament that is partisan by deferring to his own party leaders, and who cannot even stay neutral to moderate parliamentary debate, how effective can the MPs from the alternative parties be in Parliament.
When JBJ was in Parliament, every debate that he had vigorously pursued in Parliament - had ended up in Parliamentary persecution for abuse of privilege, and enquiries were formed by Parliamentary Committees consisting largely of MPs from the PAP that naturally execute the dictates of the PAP executives.
It was the PAP style of parliamentary gangsterism in its worst form, when the milder acts of parliamentary gangsterism included PAP MPs booing and jeering JBJ efforts at having serious debate.