Originally posted by sgdiehard:
When one decides to go on the political stage, he is under
the limelight, he becomes a public figure, and every move he makes
attracts attention. Opposition party figures need to be aware that
they now represent the ppl, not yet Singapore, certainly
not the government. It is easy to talk about speaking for the ppl,
and the citizens are watching if he is indeed speaking for the
people. In the position CSJ took during the recent exchanges with
Australia over the hanging of Nguyen, I dont see him speaking for
the ppl. 
When a mistake is made, there is always the necessity to
explain to the ppl, ruling party and opposition party
alike. Has CSJ ever thought that he made a mistake?
Singapore needs a strong opposition to face up to the
strong, entrenched ruling party. We need opposition leaders with
back up, not a few individual rambos. I dont see CSJ
leading, I believe he thinks he is a Rambo, but I think he is a
clown and we certainly do not need clowns to complete the cast of a
circus. 
The biggest problem with the opposition parties in Singapore is
disunity, and that was clearly demonstrated during the clash
between Chiam and CSJ. 
Mistakes by the ruling party = the people suffer. 
Mistakes by the opposition party = the people weep.
PS. Lambasting PAP is not necessarily representing the ppl.
Thrashing the government is not necessarily speaking for the
ppl.
Ridiculing Singapore is definitely not for the ppl.
Accountability applies to all. More so to the persons entrusted
with the power and office. Opposition parties need to be
scrutinized, and all the more so for the ruling party.
You have sought to hold an opposition figure accountable, I would
be waiting to see if you will hold the ruling party accountable,
and if so, to what extent. 
I thank you for acknowledging that Singapore needs a strong
opposition and that the opposition needs back up. This point will
be related to the weeping later.
I thought the purpose of an election is to select representatives
of the people.
If CSJ is not elected yet. How does he represent the people?
How it is that an opposition challenger can represent the people
when not elected. What then is the ruling incumbent's role?
How much disunity can there by in having multiple parties with
their own views and ideas?
Must opposition parties abandon autonomy in order to be
united?
If that is so, unity for singapore would mean having just one party
and no other parties. Where then would there be a need for
elections?
For PAP v. PAP? Would that itself be seen as unity?
Who are amongst those who cried with the opposition when mistakes
were made? I know of a few - and all of whom are currently in
opposition parties.
If you are one of those, identify yourself for i would like to
shake your hand to express my gratitude and invite you to back up
the opposition parties like you have said.
LASTLY, according to you, being an opposition politician already
means you represent the people (even if you are not elected) AND
lambasting PAP means not representing the people.
Do you mean to say that opposition politicians by their conviction
represent the people already AND SO they need not seek to be
elected or seek to lambast the PAP?
Thrashing the government ? Who is thrashing the government? The
Singapore government is not so easily thrashed.
Indeed, just as ridiculing Singapore will never be for the people,
so would ridiculing the people will be never for the people.
