On the Opposition’s redundancy
Saturday, 30 August 2008, 11:12 am | 146 views
The following is a reply by Lim Jialiang to a blog post by Young PAP member Nicholas Lazarus titled, “The ever redundant opposition”, on the Young PAP blog.
Lim Jialiang / Guest Writer
I feel compelled to correct the limited and flawed understanding that you have of Athenian Democracy (misspelled as Athean Democracy); and how you belittle the importance of the opposition in the modern democracy that you speak of. I will also be addressing the point which you claim - that the opposition is rendered redundant on the fact that the citizens’ themselves can ‘check’ the government.
Firstly, your understanding of an Athenian Democracy is flawed. It is impossible to draw a comparison between an Athenian Democracy vis-à-vis the current Singaporean Democracy due to them being different systems of democracy altogether. In an Athenian Democracy, we are looking at the case of a DIRECT Democracy. In contrast, Singapore uses a REPRESENTATIVE Democracy. When you do see 3.65 million Singapore citizens streaming into Parliament to vote on legislation, I’ll concede the point and say that we are moving towards an Athenian Democracy.
Also, mentioning the fact that Singapore is becoming a ‘modern Athean democracy’ is just plain malarkey. That merely serves to be a red herring. In addition, having an Athenian Democracy is really nothing to be proud of, for it was highly selective, with only male Athens citizens being able to vote in it, and the women and slaves not being allowed to vote. You once again show how flawed your understanding of an Athenian Democracy is.
Even if I concede the point that we are moving towards an Athenian Democracy, you fail to substantiate how this has anything to do with the redundancy of the opposition as you have proposed.
Singapore is fast becoming a modern Athean democracy where the citizens are partaking in the democratic process by engaging the Government and pointing out the deficiencies so that the Government may address them. They are doing this in a very rational in calm manner- by emails, discussions, forums, feedback sessions, blogs, letters and face to face interaction.
In all democracies, it is a right, rather than a privilege, for a citizen to address any problems that they have through their representatives, which is the Member of Parliament (MP). The line above suggests to me that there has been a failure of the system for citizens to engage the government the past four decades, and that this primary right has only been re-established recently. This does not seem to show any indication of why the opposition is not needed. Moreover, if the basic right of citizens to partake in the democratic process has been denied to them for the past four decades, then it strengthens and reaffirms the need for an opposition, for the PAP is not able to grant this fundamental right that the opposition promises to give, if it can be given in the first place.
From the line above, I can thus conclude that you see the opposition of the citizens being enough to serve the cogs of democracy. However, you fail to underline a dangerous flaw in such a democracy. The incumbent party will only engage the citizens if and only if it is beneficial or along the party lines. There are many issues left untouched, which our MPs, who are supposed to be representing us in Parliament, have not brought up. The recent GST hikes which have brought undue inflationary pressures at a time where oil and food prices are at an all-time high. The regression of the lower classes’ income levels in the past decade. The situation of our public transport, which still packs us like sardines, or in conditions that even sardines will balk to hear about. All these are issues that have not been explored which you have conveniently left out.
Once again, there are limitations for the common citizen to address these issues adequately, and it is certainly not enough for the citizen to become the sole ‘opposition’ of the government. And if the incumbent does not deal with these issues in parliament, then who will? This thus exposes the dangers of a single-party system without an opposition.
True enough; the government has taken steps to change legislation in regards to the baby bonus.
However, it puzzles me why you’ve brought up the incident of the recent sacking of the table tennis coach by the president of the Singapore Table Tennis Association (STTA). You are mistaking the position which Lee Bee Wah is representing - she is merely the President of STTA, and this matter has no relation to the Government. Once again, you show a lack of understanding and discernment in choosing your examples to support your argument.
More importantly, you trivialise the opposition in your post. The opposition is dissolved into a bunch of sprawling bawling babies that make no coherent sense and is unsure of what it is doing.
Their argument is that Singaporeans cannot voice out matters to the PAP and they need an opposition to do the voicing for them.
This is not the argument of the opposition at all. The opposition does not have the arrogance to regard Singaporeans as mutes who are unable to voice their own views. The opposition serves to bring issues to Parliament for debate, issues that the incumbent sidesteps and ignores. That is why we need the opposition.
If the opposition cannot even get involved in the issues of the day that concern the people, are they not redundant?
