Tuesday, October 23, 2007


He is an activist - one who tries to steer the public towards some ideology, be it democracy or free speech. It is his job to advocate his visionary ideas even when most people do not initially support or even understand his vision. His job is to win them over to his vision, not to go along with the crowd. Such is the situation with Ghandhi of India and so on.

She is a politician - one who tries to represent the people's wishes. It is her job to speak in accordance to what the people want, nevermind moral or immoral. Thus if the majority of the people are against homosexuality or if they perceive requesting foreign support as "foreign interference in domestic politics", it is her job to agree with the people! Her job is to win votes, so as to represent the people's view in parliament, not to steer the population towards her own view and risk losing votes in the process!

Each is important in his/her own way, just as India needed both Ghandi and its PM.

Such simple things, the people in SDP and WP do not understand.

They look upon each other as enemies.


They have fallen for our trap!!!

We, in young Pay-And-Pay, have succeeded in driving a wedge between the oppositions!

We did this by masquerading as WP supporters to bash SDP, and then as SDP supporters to bash WP.

We egged their genuine supporters on, and get them to bash each other!

We start the spark and join the fight, bashing both sides like double-headed snakes, without them even knowing that we are moving from side to side!

We did it!

Boss, it's time to give us a raise!


We, young Pay-and-Pay, are very good fishermen. LOL


outsider said...

WP's approach has garnered votes. SDP approah has lost votes. So if you want to win votes, you gotta do it the WP way! Simple as that.

But, of course, if your aim is to change the current dismal state of Singapore's electoral process with its GRC, suing of oppositioni etc, then you gotta do it the SDP way, via non-violence action.

Two different means but both to achieve the same ends - a better Singapore without PAP.

Anonymous said...

But one way works, the other way does not. The WP way of going via the ballot box has not worked for the past 40 years. Time to do it the other way by deliberately breaking all the unfair rules that PAP set for us.

dr. said...

Actually, it can be argued that it's the other way round: WP's more confrontational approach under JBJ did not work, and therefore they should try the more moderate way such that they agree with many of PAP's policy but differing only on some, rather than going the CSJ way of uprooting PAP's way entirely! One can argue that while CSJ's way is more fundamental and akin to treating the disease, singaporeans are not ready for it and they would rather treat only the symptom of the illness only, which is indeed an acceptable solution in the case with many real medical diseases. Having said that, many doctors disagree too on whether one should treat a disease aggresively or merely its symptoms and so it is the case in politics.