SG Talk

Saw this exchange. Maybe you have seen it too.

WP MP Manap made a speech saying that his religion cover all important aspects of life .

Shammuggan stood up to ask questions structured in like this:

1. All aspects of life include politics?
2. If yes, is he saying that he will not separate religion and politics.

If not careful 
, he would answer yes to 1 and 2...and fall into a trap...because yes to 1 lead to a yes for 2....but it is a trick.

Watch how Manap responded resist getting trapped by Shammuggan. 

The trick Shammuggan used here is to equate ' cannot be separated" to '"mixed" then corner Manap to admit he mixes religion and politics.

Manap catches the trick and exposes it

The phrase "not separating (mixing) politics and religion" refers to leaders who exploit religion for political gains. ...not a failure to separate religion from  decision making.

Shammuggan was misdirecting Manap to admit to something sinister.

Manap managed to catch the trick at the end 

This is a classic that opposition MPs should watch to avoid this minister who is actually a trickster.

https://www.tiktok.com/@sgprimememesters...8206407938?

A yes to 1 doesn't imply a yes to 2. A person with average iq shd be able to explain that.

He got trapped himself in the rideout horsey bungalow

Manap should ask him what is the point of his question.

black snake is liddat wan lah

ai yeah

this is called sleepy government and parliament with stupid arguments


whether government politics and religion practices should be practice altogether in parliament that depend on how the constitution is form in the FIRST PLACE

there are muslim and there are muslim
there are christain and there are christain
there are Buddhism and there are buddhism

muslim or/and Islam themselves have two main sects within Islam, Sunni and Shia
so
there are muslim and there are muslim
but to the SAME GOD

each practice differencely
and because there are differences in muslim and Islam, but to the SAME GOD, it is wise to separate government politics and religion
but one can only apply both, the politics and the religion, on other political body outside the government where an organisation accepted it with in that community


there is most appropriate argument and engagement

That's the problem of having lawyers to run the countries..

Trap you with words.

Let engineers run the country, everything is based on fact or stat..

No twist and turn of words.

Same like Modi when he talks

"When India grows, the whole word grows"

Only 61% Naive believes in such BS

Talk and talk and talk... becum ink deer

Do and do and do... becum chai na

This dark one is always very cunning and snaky.  It goes running round the tree and sneak around the bush looking for prey. Very poisonous
and dangerous.

Lawyers are usually like that. They'll ask a question then have u answer only yes or no, without allowing any qualification. However, things are not so clear cut in reality. It's like first saying that lion is an animal, then the lawyer will ask you if A is an animal. If u said yes then he'll say that A is as ferocious as a lion. That's why I hate lawyers.

(24-06-2023, 08:06 PM)sgbuffett Wrote: [ -> ]Saw this exchange. Maybe you have seen it too.

WP MP Manap made a speech saying that his religion cover all important aspects of life .

Shammuggan stood up to ask questions structured in like this:

1. All aspects of life include politics?
2. If yes, is he saying that he will not separate religion and politics.

If not careful 
, he would answer yes to 1 and 2...and fall into a trap...because yes to 1 lead to a yes for 2....but it is a trick.

Watch how Manap responded resist getting trapped by Shammuggan. 

The trick Shammuggan used here is to equate ' cannot be separated" to '"mixed" then corner Manap to admit he mixes religion and politics.

Manap catches the trick and exposes it

The phrase "not separating (mixing) politics and religion" refers to leaders who exploit religion for political gains. ...not a failure to separate religion from  decision making.

Shammuggan was misdirecting Manap to admit to something sinister.

Manap managed to catch the trick at the end 

This is a classic that opposition MPs should watch to avoid this minister who is actually a trickster.

https://www.tiktok.com/@sgprimememesters...8206407938?

He is using the binary trick question which only allows him to corner you into giving only two answers for him to justify his conclusions, typical of what a lawyer do in a court, LOL.

(24-06-2023, 09:40 PM)WhatDoYouThink! Wrote: [ -> ]A yes to 1 doesn't imply a yes to 2. A person with average iq shd be able to explain that.

To be able to stand up under pressure and see through the logic trick is not so simple....

(26-06-2023, 12:44 AM)lioncityftw Wrote: [ -> ]He is using the binary trick question which only allows him to corner you into giving only two answers for him to justify his conclusions, typical of what a lawyer do in a court, LOL.

1. Do you agree that human beings have 2 legs?..answer yes or no.

2.  Since you agree human beings have 2 legs, you agree that those who are born deformed with one missing leg are not humans.

