Originally posted by Poh Ah Pak:Cogitatione you are a bastard.Since you don't believe in freedom of speech than please don't exercise it by posting a reply, you mother fucking bastard.
owl!!! that is so uncall for...as an opposition advocater and promoter, you should not behave in such a way, by scolding people mother so badly. You should lead by example with cool head and caring mind. No wonder many go for PAP, with such opposition followers, prepare for riots with axes and parangs when if opposition wins.
We are small dot, do not produce resources and heavily dependent on foreign investment and products.
Therefore, in order to sustain the economy, this country has to be run like a corporation.
Can you elaborate?
Countries with no resources have to be run like a corporation?
Not much resources already why must managed like big corporation?
Corporations have a lot of resources.
But Singapore no resources, so why run like corporation?
Can scrap NS at least?
Originally posted by Poh Ah Pak:
It is passionately support?
not passionately but "sincerely"? At least I vote for them not because I am afraid of repurcussions or because my wallet tells me to but because I still support them over the opposition.
Angel, nice pun there with the PAP smear /smear PAP thing! D:
You should lead by example with cool head and caring mind.
He doesn't care about freedon of speech, so I scold him he also won't retaliate.
not passionately
Yes, not passionately.
No one in the right frame of mind would go and support PAP passionately.
Their rule is based on mass propaganda and repression, not on popular support.
Lee Kuan Yew was never that popular a figure in Singapore politics.
That title belongs to Lim Chin Siong.
But anyway angel is right, I think you could refrain from vulgarities. Will only discredit your stand.
Originally posted by Poh Ah Pak:Yes, not passionately.
No one in the right frame of mind would go and support PAP passionately.
Their rule is based on mass propaganda and repression, not on popular support.
Lee Kuan Yew was never that popular a figure in Singapore politics.
That title belongs to Lim Chin Siong.
Popular is judged by.... how do i say this.... why not just prove it that lim chin siong is more popular. You probably would want to post about him anyway. But the popular guy got sidelines and no popular outcry or protest, seems unlikely, since riots ws popular in those days.... like the hock lee bus riot.
This threat is meat to bash PAP supporters, so anyone who declare is fair game...
Originally posted by skythewood:Popular is judge. how do i say this.... why not just prove it that lim chin siong is more popular. You probably would want to post about him anyway. But the popular guy got sidelines and no popular outcry or protest, seems unlikely, since riots ws popular in those days.... like the hock lee bus riot.
This threat is meat to bash PAP supporters, so anyone who declare is fair game...
Don't you think he's doing more to support PAP's cause?
I mean he's pushing more of the moderates towards the PAP than actually helping the opposition any.
Originally posted by Stevenson101:
Don't you think he's doing more to support PAP's cause?I mean he's pushing more of the moderates towards the PAP than actually helping the opposition any.
If the moderates get pushed to support PAP because of an online thread, they will probably get convinced by a rally talk of any running candidates.
Besides, this is what the speakers corner is for. Let him have fun...
But the popular guy got sidelines and no popular outcry or protest, seems unlikely, since riots ws popular in those days.... like the hock lee bus riot.
What do you mean?
like the hock lee bus riot.
According to some historians the riots were instigated by the british and Lim Yew Hock to serve as a pretext to destroy Lim Chin Siong. Lee Kuan Yew secretly connived with the British as well.
The episode began when Chief Minister Lim closed
down a Chinese women's group and a musical association. A week
later, he banned the Chinese Middle School Union which provoked
further unhappiness with the locals.
Undeterred he
arrested Chinese student leaders and shut down more organizations
and schools, including the Chinese High School and the Chung
Cheng High School. Given the already tense situation between the
Chinese-speaking people and the colonial authorities, this was a
highly provocative act.
At that time any Singaporean
leader worth his salt could not have sat by idly. And so Lim Chin
Siong came to the fore and spoke up for the students. The late
Devan Nair, former Singapore president, joined in.
A
12-day stay-in was organised at one of the schools and Lim Chin
Siong was scheduled to speak at a nearby park one evening.
It
wasn't long before the police appeared and ringed the crowd.
Suddenly a mob started throwing stones at the police who then
charged with batons and tear-gas.
Violence erupted and
spread, with police stations being attacked and cars burned. By
the end of the chaos 2,346 people were arrested and more than a
dozen Singaporeans were killed.
The blame was squarely
pinned on Lim Chin Siong who was arrested.
But did Lim
Chin Siong really cause the mayhem? Who was the "mob"
that started attacking the police?
At that time, Chief
Minister Lim made no bones that the Lim Chin Siong was the front
man for the communists who had started the violence. Lim was
arrested by the Special Branch the following day.
Lim
vehemently denied this accusation and countered that the chief
minister was a colonial stooge. As declassified documents now
reveal, Lim Chin Siong was largely right.
Entitled Extract
from a note of a meeting between Secretary of State and Singapore
Chief Minister, 12 December 1956, the archival note recorded
that it was Chief Minister Lim who "had provoked the riots
and this had enabled the detention of Lim Chin Siong."
Poulgrain
even documents that full-scale military assistance was requested
by prior arrangement. Singapore Governor, William Goode,
acknowledged that the colonial government was not beyond
employing the tactic of provoking a riot and then using the
outcome to "achieve a desired political result."