Indeed, the opposition parties in Singapore cannot get involved in the issues of the day. After all, with an overwhelming majority with only two opposition members in Parliament, their voices are the minority. However, they have spoken time and again on issues that Singaporeans are concerned about. Is that not a form of getting involved with the issues of the day? One only has to read the Workers’ Party Manifesto in 2006 to see that they have clear agendas and issues set out for the governing of Singapore. To discount the opposition and say that they are redundant just because there is no form of physical action is foolish.
The citizen himself does not have enough power to serve as a check and balance on the government. This recent cartoon by the blog My Sketchbook highlights the importance of a political opposition. It isn’t the opposition that is redundant by choice. They are made redundant by the politics that is practised by the PAP.
—————-
Email this to a Friend
Bookmark this
Well said, well articulated.
Glad you rebutted that Nicholas Lazarus. He keeps trying to rise from the dead, for whatever reasons, even after having all his articles debunked completely. I remember his one on homosexually. It was a piece of unbelieveable bigotry. But what is even more astonishing is that the PAP would accept someone like him into the party and ALLOW HIM TO BE IN THE PAP’S YOUTH WING.
That just goes to tell you that the PAP is truly scrapping the bottom of the barrel.
Have you thought hard enough about it?
Does the population really understand what politics is all about?
I know I dont but just make sure you do!
I laughed when I saw what the Youth PAP degenerated into. It is such an apt indicator of what the PAP has evolved into over the years as a result of their comfortable position in power. They’ve become less and less careful about how they justify their policies. Back in the good old days, I believe Lee Kuan Yew was capable of some good arguments, pushing through policies that turned out to be truly beneficial for oru economy. Now, they’ve turned into complacent people, and their youth wing, the future of PAP represents this complacency. Putting up such easily debunked articles is just, not smart.
On the other hand, I doubt that the PAP really trys to groom youth wing members into future candidates for elections. The ones with real potential should know better than to waste their time in the youth wing. Then again, potential might not be what the PAP is looking for. Maybe their looking for pawns, like Lee Bee Wah, who unfortunately wasn’t much of a pawn since she tried to strike out on her own and assert her authority over STTA.
The problem of the unbelievable quality lies in the inability to stand critism or someone who can perform better than them
Singapore is run by a despot and the lust for absolute power is a compelling reason to make the opposition redundant. The inderhand tactics is proof !
A despot thrives with minimum or no opposition and will need the support of many cronies and stooges to feel secure. The YPAP is the supply centre for many stooges like Nicholas Lazarus and it is important for concerned Singaporeans to view them as such.
The opposition is grossly under-represented in parliament and this scenario can be changed with the people giving the PAP as little votes in 2011. It will be justice and rightly so ! because many of the PAP MPs have betrayed the people by not speaking up for them.
i am really appalled by what lazarus has said. “athean democracy”?!! is he trying to suggest that we shld abolish women’s rights to vote during elections?!?!?!?? dangerous. he shld be charged under sedition act for being sexist. AWWA shld charge him for seditious libel.
According to conventional wisdom there are two types of Democracies : Ancient Democracy and Modern Democracy.
Ancient Democracies started in classical Greece (and later spread to ancient Rome) where, although the philosophers started off with high ideals like freedom of the individual, freedom to pursue happiness freedom of speech and freedom to elect their own representatives, these rights were only enjoyed by a minority of the rich and powerful whilst the majority, which comprised of slaves and women, not only had no such rights but their very lives depended on the whims and fancies of their corrupt and immoral Caesars, lords and slave masters.
Ancient “Democractic” Rome which crucified Jesus Christ, lasted less than a thousand years (thank goodness) and ended with a runaway inflation and unspeakable moral decadence (remember Caligula?), before fading away leaving behind limestone ruins, marble statues, broken temples and rusty coins.
So Ancient Democracy was really nothing to be proud of.
Modern Democracy emerged in the Middle Ages, when a new breed of commercial class of people became enlightened and they rekindled the spirit of freedom based on the ideals of the ancient Greeks. Equal political and social rights came with the Renaissance and religious rights came with the Reformation.
Before 1066 England was a feudal society ruled by kings, barons and despots. Only after the conquest by the Normans were Common Laws introduced. In other words before 1066, the English were barbarians when the Silk road was already a thriving trade route to the Far East.
But Modern Democracy as we know it today began with a rebellion against the brutality and excesses of the British Monarchy in 1642 which ended with the public execution of King Charles I and the proclamation of the Bill of Rights.
