Minister who supported Durai's wrongful acts does not own up
-
Bumpz. I would love to see a rebuttal to some of the more recent points, if there is anyone game enough to do so...
Our Ministers only care to portray themselves in a good light... switching camps at every opportunity. -
="geminii"][quote="HAPPY"][quote="noelofarc"]dear gemini sweathard
tell you
funny hdb rulings
my kaki hdb @ jalan besar
upstair jumbuan sewerage giant pipe got stucked
so they must cut downstair pipe to mend it
guess what?
hdb demand downstair owner to pay 1/2 the bill when hdb contractors finished repairing the pipe
which was stucked by the upstair fellow
i remembered onced the upgrading was in my block
almost finished
the hdb comes around demand that i pay EXTRAS for providing aluminium covers for the upstair residents to walk under the shade and never get wet
i told hdb
upstairs neighbour got caught in the rain
or scroned by the hotsun
also my problemo mey?
i told them my castle in front
you dun placed the aluminums awnings
i liked sunshine
i ain't paying $1 extras...
naibei
as though i am responsible for all my neighbours
and i ain't even elected as mayor for my block as wellLast 2 to 3 years ago, I have change all the tiolet pipe to pvc.
And the hdb contractor told me pipe that is straight from top to bottom, dont need to pay.
Pipe that turn here and there (L shape or U shape or whatever), we have to pay.where got such logic as to pay for neighbours right?
Hotel New World collapsed due to poor design, failures to check structural calculations, twisted foundation piles (non-alignments of pile caps to piles) and lack of proper oversight by BCD.
if neighbour constipated, is that our problem too?
HDB constructed flats with louya materials or louya workmanship
they should be responsible to have it rectified.
if the whole block of flat collapse, who is responsible?
acts of GOD or HDB or resident??
That was history.
However, the same problem was repeated in Nicol Highway collapse where the structural calculations were not submitted to BCD for prior checking and approval with issuing of permit to commence work obtained upon fulfilling relevant critical structural requirements spelt out in regulations.
When questioned by me during a seminar in 2006, Head of BCD was only able to give the excuse the in the case of Nicol Highway collapse, the structural checking was done by an internal BCD sub-team.
Is this excuse acceptable?
Now with HDB, was there an internal BCD sub-team which goes through structural calculations to ensure compliance with relevant designs for safety purposes. Were the standards maintained at these BCD sub-teams.
If not how can HDB claim that its ceiling slabs or windows were properly designed complying with minimum of requirements for structural safety purposes as spelt out by the regulations governing structural strengths and integrity relating to columns and structures.
Spalling concrete is only a superficial aspect of structural strengths and integrity and we have relevant regulations prescribing requirements and standards to be met. Why must minister for ND excuse HDB for any non-compliance by legalistic wrangling of the general laws and regulations relating to building and structural safety? -
Haha...dare to comment when you have no clue about what you are talking aboutOriginally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:Wow, OM is getting pwned bad, his defamation angle just isn't catching on, and the lack of knowledge of the law is getting exposed.
Looks like it's going to be another case of not-doing-your-homework before he posted.
It's better to be silent and be thought a fool than open your big mouth and remove all doubts 
Atobe is trying hard to avoid the issue. As I said, you can accuse the government of negligence, but not complicity in Durai's crimes. The former is fair comment, the latter is DEFAMATION.
Like CSJ, Atobe and Robert have not been able to show proof that the government was aware of Durai's misdeeds. Yet their allegations are designed to cast aspersions on the integrity of a minister...every court in the land will agree there's a prima facie case of defamation. So what's their defence? If Atobe has something up his sleeve, why did not run to the assistance of CSJ, who was found guilty of defamation....yet again.... -
Originally posted by Atobe:
The inaction was based on an error of judgment on the part of the ministers who mistakenly placed their faith in the integrity of Durai and more importantly, in the yearly audit reports by a well-respected auditing firm. Given that the NKF financial irregularities were not picked by by the auditors, experts in their field; I fail to see how you can make a case of complicity on the grounds of reckless behaviour.
