Discord in the WP: yet another resignation
-
Your PAP MP must be very, very disappointed that you think of him or her that way.Originally posted by Hogzilla:Ya lor. Now, we elect our MPs is not because of their calibre, but we are choosing who is of the lesser evil.
Really.
-
Har, izzit?Originally posted by charlize:Your PAP MP must be very, very disappointed that you think of him or her that way.
Really.
Then I must learn how MM Lee apologize liao lor.
I'm sorry that anyone felt disappointed with this statement.
I'm sorry that this fact caused disturbance to any MPs. -
Not exactly true ... being a MP or Minister is just a job, 9am to 5pm.Originally posted by the Bear:i would say that once you are a representative of something like a political party, you CEASE to be able to speak in a personal capacity in a public forum...
what any leader of any party says, will become representative of the party...
they have not changed their view on free press.. they have made things so that the party and each member of the party becomes responsible for the party...
irreparable damage can be made to the party if their own leaders do not toe the line of the party and expect those further down to toe the line...
Outside the 'working hours' everyone is under the vanilla nonchalant sky of normality and function to express your personality and coherency
Lots of people failed to realise that ... except the Judge the Mayor of London Ken Livingstone had to thank for for pointing this out to him -
Originally posted by oxford mushroom:
Should it be odd that you should start two threads about the events in the Workers' Party ?
Such a move shows that the WP will never be able to establish a credible government when all it can attract are prima donnas who will not be subject to authority or discipline. Having had a free vote, a basic instrument to settle disputes in democratic societies, and having lost it; they refuse to accept the decision of the majority. Instead, they choose to cut and run.
Such ex-leaders of the WP set a bad example for Singaporeans. There will always be disagreements on policies in civil society. It is a mark of a mature democracy that the majority decision should prevail following a fair vote. Unless these persons are alleging that the vote in their own party was rigged in some way, their refusal to accept the majority decision only serves to demonstrate that they are incapable of working as a team. With leaders like these in the WP, there is snowballÂ’s chance in Hell that they can unite the people and make crucial policy decisions for the nation.
The derogatory intent displayed clearly confirm the pettiness of a supposedly well educated person, with the retarded political attitude of one who is prepared to prostitute one's principles.
Political Parties are formed by persons with shared political beliefs, principles and goals.
Disagreement of party policies and one's principles - where does one draw the line ?
Is it not obvious that when the directions of the Party and its members are no longer identical, is it not time to leave ?
Surely one with a PhD education can understand a simple matter concerning "PRINCIPLES" ?
Or has the years of superior education dulls one's mind to the understanding of such basic human tenet, and prefer to be a hippocrate ?
Is there any hope for the political development for Singaporeans and for Singapore, when the best educated will prefer to perpetuate the retarded monopolistic political status quo that exist for the personal benefit of a few ?
You represent the ultimate pathetic future for Singapore. -
Haha..Sylvia Lim and other WP leaders must be worried that WP officials will learn from Atobe's flaming skills. That will be the quickest way to discredit their party completely.
Hmm...I admit Sylvia Lim is smarter than I had thought. The ruling party can relax if the Opposition is filled with the likes of Atobe and CSJ, but one that makes wise, logical decisions is worth watching. -
Dear All,
I cannot speak on behalf of Tilik but this is what I feel.
There will always be diverse views among people in an organization. If everybody agrees 100% with each other everytime in a political party, that would be a total disaster! Not even communist parties around the world could achieve that level of "norming".
There will be compromises made here and there but I think for any people who are in opposition or alternative politics, they must have their own mind and principles. The crux of the matter is, where are the baselines?
Most of the time, we could compromise and come to a consensus and understanding. But for anybody with any sense of ideology and principles, when their baselines are being compromised, normally it would mean that there would be either vigorously conflicts within the party or that those who cannot agree on compromising their own principles, will leave the party.
There is one Chinese saying, dao bu tong, bu xiang wei mou, meaning if your path is no long the same, you will not walk/work together. Simple as that.
From this perspective, I do not think there is any right or wrong with regards to Tilik's resignation. At least he is truthful to himself, his own belief.
Goh Meng Seng -
Flaming ? Can you differentiate the fire from the kitchen and that of a burning house ?Originally posted by oxford mushroom:Haha..Sylvia Lim and other WP leaders must be worried that WP officials will learn from Atobe's flaming skills. That will be the quickest way to discredit their party completely.
Hmm...I admit Sylvia Lim is smarter than I had thought. The ruling party can relax if the Opposition is filled with the likes of Atobe and CSJ, but one that makes wise, logical decisions is worth watching.
How can we expect anything from the retarded view of one immersed in his own self-blown glory ?
Even the word 'retard' will do injustice when it is used to associate you to those who have a minimal level of intelligence despite their unfortunate handicap at birth.
My post had pre-empted the above post from Goh Meng Seng, and I doubt if you can understand the true meaning of "PERSONAL PRINCIPLES" to guide our conduct, our value system, our judgment, our relationship with others.