Indeed,
Poulgrain noted that "[Public Record Office] documents show
these were the tactics of provocation that were employed in the
1956 riots that led to Lim Chin Siong's arrest."
A
few weeks after Lim Chin Siong was behind bars, Lim Yew Hock
visited London in December 1956 and was "warmly
congratulated on the outcome by Alan Lennox-Boyd, Secretary of
State for the Colonies."
And yet, in his memoirs, the
Minister Mentor concludes that the Malayan Communist Party "in
charge of Lim Chin Siong" were behind the whole affair and
that Lim Yew Hock had purged Singapore of the communist
ringleaders...
http://www.singaporedemocrat.org/
In a startling and revisionist essay, Dr Greg Poulgrain of Griffiths
University observes that the British Governor of Singapore and his
Chief Secretary in their reports to London had admitted that the police
could find no evidence to establish that Lim was a communist.
Poulgrain
claims it was actually Singapore's then Chief Minister, Lim Yew Hock,
who had deliberately "provoked" the bus and other industrial workers
and Chinese middle students to riot in 1956 in order to have Lim Chin
Siong arrested.
Lim Yew Hock's own admission to responsibility
for the riot appears in an official report to the British Government
which Poulgrain found in the Colonial Office records in London which
are now open to researchers.
"Lee Kuan Yew was secretly a
party with Lim Yew Hock," adds Poulgrain, "in urging the Colonial
Secretary to impose the subversives ban in making it illegal for former
political detainees to stand for election."
Originally posted by Poh Ah Pak:But I refute his logic.
If he only stated that he supports PAP, I won't criticise.
He provided a LOGIC also.
I refute his LOGIC.
Understand bo Chin Eng.
Le understand my logic bo?
Understand or don't understand?
your first rebuttal does not address the "LOGIC":
Originally posted by Poh Ah Pak:You should migrate to North Korea, since you like autocratic one party states with brainwashed people so much.
Economy very good hor, one party state.
Total horseshit.
.... but even if you are addressing the "logic" eventually (which you are not really)....
as i'd said, this is pointless thread because the "intention" of this thread as stated by you is to find out how many people here truly, deeply, sincerely supports PAP
Originally posted by Poh Ah Pak:The purpose of this thread is to find out how many people here truely deeply sincerely supports PAP.
So far the number is nil.
the "logic" is totally immaterial if your stated intention is genuine.... which I had doubted from the beginning.
the moment an individual states his support for PAP, you throw in an insult (which is within my expectation of this thread)....
so it goes back to, what is the REAL PURPOSE of starting this thread????
Originally posted by skythewood:Popular is judged by.... how do i say this.... why not just prove it that lim chin siong is more popular. You probably would want to post about him anyway. But the popular guy got sidelines and no popular outcry or protest, seems unlikely, since riots ws popular in those days.... like the hock lee bus riot.
This threat is meat to bash PAP supporters, so anyone who declare is fair game...
.... the part in red.... that is totally true.
Originally posted by Poh Ah Pak:Can you elaborate?
Countries with no resources have to be run like a corporation?
Not much resources already why must managed like big corporation?
Corporations have a lot of resources.
But Singapore no resources, so why run like corporation?
Can scrap NS at least?
Poh,
‘Corporation’ is just analogy on the government.
Upper management to come up with plan, hand the plan down to middle management + workers to implement.
We are expected to work together and no questions ask.
Originally posted by angel7030:owl!!! that is so uncall for...as an opposition advocater and promoter, you should not behave in such a way, by scolding people mother so badly. You should lead by example with cool head and caring mind. No wonder many go for PAP, with such opposition followers, prepare for riots with axes and parangs when if opposition wins.
judging by the posts in this thread by the TS, i am quite convinced now, that mr poh is deranged.....
so it goes back to, what is the REAL PURPOSE of starting this thread????
Find out how many people truely, sincerely, passionately supprt PAP.
So far, the resulting are quite disappointing for PAP.
Upper management to come up with plan, hand the plan down to middle management + workers to implement.
What you are saying is Singapore should be a centrally planned economy like USSR, is that it?
the moment an individual states his support for PAP, you throw in an insult (which is within my expectation of this thread)....
Show me example.
Originally posted by Poh Ah Pak:Find out how many people truely, sincerely, passionately supprt PAP.
So far, the resulting are quite disappointing for PAP.
it that is true, why do you resort to vulgar words and insults....
you obviously don't know statistics....
it is said that statistics is like a woman in a bikini...
"what you see is interesting....
what you don't see is even more interesting...."
the moment an individual states his support for PAP, you throw in an insult (which is within my expectation of this thread)....
Show me example Chin Eng.
Originally posted by Poh Ah Pak:
Show me example.
meat pao's post and your respond...
Cogitatione's post and your respond... well, to be fair Cogitatione was not really responding to your original question, he was making a point, yet your respond was really impolite...
Originally posted by Poh Ah Pak:
What you are saying is Singapore should be a centrally planned economy like USSR, is that it?
Similar..
meat pao's post and your respond...
I criticised his reasoning. Not his support for PAP.
Cogitatione's post and your respond...
Cogitatione did not say he support PAP.
Similar..
So is Singapore now a centrally planned economy like USSR?