[bIs the inaction of the two ministers not already obvious, and their refusal to act not amounting to their being liable for their negligence in their Public Duties to prevent a Crime from being committed ?[/b]
It is well accepted that there is a culpability requirement for accomplice liability. To make a case that an act of recklessness is so criminally repugnant that it suffices as the mens rea for accomplice liability requires an exceptional degree of irresponsibility, which you nor CSJ nor his lawyers have been able to prove.
Thank your lucky stars that the ministers aren't particularly interested in takeing losers like you to court. -
Originally posted by oxford mushroom:
''Every court in the land'' ? ''Whose court'' in whose land ?
Haha...dare to comment when you have no clue about what you are talking about It's better to be silent and be thought a fool than open your big mouth and remove all doubts
Atobe is trying hard to avoid the issue. As I said, you can accuse the government of negligence, but not complicity in Durai's crimes. The former is fair comment, the latter is DEFAMATION.
Like CSJ, Atobe and Robert have not been able to show proof that the government was aware of Durai's misdeeds. Yet their allegations are designed to cast aspersions on the integrity of a minister...every court in the land will agree there's a prima facie case of defamation. So what's their defence?
I am still waiting....waiting...waiting....
Is the Judiciary in Singapore qualified to pass judgment on cases that involved the Executive Branch - especially on political issues that concern the MIW ?
Every courts in the First World is already amazed at the past ''politically tainted decisions'' made by the Singapore Courts towards the Political Opponents in blatant bias support to the position of those MIW.
Only you and your ''Masters in White'' will hide behind a 'Closed System' to support your own position, and threaten legitimate voices.
Will you or your MIW even dare to put this matter - AND all other past judgment decisions - to the ''litmus test of legitimacy'' through the International Court of Justice as an arbiter ?
Hopelessly, you are no closer to being looked at as a candidate to be recruited into the MIW Team; and your current stand is a poor and fraudulent imitation of those in the MIW Leadership.
Is your personal opinionated view of defamation of any substance ?
It seems clear that either you have no wish to engage on factual issues as transpired publicly, or you simply have no capacity to appreciate legal issues but prefer to stand on mere ''theartricks'' simply to recover your hopeless positions on many issues that have found yourself being debunked repeatedly.
The Ministers' lack of positive actions - even in the face of concerns voiced by their own backbenchers - have already exposed themselves into a position of ''reckless negligence'' to the duties of their Public Office.
The fact that they prefer NOT to investigate but will even DEFEND the position of NKF and its Management - inspite of the many Voice of Concerns from the Public and their own Backbenchers - will surely see them as being ''criminally complicit'' to the events that transpired despite the issues already being raised so publicly at a National Forum - Parliament itself.
Can you manage any understanding of the term - ''culpability'' ?
Do you even have the capacity to understand the terms - ''recklessness'' and ''criminal negligence'' ?
Try digesting the following :-
from ''Principles of Liability''
General requirements of culpability.
(1) Kinds of Culpability Defined.
(a) INTENT. A person acts with intent or intentionally when he acts with the objective or purpose to accomplish a result which constitutes a crime.
(b) KNOWLEDGE. A person knows or acts knowingly or with knowledge when:
(i) he is aware of a fact, facts, or circumstances or result described by a statute defining an offense; or
(ii) he has information which would lead a reasonable man in the same situation to believe that facts exist which facts are described by a statute defining an offense.
(c) RECKLESSNESS. A person is reckless or acts recklessly when he knows of and disregards a substantial risk that a wrongful act may occur and his disregard of such substantial risk is a gross deviation from conduct that a reasonable man would exercise in the same situation.
(d) CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE. A person is criminally negligent or acts with criminal negligence when he fails to be aware of a substantial risk that a wrongful act may occur and his failure to be aware of such substantial risk constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable man would exercise in the same situation.
(2) Substitutes for Criminal Negligence, Recklessness, and Knowledge. When a statute provides that criminal negligence suffices to establish an element of an offense, such element also is established if a person acts intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly. When recklessness suffices to establish an element, such element also is established if a person acts intentionally or knowingly. When acting knowingly suffices to establish an element, such element also is established if a person acts intentionally.