Major features of Modern Democracy like those enshrined in the Magna Carta (1215) include individual freedom, freedom of speech, freedom to pursue happiness and wealth, equality before the law, universal suffrage and representative government.
These democratic rights were copied by the victorious American colonials who rebelled against British oppression (remember mad King George I?) and enshrined them in the American Declaration of Independence in 1776.
In France before that, it was the Declaration of the Rights of Man with the clarion call for “liberty, fraternity, and equality” after the rebellion and the storming of the Bastille against the immoral and unjust French King Louis 16 and his royal prerogative and excesses.
Therefore, Modern Democracy in England and France is about 300 years old. In America, Modern Democracy is 232 years old when dated from the historic crossing of the Delaware by George Washington in 1776.
But what is this new, strange and unique system which is 43 years old and has the following traits ?
1 Where the opposition party is redundant. (The opposition seems to have no part in this interaction between the people and their Govt. And there is no need too.)
2 When citizens are unhappy with the Govt, they waste no time in making their unhappiness known. They do not need the opposition.
3 When citizens are unhappy, they make their unhappiness known. There is certainly no fear here. The Govt will take note of the unhappiness and swiftly respond and even back date benefits.
4When a country is fast becoming a modern (sic) Athean democracy where the citizens are partaking in the democratic process by engaging the Govt and pointing out the deficiencies so that the Govt may address them.
5 When the citizens are doing this in a very rational in calm manner- by emails, discussions, forums, feedback sessions, blogs, letters and face to face interaction.
6 When the Govt too is responding swiftly to the people and acting upon it. In fact, the Govt has to do so and this is the best “check” on the Govt – the people themselves who will not wait till election time to address issues that concern them.
Is this Utopia or Democrazy ? Sorry, I don’t know. I need to ask Lazarus. Anyone for table tennis?
to handle high cost of living for us $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ moneys yes!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
opposition party pls help us to talk to pap about moneys
thanks
There are two issues here which Nicholas Lazarus has brought up. (By the way, I am posting this on his blog as well).
One: That the opposition is redundant. And as he said in his blog, the opposition has been missing, in terms of being a check on the Govt.
Two: That the citizens can check the govt and that the govt actually listens and acts on this.
I will answer both questions directly and squarely.
Opposition is redundant because it has not checked the Govt..
Nicholas Lazarus, before I go on, I would like to give you a chance to re-think your claim. Are you sure that the opposition - I assume you’re talking about those in Parliament - has not been checking on the Govt? Think very carefully before answering. Talk facts. Not your own subjective opinion. When you have answered this, I will prove to you that your assertion is wrong.
Citizens can check on the govt and the govt has listened.
While you give examples of recent intervention by the govt on several incidents, and use these to claim that there is a citizens’ check on the govt, you fail to see the more important issues which, in the same way, citizens have tried to change the govt’s position - examples would be:
- the casino issue (majority of S’poreans were against it)
- by-election in Jurong GRC (two independent polls, one by the New Paper and one by The Online Citizen, both resulted in between 60% and 70% of those polled want a by-election.
- Ministerial salaries. Nuff said.
- Public transport fare increases. Nuff said.
- Transparency of Temasek Holdings and the GISC.
Now, Nicholas Lazarus, tell me how has the citizens’ voice provided a check on these much more important issues?
Over to you.
Sorry, his blog requires me to be a blogger myself before posting. So, cannot post on his blog. Damn! Maybe someone can do me a favour and cut and paste it on his blog? Tks!
i think we need a fair judge to hear our voices in opposition party and pap as well but i think is opposition party that can hear our voices!!
We should just ignore Nicholas Lazarus. Reading at his blog, you will find such person is not worth your time replying. He just look like someone looking for publicity.
The points that he raised can be used against his masters easily and isn’t he foolish enough to remind us that ? Most of his arguments in his blog pertaining to the policy and regulation are incredibly senseless.
I read his blog and ask myself what kind of clown is he ? Is he our future leader ? Look like I better apply for migration.
Being a skeptic, I find the meaning of “listen” perplexing.
Does reception of a transmitted message qualify as “listening”? This is clearly insufficient whenever your girlfriend or wife complains that you aren’t *really* listening. What usually lacking is communication of empathy and failure of compliance.
Instead of saying that “the government is not listening”, it is perhaps more accurate to say that “the government is not letting me have my way”.
Lazarus, why like that????(next time think before you talk) nevermind take it as a lesson..GOOD DAY.
