A netizen disagreed with Min Shanmugam for saying that every minister's speech be taken as statutory legislation. He argued that if this is true, it defeats the purpose of The Hansard (an official record of speeches) and having Parliamentary sittings in the first place. What do you think?
Workers' Party's Sylvia Lim, who finally got to speak on the EP, argued that the Government misled people into thinking that the decision to start counting from Wee Kim Wee was a result of the AGC's advice, when it was not.
SDP's Damanhuri Bin Abas thinks the PAP has racist policies and asked people to stop blaming the Hong Lim Park protest organisers for having double-standards. He believes race issues must be debated openly.
Activist Gilbert Goh is happy to have had a peaceful, silent protest even though the topic did have racial connotations. He asked the Government to look at this example and stop being too uptight as Singaporeans are mature enough to handle such topics.
A netizen thinks it is absurd to deny people from speaking about the upcoming PE at Hong Lim Park. "In reserving a Malay candidate for the presidential election, it is inevitable that race will be part of the subject matter should we want to openly call out on the government's policy. Hence, it can never get debated publicly by citizens due to existing regulations."
First they introduced the racist reserved presidency. They knew that the people will oppose. So they created a distraction by having one of their unqualified dogs dropping hints that she is going to contest despite obviously being of the wrong race. But now instead of screaming that the reserved presidency is racist, the people are demanding that the candidate should be of the stated race they wanted and playing right into their hands.
Which does Singapore need more? Which is more useful? Is it better to have an avocado in your belly or an advocate with fire in his or her belly? Some of Singapore’s most opinionated and entertaining personalities will debate this very important topic. Come listen to the cut and thrust of their arguments, to their rapier sharp observations and thought-provoking postulations.