(3) Culpability as Determinant of Grade of Offense. When the grade or degree of an offense depends on whether the offense is committed intentionally, knowingly, recklessly, or with criminal negligence, its grade or degree shall be the lowest for which the determinative kind of culpability is established with respect to any material element of the offense.
(4) Requirement of Wilfulness Satisfied by Acting Knowingly. A requirement that an offense be committed wilfully is satisfied if a person acts knowingly with respect to the material elements of the offense, unless a purpose to impose further requirements plainly appears.
Why should you be waiting for facts, when the facts are already published ?
Are you denying that the Ministers have no knowledge of the issues raised by the Backbenchers in Parliament ?
The fact that the Miisters have been informed of these issues would have proven the culpabilities of the Ministers for their preferred inaction even with their newly gained ''KNOWLEDGE'' - based on the ambit in Point 1[b][ii] ?
On the second ground of culpability, the Ministers' outright dismissal despite the knowledge of the concerned issues raised is again confirmed by their acts of ''RECKLESSNESS'' as decribed in Point 1[c]; and this is mere academic if their action is not considered to be ''NEGLIGENCE'' as detailed in Point 1[d].
Instead of avoiding issues by indulging in polemics, you can gain some self-respect and credibility by debunking the above statements if you are so eager to prove me wrong.
You are certainly great at being a true twirp.
Keep growing your head bigger, and you will surely be a Mushroom. -
Originally posted by oxford mushroom:
Excuses... excuses..... excuses..... your post crossed the one that I have posted above.
The inaction was based on an error of judgment on the part of the ministers who mistakenly placed their faith in the integrity of Durai and more importantly, in the yearly audit reports by a well-respected auditing firm. Given that the NKF financial irregularities were not picked by by the auditors, experts in their field; I fail to see how you can make a case of complicity on the grounds of reckless behaviour.
It is well accepted that there is a culpability requirement for accomplice liability. To make a case that an act of recklessness is so criminally repugnant that it suffices as the mens rea for accomplice liability requires an exceptional degree of irresponsibility, which you nor CSJ nor his lawyers have been able to prove.
Thank your lucky stars that the ministers aren't particularly interested in takeing losers like you to court.
Are you now suggesting there is cause for culpability by the Ministers for their preferred course of inaction ?
Are you back tracking with your threat to have me sued ?
Are you retracting your threat without expecting me to withdraw my statements ?
The fact that the ministers aren't particularly interested in pursuing this matter more vigorously is that the ''can of worms'' have been opened, and the ''integrity of the NKF system'' is too close a resemblance to that of the ''MIW system'' in every aspect of leadership and methods.
Are you losing your pride again over an argument based on nothing ?
It is only losers like yourself who believe yourself to be more important and representing the opinions of the Ministers themselves.
Do you seriously count yourself qualified even to second guess the position of these Ministers ?
Your talent to date seems questionable, and yet you will take it on yourself to represent those who are already accepted as more talented than a mere Mushroom.
Surely, a mushroom should know its own place in the jungle unless it wish to get trampled by others ?
A better suggestion for you is to continue with your parasitical ways of a mushroom, and go hug a tree and save the larger world.
Leave Singapore to those who have a bigger heart than self-deceiving talents. -
So? CEOs these days have to go to jail when well-audited well-respected firms were discovered to be committing fraud via creative accounting. They are made to sign forms to say that they are liable for the accounts, even though we all know that they are made to be responsible for things of which some may be beyond their control.Originally posted by oxford mushroom:The inaction was based on an error of judgment on the part of the ministers who mistakenly placed their faith in the integrity of Durai and more importantly, in the yearly audit reports by a well-respected auditing firm. Given that the NKF financial irregularities were not picked by by the auditors, experts in their field; I fail to see how you can make a case of complicity on the grounds of reckless behaviour.
It is well accepted that there is a culpability requirement for accomplice liability. To make a case that an act of recklessness is so criminally repugnant that it suffices as the mens rea for accomplice liability requires an exceptional degree of irresponsibility, which you nor CSJ nor his lawyers have been able to prove.
