S'pore expected to see electoral boundary changes due to voters from new HDB flats
24-01-2025, 08:43 AM
24-01-2025, 08:44 AM
Tengah & Bidadari are the new HDB developments that will impact the electoral boundaries.
24-01-2025, 08:57 AM
Discussion start already..
24-01-2025, 09:17 AM
During the run up to every General Election for the past few decades, the ruling party has been accused of unfair electoral practices such as gerrymandering, to maintain a significant majority in Parliament. How dare the MIW claim to be an "honest government"?
24-01-2025, 09:30 AM
I hope my constituency at Woodlands South is redrawn into LW's GRC than under the current useless MP.
.
24-01-2025, 09:35 AM
Another good GRC is under Shanmugun and his team in Chong Pang and Yishun.
They are active and have many activities.
.
24-01-2025, 10:31 AM
They will want to protect the useless SAF General Ah- Meng
the JLB Army General Gan SH
and the loser Lam PM to get back Sengkang
the JLB Army General Gan SH
and the loser Lam PM to get back Sengkang
Why do we need 5 Mayors and 87 PAP Ministers?
24-01-2025, 10:55 AM
Confirm pruss chop they will break up West Coast GRC (my bad… edited due to wrongly indicated Jurong HRC earlier) or else sure lose.
Spin story will be due to population shift to new areas
Spin story will be due to population shift to new areas

https://sgtalk.net/Thread-Sin-Heng-Heavy...ffer-58cts
Always fight lowball offers wherever you go, no matter what the weather, always bring your own sunshine

24-01-2025, 11:36 AM
(24-01-2025, 09:17 AM)EvertonDiehard Wrote: During the run up to every General Election for the past few decades, the ruling party has been accused of unfair electoral practices such as gerrymandering, to maintain a significant majority in Parliament. How dare the MIW claim to be an "honest government"?
When did you see a fair erection?
There is no such govt lah.
“Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind"
24-01-2025, 11:42 AM
(24-01-2025, 10:55 AM)p1acebo Wrote: Confirm pruss chop they will break up Jurong GRC or else sure lose.
Spin story will be due to population shift to new areas
Jurong GRC is dafts most concentrated area lah. It will be a risk move.
“Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind"
29-01-2025, 09:15 PM
30-01-2025, 09:03 PM
30-01-2025, 09:13 PM
(29-01-2025, 09:15 PM)Tee tiong huat Wrote: Yes, i think West Coast GRC also...
West Coast Group Representation Constituency is a 5-member Group Representation Constituency located in western as well as the central area of S'pore, five divisions consists: Ayer Rajah-Gek Poh, West Coast, Boon Lay, Nanyang and Telok Blangah managed by West Coast Town Council.
30-01-2025, 09:18 PM
30-01-2025, 09:53 PM
Aiya …change or no change, rewrite or dun write …. oppositions will lose seats this erection
KTV妹妹说,香港人无义,台湾人无情,新加坂人无智

30-01-2025, 10:31 PM
(24-01-2025, 11:42 AM)RiseofAsia Wrote: Jurong GRC is dafts most concentrated area lah. It will be a risk move.
Paiseh I meant the West Coast GRC, the one which Iswaran used to helm

https://sgtalk.net/Thread-Sin-Heng-Heavy...ffer-58cts
Always fight lowball offers wherever you go, no matter what the weather, always bring your own sunshine

