https://sg.news.yahoo.com/singapore-not-taking-sides-vote-un-resolution-jerusalem-balakrishnan-094124266.html
The UN resolution vote on Jerusalem was to show that the UN was against the USA's recognition of Jerusalem.
Therefore, when you had cast a "For or Yes" vote, it would mean that you had voted against the USA's recognition of Jerusalem and also meant that Israel was not the true ruler of Jerusalem.
Thus, the "For" vote was definitely not a neutral stance. Generally speaking, a neutral stance would mean abstinence from voting.
If casting a "For" vote means not taking sides, then what about not voting? Does abstinence mean taking sides?
SG had already redefined the definition of an elected president. It is trying to redefine the meaning of its voting stance now.
http://sg-stock.blogspot.sg/2017/07/omg-singapore-didnt-support-banning-of.html
I would like to know what did SG mean when it abstained from voting for a nuclear ban since voting "Yes or For" meant not taking sides.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
SG should have voted for a nuclear ban since casting a "yes" vote meant not taking sides.
Post a Comment