Thank your lucky stars that the ministers aren't particularly interested in takeing losers like you to court.
Similarly, our ministers (who love to compare their pay with the private sector) should be equally vigilant, if voices of concern are raised to them. CEOs do not have the luxury to say they made an error of judgment for mistakenly putting their faith in their subordinates. Negligence is an invalid excuse. Our ministers, on the other hand, are allowed such negligence
If you are so adamant to always talk about bringing people to court, I say make our ministers sign forms to indicate they may be brought to court if they are found to be negligent in the domains they are taking care of (liable for fine, jail, OR BOTH).
I also question your lack of knowledge on the area of motivational strategies. If our ministers are always allowed to say their mistakes are honest, and they should not be held accountable, then there is no motivation for them to shape up (coz they do not need to ship out). They can continually make blatant mistakes, and they are still not accountable. -
The Chinese government sought to allay fears over its products in a rare direct commentary on the matter. According to the Commerce Ministry, China "has paid great attention" to the issue, especially food products, because it concerns people's health.
quality of China's exports are all guaranteed," ministry spokesman Wang Xinpei told reporters yesterday." target="_blank" rel="nofollow">"It can be said that the quality of China's exports are all guaranteed," ministry spokesman Wang Xinpei told reporters yesterday.
http://www.todayonline.com/articles/197198.asp
and sometimes the sun rises from the East and at times, it rises from the West...
sounds so much in the vein of increase GST to help the poor...
If any of the 1st world leaders were to do that, the main press and mass media would lampoon them... but in China and here? We have responsible press, TV and radio...
-
That was one heck of a Scud Missile retort!Originally posted by Atobe:Excuses... excuses..... excuses..... your post crossed the one that I have posted above.
Are you now suggesting there is cause for culpability by the Ministers for their preferred course of inaction ?
Are you back tracking with your threat to have me sued ?
Are you retracting your threat without expecting me to withdraw my statements ?
The fact that the ministers aren't particularly interested in pursuing this matter more vigorously is that the ''can of worms'' have been opened, and the ''integrity of the NKF system'' is too close a resemblance to that of the ''MIW system'' in every aspect of leadership and methods.
Are you losing your pride again over an argument based on nothing ?
It is only losers like yourself who believe yourself to be more important and representing the opinions of the Ministers themselves.
Do you seriously count yourself qualified even to second guess the position of these Ministers ?
Your talent to date seems questionable, and yet you will take it on yourself to represent those who are already accepted as more talented than a mere Mushroom.
Surely, a mushroom should know its own place in the jungle unless it wish to get trampled by others ?
A better suggestion for you is to continue with your parasitical ways of a mushroom, and go hug a tree and save the larger world.
Leave Singapore to those who have a bigger heart than self-deceiving talents.
beautiful!!!
-
i'm sorry.. that did nothing...
it was trollbait...
nothing more...
when people in here start to discuss things without name-calling even when provoked, maybe, just maybe... proper things can be discussed -
Our ministers claim to be the world's best. They like the NKF Durai put up proposals to increase their own salaries without accountability to the people.Originally posted by oxford mushroom:The inaction was based on an error of judgment on the part of the ministers who mistakenly placed their faith in the integrity of Durai and more importantly, in the yearly audit reports by a well-respected auditing firm. Given that the NKF financial irregularities were not picked by by the auditors, experts in their field; I fail to see how you can make a case of complicity on the grounds of reckless behaviour.
It is well accepted that there is a culpability requirement for accomplice liability. To make a case that an act of recklessness is so criminally repugnant that it suffices as the mens rea for accomplice liability requires an exceptional degree of irresponsibility, which you nor CSJ nor his lawyers have been able to prove.
Thank your lucky stars that the ministers aren't particularly interested in takeing losers like you to court.
If Richard Yong was to be made answerable for wrong doings of Durai being unpaid directors to NKF the ministers and regulatory authority concerned should be held accountable too as firstly they were paid to do the control and secondly they were involved in making policies of reserve and patient subsidies adopted by NKF as reported to parliament.
