Originally posted by BillyBong:
I take it you are not currently residing in Singapore; if you did
surely you would know that Aljunied GRC was successfully defended
by George Yeo, admist edgy and tense moments, by a mere fraction of
the votes.
No right minded Singaporean will ever vote in the SDP, simply
because they rant and rant but offer no roadmap of their own. It is
even possible that the party chief, if miraculously elected, has
absolutely no idea how to perform his duties as a member of
parliament, except to continue his rants in parliament.
Singaporeans are not stupid. They may be upset at the high-handed
tactics of the Ruling Party, but they will obviously not vote in a
sub-par political alternative either.
As to your rhetorical question of [b]does this mean
that they should run the country too, why
not?
Who's to say the alternatives cannot offer success the way the
ruling party has tasted it? Why are the ruling party so afraid of
challenges to their political strength that they immediately spread
doubts over the challenger's ability to withstand office? Why must
they have the police photograph, videotape and interrogate anyone who speaks to alternatives? isn't
that an obvious abuse of power?
Who watches the watchers?
[/b]
You are right, I confused my facts. The only two constituencies
won by the opposition are Hougang and Potong Pasir. I don't think
there are any doubts that the SDP are probably the worst party to
vote for. But SDA or WP to run the country? They didn't even have
enough people to challenge the PAP in the first place, resorting,
as I said, to picking young and inexperienced people to make up the
numbers. I would have relented if these were at least managers or
directors of some company, but damn, executives are dime a dozen in
this country. Running a GRC is okay, not the country. Maybe in the
future, when they've gotten a better pool of talented people. But
of course, people will say that the government is constantly
restricting the opposition, which is another debate altogether.