31-01-2025, 09:04 AM
31-01-2025, 09:17 AM
analyze the provided article from Channel News Asia for the presence of inconsistencies, contradictions, ambiguities, flaws, weasel words, loaded language, data discrepancies, propaganda techniques, fallacies, motherhood statements, roundabout answers, bias, hedging statements, buzzwords, gaslighting, and dark psychology techniques.
General Observations:
It's important to note that news articles, especially those covering political topics, often use language that can be interpreted in different ways. My analysis will focus on identifying potential instances of the listed techniques, without making claims about the author's intent.
Analysis:
Inconsistencies/Contradictions:
There are no glaring internal contradictions in the article.
Ambiguities:
The article refers to "changes" to electoral boundaries but does not provide detailed justification for all specific alterations. This leaves some room for interpretation.
The phrase "to ensure a fair representation" is used but the specific criteria for fairness may be interpreted differently.
Flaws:
The article primarily presents information about boundary changes. It doesn't offer a critical analysis of potential implications.
Weasel Words:
Phrases like "some adjustments" and "minor changes" could be considered weasel words, as they lack specificity.
The use of phrases like "aimed at" or "designed to" when describing the reasoning behind changes. This can suggest intent, but it's not explicitly stated.
Loaded Language:
The term "gerrymandering" is mentioned. While not used by the article itself in relation to the changes, It's a charged term that's associated with manipulation of electoral boundaries.
The phrase "fair representation" has positive connotations, but it's also open to interpretation and could be loaded, depending on one's political views.
Data Discrepancies:
There are no obvious data discrepancies in the article. The article does not use specific numbers or datasets that could be checked for error.
Propaganda Techniques:
Card Stacking: The article focuses on the changes to the electoral boundaries, but does not delve into potential implications of these changes.
Fallacies:
* There are no clear logical fallacies.
Motherhood Statements:
The phrase "to ensure a fair representation" could be seen as a motherhood statement, because most people would agree that fair representation is a desirable goal. This statement lacks specific actions on how to achieve a fair representation.
Roundabout Answers:
The article does not include question and answer so this does not apply to the article.
Bias:
The article focuses on the information of changes to electoral boundaries. It does not discuss its potential impacts or criticisms of these changes.
Hedging Statements:
The article uses the phrase "may include" when explaining reasons for changes, which is a form of hedging because it's not a definitive explanation.
Buzzwords:
"Electoral boundaries" and "Single Member Constituencies (SMCs)" and "Group Representation Constituencies (GRCs)" are the buzzwords used within this article.
Gaslighting:
There is no evidence of gaslighting in the article. The text does not attempt to manipulate the reader's sense of reality or sanity.
Dark Psychology Techniques:
There is no evidence of dark psychology techniques in this article.
Summary of Findings:
The article is primarily informational, describing the changes to electoral boundaries in Singapore. It uses some techniques that could be interpreted as ambiguous, hedging, or persuasive language. However, it does not display overt manipulation or clear bias.
Important Considerations:
Context: The specific purpose and function of a news article on boundary changes should be considered.
Interpretation: Readers' interpretation of language can vary, especially when discussing political topics.
Neutrality: The intention is not to claim that the article is deliberately biased but to highlight where certain language use can potentially raise questions.
Conclusion:
The article is relatively straightforward in its reporting, but like most political reporting, it contains certain elements which could potentially be interpreted by some as being ambiguous, hedging or loaded language. It's important for readers to maintain their critical thinking skills and read the article within a broader understanding of electoral politics in Singapore.
General Observations:
It's important to note that news articles, especially those covering political topics, often use language that can be interpreted in different ways. My analysis will focus on identifying potential instances of the listed techniques, without making claims about the author's intent.
Analysis:
Inconsistencies/Contradictions:
There are no glaring internal contradictions in the article.
Ambiguities:
The article refers to "changes" to electoral boundaries but does not provide detailed justification for all specific alterations. This leaves some room for interpretation.
The phrase "to ensure a fair representation" is used but the specific criteria for fairness may be interpreted differently.
Flaws:
The article primarily presents information about boundary changes. It doesn't offer a critical analysis of potential implications.
Weasel Words:
Phrases like "some adjustments" and "minor changes" could be considered weasel words, as they lack specificity.
The use of phrases like "aimed at" or "designed to" when describing the reasoning behind changes. This can suggest intent, but it's not explicitly stated.
Loaded Language:
The term "gerrymandering" is mentioned. While not used by the article itself in relation to the changes, It's a charged term that's associated with manipulation of electoral boundaries.
The phrase "fair representation" has positive connotations, but it's also open to interpretation and could be loaded, depending on one's political views.
Data Discrepancies:
There are no obvious data discrepancies in the article. The article does not use specific numbers or datasets that could be checked for error.
Propaganda Techniques:
Card Stacking: The article focuses on the changes to the electoral boundaries, but does not delve into potential implications of these changes.
Fallacies:
* There are no clear logical fallacies.
Motherhood Statements:
The phrase "to ensure a fair representation" could be seen as a motherhood statement, because most people would agree that fair representation is a desirable goal. This statement lacks specific actions on how to achieve a fair representation.
Roundabout Answers:
The article does not include question and answer so this does not apply to the article.
Bias:
The article focuses on the information of changes to electoral boundaries. It does not discuss its potential impacts or criticisms of these changes.
Hedging Statements:
The article uses the phrase "may include" when explaining reasons for changes, which is a form of hedging because it's not a definitive explanation.
Buzzwords:
"Electoral boundaries" and "Single Member Constituencies (SMCs)" and "Group Representation Constituencies (GRCs)" are the buzzwords used within this article.
Gaslighting:
There is no evidence of gaslighting in the article. The text does not attempt to manipulate the reader's sense of reality or sanity.
Dark Psychology Techniques:
There is no evidence of dark psychology techniques in this article.
Summary of Findings:
The article is primarily informational, describing the changes to electoral boundaries in Singapore. It uses some techniques that could be interpreted as ambiguous, hedging, or persuasive language. However, it does not display overt manipulation or clear bias.
Important Considerations:
Context: The specific purpose and function of a news article on boundary changes should be considered.
Interpretation: Readers' interpretation of language can vary, especially when discussing political topics.
Neutrality: The intention is not to claim that the article is deliberately biased but to highlight where certain language use can potentially raise questions.
Conclusion:
The article is relatively straightforward in its reporting, but like most political reporting, it contains certain elements which could potentially be interpreted by some as being ambiguous, hedging or loaded language. It's important for readers to maintain their critical thinking skills and read the article within a broader understanding of electoral politics in Singapore.
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)