Shanmmugan is full of such tricks during  parliament. ..

he pushed through POFMA and really sickening law where those in power decide who and what to pofma. Its a ridiculous law build on flawed logic.

I enjoy seeing Shanmugam having his knickers in a twist with his Ridout scandal. Serve this slimeball of a politician right.

(24-06-2023, 08:06 PM)sgbuffett Wrote: [ -> ]Shammuggan was misdirecting Manap to admit to something sinister.

Manap managed to catch the trick at the end 

This is a classic that opposition MPs should watch to avoid this minister who is actually a trickster.

https://www.tiktok.com/@sgprimememesters...8206407938?

This is a classic clip that opposition MPs should watch and learn not to present themselves in such an inferior, no confidence and pathetic posture when debating in parliament. Manap just looked like a kid being questioned by a strict teacher. Of course Shame can see that he had Manap under his psychological control and starts running around him in circles jabbing him with short but powerful punches. 

Although I am not particularly aligned with the current regime's policy, my observation above is for the benefit of the oppositions to improve themselves using someone like the Leader of opposition or that Singaporean TikTok CEO as models.   

He's a lawyer, nuff said.

Here is Shanmuggan asking a series ofimple questions" to entrap Leong over his statement that LHY had not absconded as alleged by the PAP

Here the trick starts early

1. He stated that Leong made a serious allegation. Actually Leong stated an opinion on whether LHY has absconded based on his understanding of the word absconded that if there if there are no criminal charges there is no absconding
 If Leong called him out here...he would be in a better position.

2. Next the minister resort to a series of yes no simple question to corner Leong. Leong knew something was up and refuse to answer them.

3. What Shanmuggan was trying to do was get Leong to agree there were legal judgements against LHY and his wife that can potentially lead to criminal charges hence the PAP use of the word "abscond" is justified.

4. If Leong had thought 2 steps ahead he should have allowed the minister to finish off and ask the minister back...."Are there existing criminal charges against LHY ...yes or no?" ...if no, in his OPINION it is wrong to use the word abscond.

(26-06-2023, 07:48 AM)sgbuffett Wrote: [ -> ]1. Do you agree that human beings have 2 legs?..answer yes or no.

2.  Since you agree human beings have 2 legs, you agree that those who are born deformed with one missing leg are not humans.

Shanmmugan is full of such tricks during  parliament. ..

he pushed through POFMA and really sickening law where those in power decide who and what to pofma. Its a ridiculous law build on flawed logic.

Same lawyerly trick can be served to him as well. Imagine one day he tio hauled to COI approved by the president on the Rideout saga with DPP throwing him similar questions..:

DPP: Are you aware that under Section 3.1 of the Code, a minister must avoid “any actual or apparent conflict of interest between his office and his private financial interests.” 

Shanmugam: Yes, I am fully aware.

DPP: Do you agree that to the statement that any minister who contravenes the Code and created so much controversy and fails to explains himself convincingly to the public beyond a reasonable doubt should be punished according to the Law and resign?

Shanmugam: Sir, if I may explain further..... (interrupted by DPP).

DPP: Let me repeat and I am asking you a simple question: Do you agree that to the statement that any minister who contravenes the Code and created so much controversy and fails to explains himself convincingly to the public beyond a reasonable doubt should be punished according to the Law and resign?

Shanmugam: Yes, I do agree but....(interrupted by DPP).

DPP: If you agree to the statement, which is set out as facts and under the Law, then you should know what to do.

Shanmugam: But.....(interrupted by DPP).

DPP: There is no need to explain anymore. End of question.

https://www.nas.gov.sg/archivesonline/da...isters.pdf
https://sso.agc.gov.sg/Act/IA2007?ProvIds=P12-#pr3-

Oh wait, whole law ministry is under him and the President also kakilang...

(24-06-2023, 10:25 PM)klat Wrote: [ -> ]He got trapped himself in the rideout horsey bungalow

(26-06-2023, 07:48 AM)sgbuffett Wrote: [ -> ]1. Do you agree that human beings have 2 legs?..answer yes or no.

2.  Since you agree human beings have 2 legs, you agree that those who are born deformed with one missing leg are not humans.

Shanmmugan is full of such tricks during  parliament. ..

he pushed through POFMA and really sickening law where those in power decide who and what to pofma. Its a ridiculous law build on flawed logic.

1. No, some hv 3 legs.

Try to outsmart him and you won't be trapped