For as long as ministers in charge are not held accountable, there will always be a black mark on our ministers especially when they claim to the world's best and paid themselves S$3 Mil pa, the highest in the world. -
We are paying millions of dollars SO THEY ARE AWARE. If as multi-millionaire, super-duper clever mini-stars, they aren't even aware of such dealings right under their nose, how then do they deserve such salaries?Originally posted by oxford mushroom:Atobe is trying hard to avoid the issue. As I said, you can accuse the government of negligence, but not complicity in Durai's crimes. The former is fair comment, the latter is DEFAMATION.
Like CSJ, Atobe and Robert have not been able to show proof that the government was aware of Durai's misdeeds.
Or are we paying them millions of dollars so that they will not be paid millions of dollars to be UNAWARE?
Either way, it goes to show our ministers are just incompetent fools who do not deserve their salary. One has only got to listen to their ridiculous statements to know that.
i.e. Our minister of trade stating that prices will not increase despite GST increment, our minister siding with her daughter and saying the it is not their responsibility to look after the poor (the brutal truth). Lim Boon Heng's flip-flopping. Ng Eng Hen's ridiculous reasoning etc... -
Ng Eng HenOriginally posted by anonymouscoward:We are paying millions of dollars SO THEY ARE AWARE. If as multi-millionaire, super-duper clever mini-stars, they aren't even aware of such dealings right under their nose, how then do they deserve such salaries?
Or are we paying them millions of dollars so that they will not be paid millions of dollars to be UNAWARE?
Either way, it goes to show our ministers are just incompetent fools who do not deserve their salary. One has only got to listen to their ridiculous statements to know that.
i.e. Our minister of trade stating that prices will not increase despite GST increment, our minister siding with her daughter and saying the it is not their responsibility to look after the poor (the brutal truth). Lim Boon Heng's flip-flopping. Ng Eng Hen's ridiculous reasoning etc...
"do all of you know that as a doctor, I work 10x less and earn 10x more than what I am earning now?"
thereby slapping all the surgeons in this country in the face.
Yeo Cheow Tong
"its not a u-turn, its a rethink"
thanks very much for marketing a u-turn as a re-think -
Leave no authority existing not responsible to the people. -Thomas JeffersonOriginally posted by anonymouscoward:We are paying millions of dollars SO THEY ARE AWARE. If as multi-millionaire, super-duper clever mini-stars, they aren't even aware of such dealings right under their nose, how then do they deserve such salaries?
Or are we paying them millions of dollars so that they will not be paid millions of dollars to be UNAWARE?
Either way, it goes to show our ministers are just incompetent fools who do not deserve their salary. One has only got to listen to their ridiculous statements to know that.
i.e. Our minister of trade stating that prices will not increase despite GST increment, our minister siding with her daughter and saying the it is not their responsibility to look after the poor (the brutal truth). Lim Boon Heng's flip-flopping. Ng Eng Hen's ridiculous reasoning etc... -
I'm afraid I do indeed have a good idea of what I am talking about, as much as all reasonable men who have read what was posted here. It is clear who clearly has the upper hand in this debate and unfortunately it is not the fungi, no matter how many people he tries to discredit by attacking fiercely.Originally posted by oxford mushroom:Haha...dare to comment when you have no clue about what you are talking about It's better to be silent and be thought a fool than open your big mouth and remove all doubts
Atobe is trying hard to avoid the issue. As I said, you can accuse the government of negligence, but not complicity in Durai's crimes. The former is fair comment, the latter is DEFAMATION.
Like CSJ, Atobe and Robert have not been able to show proof that the government was aware of Durai's misdeeds. Yet their allegations are designed to cast aspersions on the integrity of a minister...every court in the land will agree there's a prima facie case of defamation. So what's their defence? If Atobe has something up his sleeve, why did not run to the assistance of CSJ, who was found guilty of defamation....yet again....
I'm sure on some planet your posts in this thread so far would be really impressive, but your weak link is... this is earth.