Goh Meng Seng had descibed the honorable reason for leaving the WP, and can we even expect you to understand "HONOR" as well ? -
So it has taken 6 years for leaders in the WP, including a candidate at the last Election, to discover they actually have fundamental political differences with their own party
How can the WP expect Singaporeans to know what they stand for when their own leaders are in a state of confusion and disarray?
-
Leaving is never a gd solution to me... Unless it can solve the existing problem. It is irresponsible to take responsibilities by leaving... Why is there honour when u leave a problem unsolved??
-
To: WP CEC, Ms Sylvia Lim and Low Tia Khiang,
Not to worry about the resignations by the two members. This kind of occurrences could happen.
If it is their personal choice to leave and your stand is understood just by all means carry on.
Newspaper reports will feature you as lacking in leadership or split but take it with a pinch of salt.
Learn from this lesson and try to be open and objective in assembling the best team.
If you could focus on your foregoing talent-grooming undertaking, the rest of the problems are easy to solve. -
Having differences is gd, why? Have u ever done proj before? In a project, even if ur proj. mates are your closes of friends, u cannot garauntee there is no arguements or conflicts rite? Conflict itself is gd as it helps brainstorming and generating of new ideas..........Originally posted by oxford mushroom:So it has taken 6 years for leaders in the WP, including a candidate at the last Election, to discover they actually have fundamental political differences with their own party
How can the WP expect Singaporeans to know what they stand for when their own leaders are in a state of confusion and disarray?
Unlike MIW ppls, young or old also the same......... they gotta eat all the hum our Prime "hum" minister serves to them, as any conflict against his "hum" policies will make them lose the chance of being the Prima Dona of the MIW syndicate.
For that reason, we have to "enjoy" their un-palatable, harsh, uncaring and elitist "hum dishes" they force upon us. -
Originally posted by oxford mushroom:
SIX Years is a relatively long time for a relationship, and a very short time for one to understand if one could get on forever.
So it has taken 6 years for leaders in the WP, including a candidate at the last Election, to discover they actually have fundamental political differences with their own party
How can the WP expect Singaporeans to know what they stand for when their own leaders are in a state of confusion and disarray?
It was "HONESTY" of Goh and Chia to realise that their "PERSONAL PRINCIPLES" is more important, as it reflects their "PERSONAL INTEGRITY", then to succumb to Party Rules which they cannot accept.
Can we expect you to understand such issues when you have shown yourself to be hollow of such values - having claimed in one of your earliers posts that while you do not accept the Ruling Party, you can still support their position ?
You have so far revealed yourself to be nothing more then the proverbial "empty vessel making the most noise" - with all your pompous announcement of your educational qualification, immodestly boast of your social position, and absurd logic that contradict yourself.
What can we expect from a person with a swollen head, who can hardly differentiate one end of the body from the other, while having your head pathetically stuck in the butt-hole ? -
Can't be bothered. One by one, left WP. So sad. haiz.
-
When a problem is based on a "matter of PRINCIPLES" in which both parties cannot compromise on their fixxed position - can matters be ressolved ?Originally posted by sunny6110:Leaving is never a gd solution to me... Unless it can solve the existing problem. It is irresponsible to take responsibilities by leaving... Why is there honour when u leave a problem unsolved??
What other directions will you suggest ?
Continue the relationship as "hypocrite" ?
Is it not more HONORABLE to be 'HONEST to one's PRINCIPLES' and separate oneself from the situation that has caused such contradiction ?
Nothing was ever mentioned by Goh and Chia that they will not support WP and its Leadership in the short or long term future.
Who can foretell that this separation may allow everyone to view the situation from a new perspective, and perhaps reconcilliation can occur in the future ? -
In Politics , Hypocrits are acceptable at least this is what is about the "grown-up" world.
Honor, Self_proclaimed Ideals are nothing compared to organised efforts to protect the interests of the people and the party "fighting" using their own resources on the line against many Odds for many decades.
-
Originally posted by NotFromVenus:
If one is prepared to be a Hipocrite - one also had to be better prepared to be called a 'FRAUD'.
In Politics , Hypocrits are acceptable at least this is what is about the "grown-up" world.
Honor, Self_proclaimed Ideals are nothing compared to organised efforts to protect the interests of the people and the party "fighting" using their own resources on the line against many Odds for many decades.
It is from ideals that one faces the future.
With Principles to guide one's values - ideals are formed.
Ideals may change and take on new forms, as one's values change, but do PRINCIPLES change ?
Despite the odds stacked against him - from the Colonial Government and skeptics from his own supporters - Mahatma Ghandi never wavered from his Principle of Peaceful Protest, nor his Principles on Racial-Religious Harmony, nor his Principles for an Independent India based on peaceful co-existence between diverse peoples with different religions.