The Majority has for nearly 50 years said again and again NO to opposition.
I wonder does this mean the
Majority of S’pore
feel that it is a good thing that S’pore have no Opposition representation for the People?
I like to ask also, does the majority have a responsibility to help ensure have a more mature democracy ?
I like to ask the majority, do you feel that s’pore should save the time and money on elections and maintain the status quo ?
spore, 1st world, it is said.
Paiseh, I just like to know,
does anyone know
what qualifies a person as a grassfoot leader?
how many are there?
which party they affiliated to , if any?
is having pbm a grassroot leader?
regards
clueless
Grassroot membership number requirement. The third leg longer the better.
Dear majority_wan_voting_of_nots, Had the majority of voters said Yes to opposition, it would indicate a change of government not simply opposition representation. The mandate for the government from votes in contested seats in the last was 66.6%. This means that a third of voters that casted their votes in the last GE wanted opposition participation not yet opposition revolution.
In any case, the Next GE is predictably a couple of years away, with the limited contestable SMCs and the tradition of Potong Pasir SMC to be associated with Mr Chiam See Tong, formerly from SDP now SPP, I wonder if the ageing Mr Chiam has a successor with calibre to feel, think and act as a representative of one third of voters? It would be sad should party dominance be used as a basis to allocate contestable boundaries as SPP or SDA don’t seem to be able to offer a credible face to succeed Mr Chiam.
This succession planning alongside the consideration of continued opposition representation in parliament would surely reflect the maturity of the present opposition cadre. I may be wrong, but the way I see Potong Pasir voters’ support to Mr Chiam is more leaning to his personality, familiarity and charisma. I seriously doubt anyone within SPP/SDA will be able to command such affiliation. Perhaps, for the continued survival of opposition with constituents in parliament, Mr Chiam could offer the ward be contested by the next better player. As of now, I can’t think of anyone else but Ms Sylvia Lim of WP.
The problem is that there are too few opposition members in parliament, not because they do not engage the ruling party.
once again its another of those propoganda stuff
I am worried for PAP for this guy is becoming more and more like a Elitist.
Just imagine one day when such guy become part of our govt?
I cant really think what will happen to our future generations
Have a look at this article - an interesting insight into the Singapore political system. ( Published in the Guardian - A Broadsheet British Paper)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/jul/01/civilliberties
23) 123 on September 1st, 2008 10.32 am
Do not worry lah. Let me tell you some fiction. Once upon a time, they were a group of people who enjoyed hawking their old approach of twisted reasoning and it sold very well among themselves. They began to shake hands and giving congratulatory pats on one another’s back and giving the loud claps of high-5s to one another - in their own make-believe world and floating dream state.
They key test is “Do they really believe what they are saying in their sober state after waking up from the dream”.
It really makes me wonder why they are doing this to themselves and to the people. I hope they are respecting themselves for saying such a thing and respecting the people’s intelligence of sizing up the validity for such a statement. Orselse, our many years of education should be thrown out of the window.
21) lifeobzervr on August 31st, 2008 9.49 pm
i think for ppasir to not lose, there is still just enough time to hire from abroad strategists who also wants to be citizen here. its really not difficult to become a citizen here compared to places like australia or usa.
since locals are either not talented enough to spare a few for our underdogs, why not learn from the pingpong ‘miracle’? miracles are only … a few….steps…away.
these foreign talents may not want to join the ruling party. so , find these who also want to come here to work or become citizens or make history. they can help and advise and provide strategies and need not be citizen . they also need not run for election. just provide strategies and work behind the scenes how to counter and craft a winning strategy to secure ppasir.
Taiwan , USA have great political advisors.
since FT policy so great and bombastic, why limit this joy to pingpong?
If they want to put someone as a front to defend their policies, the decent thing to do is to put someone whose arguments are convincing, articulate and intelligent. Not a half past six apple polisher whose points could be easily demolished by people. Like someone said, they are really scrapping at the bottom of the barrel.
Reading his articles and his blog make one feel like watching a comedy show.
For all you know, he just might be a satirist trying to discredit the PAP just by having bad arguments and getting flamed for it.
Then again, most of the PAP’s substantiation for policies are pretty wild arguments.
Well done Lazarus. It has been a while since I have heard such brilliant logic. The last I heard such brilliance was in Mr Wong’s and our PM’s responses to the Mat Selamat affair. We have also heard such response from our elite members in Paliament. This article just goes to show that you belong to that elite category of people who have the blinkers on and have just convinced themselves that they know everything and are god’s gift to Singaporeans and that it is their duty to pay themselves so much and talk such brilliant logic. Go Lazarus, you and your people never fail to amaze us. More good years ahead..