I think everybody here has eyes to see and read all that has been posted here. It is quite clear, no matter how you may try to deny or creatively insult your opponents that you have quite painted yourself into a corner.
Is Adobe avoiding the issue? You are the one giving your personal takes and opinion while he has been stating the letter of the law and showing that how, on virtue of our own laws, his point stands while yours is self-contradictory. Even those who might sympathise with you would be hard pressed to advice you to persist on your course of action.
So far you have done little but to revolve around repeating your own points, retracting them while trying to save face, and then trying to find some way to quit this with dignity that you could have easily saved had you decided to stock up on brains instead of gusto instead.
If this is not an example of being PWNED multiple times from all angles, then what is?
Here's a tip, post smarter, not harder. Are you not quite the same as another person called "lionnoisy", except with a better command of English? -
Originally posted by the Bear:
While I will respect your position taken to the manner of my response to OM's posts, I feel that it is important that the preferred style in my replies will require some explanation.
i'm sorry.. that did nothing...
it was trollbait...
nothing more...
when people in here start to discuss things without name-calling even when provoked, maybe, just maybe... proper things can be discussed
It was intended to show those who will abuse us with the ''hollow scare tactics'' of the MIW - with ''threats to sue'' to silence alternative views - that they had better be able to accept robust replies and be as confident as the MIW in taking it to the final end.
Did Durai not similarly 'sue two Singaporeans' - asking them for proof to support their public statements that he had abused NKF funds in travelling 'First Class' ?
It was unfortunate that Durai's two successful lawsuit were made against individual Singaporeans, who did not have the financial muscle to employ more aggressive and enterprising legal representatives.
If those two Singaporeans had the benefit of legal services from more competent and enterprising legal representatives, they would probably have stopped NKF in its track; and exposed the ''can of worms'' a couple of years before the Straits Times broke open Durai's charade.
It is a sham for OM to have boastfully hinted his origins from Oxford, which is an institution of more liberal political thinking and tolerance. It is simply unimaginable for one who claim to have been exposed to many years in some progressive foreign environment, to be so tolerant and supportive in the ways of the MIW - even to the extent of adopting MIW methods of threatening alternative views with law suits.
The term a twirp is simply to mild to decribe a parasitical being that will betray the interest of the larger Singaporean population. -
you would do better to destroy his 'arguments' without resorting to name-calling which destroyed your credibility...
-
By now, it should be clear that OM is the Royal famiLee's official pooch.
-
Name calling only destroys your credibility if it is trying to reflect something on your opponent's character that is untrue.Originally posted by the Bear:you would do better to destroy his 'arguments' without resorting to name-calling which destroyed your credibility...
Unfortunately OM is not really making any effort to avoid any of the labels being put on him from being proven true by his own choices and blunders in here.
At which I say, many of the labels used on him are prehaps way too mild to begin with. -
I disagree with your statement above that Atobe destroyed his credibility. Its too strong a word.Originally posted by the Bear:you would do better to destroy his 'arguments' without resorting to name-calling which destroyed your credibility...
In the 1st place, we aren't saints, we also have the right to respond to taunts and offensive remarks.
I think whether who is right or wrong, I believe every forum member here, can see with their own eyes. -
there is no place in any discussion.. you only go to his level and it will all turn into nonsense which no one will take seriously...Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:Name calling only destroys your credibility if it is trying to reflect something on your opponent's character that is untrue.
Unfortunately OM is not really making any effort to avoid any of the labels being put on him from being proven true by his own choices and blunders in here.
At which I say, many of the labels used on him are prehaps way too mild to begin with. -
Can one's ''credibility'' be destroyed for a simple act of sticking a preferred label onto one's opponent in a debate ?Originally posted by the Bear:you would do better to destroy his 'arguments' without resorting to name-calling which destroyed your credibility...
Surely, the premise of an argument and the body of facts should have remained convincingly intact despite all the name calling, which forms a counter-attack to destabilize an opponent's preferred methods ?
If you mean that I should maintain my righteous moral high ground and not destroy it by name calling in the debate with him, and not to stoop to his level of debate - I can probably agree with you.