Did Deng Xiao Peng wavered from his views of Communism while moving China forward with his pragmatic position that there is no difference between the White or Black Cat, as long as it catches the mouse ? -
Originally posted by Atobe:
Which is why once you represent a Political Party , any public representation needs to be presented after careful consultation whether the Party agrees to present to the public in the manner in which it needs to be presented.
If one is prepared to be a Hipocrite - one also had to be better prepared to be called a 'FRAUD' .
It is from ideals that one faces the future.
With Principles to guide one's values - ideals are formed.
Ideals may change and take on new forms, as one's values change, but do PRINCIPLES change ?
Despite the odds stacked against him - from the Colonial Government and skeptics from his own supporters - Mahatma Ghandi never wavered from his Principle of Peaceful Protest, nor his Principles on Racial-Religious Harmony, nor his Principles for an Independent India based on peaceful co-existence between diverse peoples with different religions.
Did Deng Xiao Peng wavered from his views of Communism while moving China forward with his pragmatic position that there is no difference between the White or Black Cat, as long as it catches the mouse ?
Any Gung-Ho efforts may lead to representation by our Heroic yet futile attempts as shown by the examples and antics of our SDP leaders.
Principles are next to nothing when you really want to practically come into power to address the needs of the people. When you do not have the power to influence change, it is all talk and no support will be given for change.
It is already a fact that Hypocrasy is into today's politics when you have to win over support from people of the same kind. -
Conformity is the word. Guess that's news to some people here who think that only ruling party members conform to the party whip
-
Originally posted by NotFromVenus:
Are we addressing the subject at different tangent ?
Which is why once you represent a Political Party , any public representation needs to be presented after careful consultation whether the Party agrees to present to the public in the manner in which it needs to be presented.
Any Gung-Ho efforts may lead to representation by our Heroic yet futile attempts as shown by the examples and antics of our SDP leaders.
Principles are next to nothing when you really want to practically come into power to address the needs of the people. When you do not have the power to influence change, it is all talk and no support will be given for change.
It is already a fact that Hypocrasy is into today's politics when you have to win over support from people of the same kind.
Certainly I can appreciate your position that one has to conform to the Political Party that one helped to build.
However, should we be held to ransom when the Party that "one has carefully bred" can decide to "have a will of its own" that differ from one's own principles ?
The fact remains Goh and Chia have both decided not to be the "Gung-Ho" characters - whom you have described from the SDP - and have decided to disassociate themselves from the changed philosophies of the WP that have diverged from their personal principles.
Is there anything to prevent Goh and Chia from serving Singaporeans in other forms or organisations ?
With regards to the "gung-ho antics" of the SDP Leaders - it is a matter of form and political play to shake up the status quo, in the face of the stubborn monopolistic grip on the local politics by the POWER OF ONE.
The effectiveness and consequences can only be felt over time, as the aftershocks may not reveal its full impact in the short term.
Looking at the series of small pictures, any positive progress in political changes made by the POWER OF ONE, can probably be attributed to the negative push by the SDP to put the spotlight on the dark sides of the POWER OF ONE.
When there is no push, the status quo will alway remain. -
How ? in the manner of this political strategy is going to win the influence of change rather than being part of the decision making power?
Every WTO Meeting we have riots, protests and marches which brings out every wants which are practical or impractical wants by those who do not wish to contribute yet asks for fundings and exaggerated needs which practically this economic world cannot possibly adjust to.
Strategy is needed to form greater influence and power and appeal to greater attraction to people who wants to contribute to the organisation, and not be misrepresented by commando antics. -
Originally posted by NotFromVenus:
With this response, you are introducing a new element, and mixing two completely divergent issues into this discussion - WTO matters versus Singapore issues.
How ? in the manner of this political strategy is going to win the influence of change rather than being part of the decision making power?
Every WTO Meeting we have riots, protests and marches which brings out every wants which are practical or impractical wants by those who do not wish to contribute yet asks for fundings and exaggerated needs which practically this economic world cannot possibly adjust to.
Strategy is needed to form greater influence and power and appeal to greater attraction to people who wants to contribute to the organisation, and not be misrepresented by commando antics.
These are different subject matters and require different strategies.
For the immediate issues concerning Singapore, when one is no longer seen to be credible due to a willingness to compromise on Principles, can one continue to be effective when seen as a 'FRAUD' ?
The postings by Goh and Chia over the internet can hardly be seen as any attempts at commando antics - as the internet postings are their personal and honest opinions on issues raised in a "localised internet setting" that would have gone largely unnoticed.
Can conformity produce great minds ?
Compared to the early days of Singapore history, with a smaller population under Colonial Rule, we have seen great names of Singaporean philantrophists, entrepreneurs, community leaders that spread their charity across South-east Asia and into Mainland China.
Is it any surprise that in this 21st Century, with a population of 4.5 MILLION and after more then 45 years of independence that has brought progress, 'COMFORMITY' imposed by the Ruling Party on Singaporeans has made it harder to find talented Singaporeans with great minds ?