> feel that it is a good thing that S’pore have no Opposition representation for the People?
Yes, if the opposition only opposes in the name of “checking on the government”.
Why doesn’t or hasn’t democracy work in most parts of the East? I suspect:
a) Many people still don’t reconcile differences in a civilised way. (Look at Thailand). Democracy is about representation, not letting everyone has his or her own way.
b) In the absence of good government, political renewal doesn’t work.
Is Singapore ready yet? I don’t know. But I notice that many articles and comments here, online replies to the ST forum, and many political blogs here are too emotional and rude compared to those in established Western democracies such as http://blogs.iht.com/.
We still have a long way to go on how we hold discussions.
“30) Michelle on September 2nd, 2008 3.17 pm ”
“Why doesn’t or hasn’t democracy work in most parts of the East? I suspect:”
“Is Singapore ready yet? I don’t know. But I notice that many articles and comments here, online replies to the ST forum, and many political blogs here are too emotional and rude compared to those in established Western democracies such as http://blogs.iht.com/. ”
Michelle, Michelle, Michelle. I thought you have answered your own question. Or maybe I’m wrong, you have not really seen through it yet. You did detect some discrepancy between “most parts of the East” and “established Western democracies”.
The difference between Western world and “most parts of the East” (not all I guess) is that the former has the will to implement / enforce a system where the best are democratically selected and the willingness by the defeated parties to let go after a decision by the people is made. Well, it has plenty of civil societies and the necessary mechanisms for the citizenry to cry foul if any elected representative does not play balls in the intervening period between elections.
They have satires (both in words and pictures), jokes, unkind remarks, etc directed onto the elected representatives and unlikely they will get sued. This is the price (package deal) that elected representatives sometimes have to pay. I wonder whether you call this rude.
By far, this is the best selection system that they have given to the world. Of course, normal day-to-day politicking & gamesmanship is still part and parcel in well political life.
Now whether one really wins / gets defeated convincingly depends on the FAIRNESS of the whole process. No point just to have a surface label (purely for marketing purpose) of democratic process when it is not really one in actual practice.
Whereas, for some parts of the world as you can see, some people feel that they are always the best to run the show and not so willing to let go (for reasons best known to them) even though the people have sometimes signalled their contrary intention.
As for this so-called rudeness, this is sometimes a natural response that one will get for not playing by the very rules one has even set them himself (e.g glaring double standards). This is nothing as compared to some countries (and yes, in some western countries too) where elected representatives are being grilled (not barbecued lah) where solid uncomfortable questions are being asked in front of national TVs - plenty of such examples in YouTube. Do not forget, you are living in Singapore (I presume).
“We still have a long way to go on how we hold discussions.”
I hope not. However, you may be right. I thought we have thousands of years of history behind us and yet we are still behind the Western world in this respect. What to do ?
Do you all think that the young sporeanos are extremely pragmatic?
Is that good or there is no harm?
I have known so many grosroteladders that I begin to sigh.
Michelle,
I believe Singapore citizens are ready for political renewal but not this govt.
The PAP is hanging on because of self interest. Their self serving governance and policies betray their intentions.
The main difference with western democracies is they do not try to suppress free speech. It is also in their culture to ask questions, even of their leaders.
Their laws and justice system are more transparent and independent where all political parties are treated equally. Ours have been exposed by IBA.
You are right to mention the emotional and rude comments, rebuttals in forums and blogs. I agree that we have some way to go on how we hold discussions.
But I hope people like you will cut the general public including myself some slack.
I find it extremely difficult to deal with this govt because they have their own agenda. They are guilty of taking the people for granted, low on integrity, lacking accountability, no sense of fairness and no clue on shame and honour.
Negative governance begets negative participation from citizens.
I am ’surprised’
IBA’s 70 odd pages (i recall , but maybe wrong ;p )
never kenna (singlish) anything ah! so many pages of assessment leh.
I thought I heard something by someone that they are doing someone in and out kind of thingie?
What happened?
Who shall we say ‘liberate’d sgpore? The fudder of liberati of the sgpore?
I recall someone saying liberate ler.
What is the Trigger to liberate?
So, now can get back to IBA ask them if their report still correctional of nots izit ?