Unfortunately, I have no interest to be self-righteous towards OM - as I prefer to grind his arrogance into dust for daring to imitate the evil art of the MIW to scare others into silence.
The ''Twirp'' label was already a measured response to his crude attempt of trying to blow hot air in other's directions when his understanding of the issues is similar to ''an empty can" and he will dare to make loud noise.
His attempt to stand even in the shadows of the MIW, and pretend to be of the same cut as the MIW is simply done in the most contemptuous manner towards us.
Should one be so generous to maintain one's righteousness in treating charlatan like him ?
Even mushrooms have some worthy benefit to humankind, for OM to pretend to be one simply tarnishes the entire mushroom species. -
Far from it! Cause for culpability? No, I see plenty of cause for defamation though..Originally posted by Atobe:Excuses... excuses..... excuses..... your post crossed the one that I have posted above.
Are you now suggesting there is cause for culpability by the Ministers for their preferred course of inaction ?
Are you back tracking with your threat to have me sued ?
Are you retracting your threat without expecting me to withdraw my statements ?
The fact that the ministers aren't particularly interested in pursuing this matter more vigorously is that the ''can of worms'' have been opened, and the ''integrity of the NKF system'' is too close a resemblance to that of the ''MIW system'' in every aspect of leadership and methods.
Are you losing your pride again over an argument based on nothing ?
It is only losers like yourself who believe yourself to be more important and representing the opinions of the Ministers themselves.
Do you seriously count yourself qualified even to second guess the position of these Ministers ?
Your talent to date seems questionable, and yet you will take it on yourself to represent those who are already accepted as more talented than a mere Mushroom.
Surely, a mushroom should know its own place in the jungle unless it wish to get trampled by others ?
A better suggestion for you is to continue with your parasitical ways of a mushroom, and go hug a tree and save the larger world.
Leave Singapore to those who have a bigger heart than self-deceiving talents.
Why should I sue you when I am not the subject of defamation? The Ministers you defamed can, but I doubt they woul dbe interested in some loser ranting in a forum. -
Originally posted by Atobe:
You have aptly demonstrated why the majority of Singaporeans will never give their votes to the Opposition, so long as hooligans like you support them. Do them a favour...you only serve to convince the electorate that Singapore under folks like you would be less tolerant of alternative views, far , totally oblivious of the rule of law and prone to gangster tactics
Can one's ''credibility'' be destroyed for a simple act of sticking a preferred label onto one's opponent in a debate ?
Surely, the premise of an argument and the body of facts should have remained convincingly intact despite all the name calling, which forms a counter-attack to destabilize an opponent's preferred methods ?
If you mean that I should maintain my [b]righteous moral high ground and not destroy it by name calling in the debate with him, and not to stoop to his level of debate - I can probably agree with you.
Unfortunately, I have no interest to be self-righteous towards OM - as I prefer to grind his arrogance into dust for daring to imitate the evil art of the MIW to scare others into silence.
The ''Twirp'' label was already a measured response to his crude attempt of trying to blow hot air in other's directions when his understanding of the issues is similar to ''an empty can" and he will dare to make loud noise.
His attempt to stand even in the shadows of the MIW, and pretend to be of the same cut as the MIW is simply done in the most contemptuous manner towards us.
Should one be so generous to maintain one's righteousness in treating charlatan like him ?
Even mushrooms have some worthy benefit to humankind, for OM to pretend to be one simply tarnishes the entire mushroom species.
[/b] -
I beg to differ. You should construct your sentence in this manner:Originally posted by oxford mushroom:You have aptly demonstrated why the majority of Singaporeans will never give their votes to the Opposition, so long as hooligans like you support them. Do them a favour...you only serve to convince the electorate that Singapore under folks like you would be less tolerant of alternative views, far , totally oblivious of the rule of law and prone to gangster tactics
You have aptly demonstrated why the minority of Singaporeans (who fortunately had the chance to vote compared to most Singaporeans who did not have the chance) decided not to vote for the Opposition...blah blah blah...