Home > Silliness and stupidity > Fluffliness – a skill the PAP had practiced to the highest level

Fluffliness – a skill the PAP had practiced to the highest level

Just last week, PAP asked the citizens to scrutinize the opposition parties’ manifesto. Now that the PAP had issued their own manifesto, guess what?

SINGAPORE: Singapore’s Labour Chief Lim Swee Say said the People’s Action Party’s (PAP) manifesto is a compass that charts a firm, long-term course for the country.

He said people should not just think about the micro aspects of policies.

Mr Lim was responding to criticisms that the manifesto was not concrete enough.

He said people should ask political parties what kind of future they hope to secure for Singapore and how they plan to go about it.

He added that whether the future can be secured depends on the country’s collective efforts.

“Along the way, there will be uncertainties, there will be unexpected events and so on,” Mr Lim said.

“If we are to jump over the wall, we’ll jump over the wall. If we have to go around the wall, we’ll go around the wall.

“But what is important is that, yes, we may adapt to situations in the short term, right, but in the long term, over the next three years, five years, the direction must be very clear.”

Mr Lim said while the manifestos of the opposition parties may share similarities with that of the ruling party’s, when it comes to long-term goals such as affordable housing, the difference, he said, lies in how to achieve those goals.

He asked Singaporeans to question how sustainable the proposals of the opposition parties are.

-CNA/wk

______________________________

Now the PAP does not have a concrete manifesto it is asking people NOT TO DELVE too much in details. What kind of rubbish is this? “Direction must be very clear”, well, your manifesto ain’t concrete and clear in the first place. Don’t be a clown, really. We are not stupid. And while a bit of stupidity might be entertaining, too much of it in recent months is pure irritating.

Mr Lim asked Singaporeans to question how sustainable the proposals of the opposition parties are. I ask him to queston how sustainable it is to pay millions to ministers, effectively legalizing corruption, while taking on the stand that ministers DO NOT have to be held accountable and responsible to ANYTHING?

Conclusion: Double standards and pure stupidity. Period.

Advertisements
  1. No comments yet.
  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: