have been reading this year's budget speech and budget debate roundup. he's very cutting towards ltk isn't he? this has been the case last year too. direct putdowns and accusatory tone. and keywords like danger built into the rhetoric about the wp. he is a lot kinder about chiam see tong - his rebuffs are gently-worded - "i think this [suggestion] will hurt our workers, although it is well-intentioned." (2005) and contrasting the two ("unlike mr chiam see tong, who made good recommendations etc..) (2006) budget roundups shouldn't be the place for the pap to score a political point either. but it is also true that i am feeling a lot less well-disposed towards the wp lately. in principle of course i believe we should have opposition members of parliament (obviously) and i'm glad i happen to live in hougang where we have the power to put someone credible and likeable from the opposition into parliament, and that someone one i can vote for without doing it for the sake of opposing - but it's also "big picture" voting rather than party or issues or performance voting: since the pap is going to be returned to government anyway, might as well use your vote to put in some independents and opposition mps. but increasingly i feel i don't fundamentally agree with what the wp stands for (with its radical leanings and history of controversy and labour origins. and it is after all the party of david marshall and jbj, hot-headed, fiery orators with a great deal of heart (and somewhat short tempers( - and don't think i don't appreciate them for it - but not enough sense. i'd sooner vote for a moderate candidate from the sda, or an independent. and i'm certainly not one of those who disapprove of the pap and would die-die vote oppositin. but i want more deep thinkers and quiet tacticians and gentle men in parliament, and the wp is hardly the place to find them.