Wonder whether these people handling this issue is aware of the potential repercussions? or perhaps they thought they could just get away with it time and again.

I think this is another demonstration of the power of the Internet bringing a seemingly innocuous piece of news to the forefront of a national debate.

Wonder whether these people handling this issue is aware of the potential repercussions? or perhaps they thought they could just get away with it time and again.

The grassroots? of course they are accountable…that is, to the PAP. I understand that these people ar thoroughly SCREENED for background before they can volunteer? as grassroots for the PAP.

It is also obvious the type of people who will volunteer for such work.

the whole point is that there are no further arguments they can put forward, and they refuse to accept what has been put to them. when they say “We do not expect the Workers’ Party to accept these basic facts”, it simply implies that they too do not accept the basic facts the Workers Party has put to them.

arguing any further over the forum will just mean that the same arguments are repeated by both parties again and again, which is why they have chosen to ‘agree to disagree’.

it’s ridiculous to think that they’ve conceded. the pap never concedes any mistake. after all, temasek’s investments are all long-term, even if they only last six to twelve months.

Of course he does. You’re forgetting the many with whom he
disagreed to agree who were taken as prisoners under the infamous ISA. Some remained his guests for decades.

These are my comments in another thread, but they serve the purpose to a T here:
“First they say “let’s move on”. Now it’s “let’s agree to disagree”.
Are the two the same? If so my reading is that they both mean
“I cannot beat you in arguing the case but I refuse to admit
defeat because I have a very broad multi-$million face. So
you have to ’shut down and sit up’ if you know what’s good
for you!”
I’m not at all surprised as our dear beloved pm has already
admitted that faced with more opposition mps he would not have
the time to think of how to fix the opposition.
In the heat of a debate or argument you don’t just pull the rug
from under your opponents by saying either of those two things.
You admit that you are wrong or you have lost the argument.
Anything less is wimpy!”

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agree_to_disagree

http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/agree-to-disagree.html

I’m leaning towards Gerald and Somebody though… I’m guessing Lee Kuan Yew never had to break the glass in an emergency and use the phrase “agree to disagree”. Maybe I’m too young to know but I’ve never heard or seen LKY use “agree to disagree” when it comes to the opposition. Not even once in his sterling political career that spans close to six decades.

LKY either demolishes the argument or sues the bloke into bankruptcy. He does not take prisoners.

Regards,
An Old Friend

So Mah agrees to disagree now. But what does it mean for everyone in the future? Are they going to make similar announcements to PAP grassroot advisors, bypassing elected opposition MPs again? Why are opposition ward MPs not considered part of the government? There are still many questions left unanswered.

“personally, i feel that agreeing to disagree is rational, and shows maturity in thinking.”

That’s the whole point. The PAP is almost never rational and mature in dealing with the Opposition, especially when they are certain they are right and the opposition is wrong. Have you ever heard them tell JBJ or Chee Soon Juan “we will agree to disagree”?

So that’s why my conclusion in their “agree to disagree” statement is that they have admitted that they cannot convince Singaporeans (and definitely not WP) that they are right.

This does not mean that in any argument where one party says “let’s agree to disagree”, that party is effectively conceding defeat. I was commenting on this particular debate over LUP.