Comments, opinions and an occasional ramble
Some parties are more equal than others?
The following statement by Ho Peng Kee is probably the talk of the town now:
“If you listened very carefully Mr Low, I don’t know whether his hearing aid is with him because he wears one, I said there is a greater potential for law and order problems. You may be well-behaving, but there may be other people whom you come across when you cycle who may stop you, may want to debate with you and that may attract a crowd, and therefore will result in problems the police want to avoid.”
I don’t need to intend to add more fuel to the fire but I just can’t help but feel a tinge of double standards. I do think that there wouldn’t be an issue if it was the PAP instead of the WP applying for a permit to hold an outdoor cycling event. Nevermind that the permit was not granted, but for a minister of state to respond to a question on why the permit was denied with the above quote is certainly baffling, to say the least. It really smacks of bullying.
A case all political parties are equal, but some are more equal than others?
| Print article | This entry was posted by Aaron Ng on 03/09/2007 at 11:47 pm, and is filed under Ramblings. Follow any responses to this post through RSS 2.0. You can leave a response or trackback from your own site. |
about 3 years ago
This is mere old wine in new bottle. We know this for years already.
Leopards will never change their spots.
about 3 years ago
Indeed, what is PAP afraid of ? It look like they are afraid of political debate ! They are afraid of people voicing out to opp party and questioning and scrutinize PAP ? Why people are voicing out only to opp party not cronies ? The answer seem dead simple, because if you voice out to cronies, the cronies will perceive you as troublemaker and whimper ! So far, I only see wayang and going through motion in parliament because the result of everything discuss are already predetermined, and debate are just for show. The result is always “No choice, cronies know better, therefore you do what I say, it is for good of you”. Indeed it is for good of everyone not to question the gov because the ruling gov is a dictatorship and repressive regime.
about 3 years ago
Agree David, if the PAP are as good as they say they are, why don’t we have political debates or election debates like the other developed countries in the world? If the PAP are so good, why are they so frightened of the opposition or even alternative voices in the media?
It is truly amazing calling yourself the best for this country and yet you don’t dare to even engage the opposition (or even any member of the public that don’t agree with your views and policies) in a debate about it.
They just shut anyone up (even in parliament where any query is suppose to be answered, where freedom of speech is guaranteed by law!), look back on Sylvia Lim who was silenced when she questioned about giving the PM more powers (Constitutional Amendment Bill No 20/2007).
THAT is how “good” the PAP is.
about 2 years ago
I think YPAP is holding cycling and amazing race style activities. check their website.. we should all lodge a protest that their safety cannot be ensured.
because “You may be well-behaving, but there may be other people whom you come across when you cycle who may stop you, may want to debate with you and that may attract a crowd, and therefore will result in problems the police want to avoid.”
“
about 2 years ago
Perhaps, but I guess until PAP have decided to hold their own cycling events, we will probably never know if they are planning to uphold such double standards.
Till then, we should perhaps instruct Temasek to stop making overseas investments in politially unstable countries such as Thailand or Indonesia for not just do they generate greater potential risks in investor returns, they have demonstrated tremendous impertinence in the burning of our leaders’ effigies.
And we should perhaps stop all political outdoor events; for in the words of our esteemed Senior Minister of State for Law and Home Affairs, herein generates a greater potential for law and order problems. Such as those described in the events itinerary in the PAP website http://www.pap.org.sg/calendar.php *chuckles* I don’t think you can hold a campfire event indoors though.. Such potential problems I can see with someone holding a flaming stick could do while debating political issues.
about 2 years ago
if lee kuan yew were to cycle, i’m sure there’ll be people stopping him to talk to him, simply because of the rare opportunity of meeting such a respected man.
any way, with respect to the situation in which “other people” will stop you, it’ll probably be the ISD or the policemen.
well, at least we know opposition parties and gay people are on the same boat. they can’t have group recreational activities in public places.
about 2 years ago
Whatever they may claim to be, gentlemen they most certainly are not!
Whatever standards they may claim to have, first and foremost, must be their double-standard!
What happened to those new MPs who claim to be different from the old run of the mill PAP MPs? What have they got to say in their blogs. What Sylvia Lim asked are questions every right thinking Singaporean would want their MPs to ask, party affiliation aside. The questions represent the concern of every Singaporean who is only too aware of the common propensity of this govt to load the law in its own favour. Sad but true. It is becoming a dangerous precedent and augers badly for the country. Don’t be surprise if we wake up one day to find that it would be made illeegal to question in parliament any action of the Executive.
about 2 years ago
Chee Soon Juan was once described as a political gangster. What an apt description for some of our all white self-proclaimed gentlemen politicians.
about 2 years ago
Mr Ho behaved like a fool when he said those words. Lately, some answers to questions by the esteemed ministers were so circular. Words are spoken but offer no nearer to the truth of the things being discussed. And they think everybody is stupid. I think that all ministers would have probably attended a party lecture called “How to answer questions without really answering them” and another lecture on “How to talk down the opposition and still look a good minister”.
about 2 years ago
A person, no matter how intelligent, learned, powerful and cunning, when he does not speak sincerely from his heart, his own words will betray him.
.
Confidence and Trust are lost. He is seen as being irresponsible, unreliable and untrustworthy. Therefore, no matter how many law suits he has/may have won to uphold his integrity, his integrity nevertheless remains what his insincere words have reflected under the full view of the public ears and eyes.
.
The perception will remain in the memory of the public, and also nowadays in the cyberspace.
.
Anyone care to update this episode in the Wikipedia for posterity?