What if there did not exist an IBA ?
I no no lah. I am Clueless. Nice to meet you!
sgpore, young nation.
dear Michelle,
you understimate Singaporeans! In any society there are people who resort to emotional arguments. However, your attitude is similar to the government, it is paternalistic and elitist. The people are not ready and we know better. You have to ask yourself the question: if only when everyone is making rational statements, Singapore is ready for democracy, will it ever be?
The comments and blogs on the internet show that Singapore is ready for democracy. Websites like The Online Citizen make it clear that there are a lot of educated people that could contribute their alternative viewpoints but are obstructed by the unnecessarily authoritarian politics of the ruling party.
Singapore needs to stand up and demand more. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. So Singapore needs a balance of power! Now!
Another blatant attempt to undermine and dis-credit the opposition.
all guy must know tat,some pp in here is sent from the goV..
they want to BRAIN WASH our brain…!! to support PAP..
they solve BIG thing just to increase the burden of singaporeans,,DO WE need to support?? sing and western countries is different!! WAKE UP LAH…!!
GOV only know to increase everything..but alot of aunty and uncle fear tat if don VOTES PAP,,they will be kill..!! hahas..V funny right..can”T blame them,,so u can know tat in singaporeans heart,,what kind of faces is PAP R…
all media and NEWPAPER is control by gov..is so sian..
in taiwan,the media is to check the gov..but sing?? praise??
now only internet lo..still want to control?? DEMOCRACY country?? still want to compare western countries??
we must learn from taiwan and malaysia..,,we just need one night in 2011,,to change the sky colour in singapore!!,
we love singapore,SINGAPORE WE R…!!
LOVE OR LOYAL TO Singapore,,at least change some colour,,if not we die more fast…:(
gov salary too high..
GOV is work for the people,,DO u think so in sing??
they love SINGAPO,SINGAPO DOLLAR…:)….:)
I do not expect you to agree with me, but some of you might not have understood me. So I’ll try clarify myself here. If you do not agree with me, I ask you not to accuse me of working for PAP to brainwash you or spread propaganda. For others who have understood me but disagree, I respect your right to hold a different view.
My main points were posed as 2 questions:
1. Why hasn’t democracy work in most parts of the East like it has worked in the West?
2. We all know that Singapore is not very democratic relative to the West. I then question if democracy would work here.
Regarding my first point, I gave 2 hypotheses: (1a) people cannot reconcile differences (like Thailand) and (1b) absence of capable government.
In response to my second question, I said that I’m not totally sure if democracy would work (which doesn’t mean that I’m sure it does not). One of the reasons is that I believe our level of communicate still lacks far behind established Western democracies. This therefore suggests that we might not yet be able to arrive at consensus (with reference to point 1a). This has nothing to do with elitism. Did I ever postulate that some group of people are “better” than the rest and so should dominate?
As for point 1b (which I didn’t comment previously), I feel that politicians cannot fully grasp the intricacies of managing a large organisation like a surgeon cannot understand the complexity of real human bodies without actual practice and accumulating experience. Therefore, I do not believe that most opposition today can replace the PAP immediately and completely. This is sadly a side-effect of the nanny nature of the PAP which prevents capable people, who hold views alternative to the PAP, from having the opportunity to serve and understand the civil administration system up to the highest level.
The second problem (with regards to point 1b) is a more complicated one. Maybe given time, absolute free-wheeling democracy will run the gears of Darwinian mechanics to weed out the weak government and also leave people happy in the long run, like it took hundred of years in the West. What do you think?
Just curious, I wonder if you are more concern with PAP tracking you (which is not impossible) or with TOC tracking (which I’m sure they do). Look at the page source. TOC is using google analytics and sitemeter to track the IP addresses of all readers, not just people who post .
Why hasn’t democracy work in most parts of the East like it has worked in the West?
i just base on singapore:
at west,their media is not control by goV,plus their media have freedom tat talk about their own political..but in SING,do u think our media have the same freedom as the west country??
ans is No.becos goV have set all kind of SInG laW to control media in order to protect their-self..hai..so do u think our democracy can inprove just like tat??
Do u think our oppostion party have made singapore DIRTY,such as riots??
ANS is no,
thailand have riots just happen on bangkok,not all parts of the country..
this will happen becos their opposition party is not muture..
DO THEIR OPPOSITION PARTY SAME AS SINGAPORE OPPOSITION PARTY??
ofcos not!!
,IF yes,u name me some of the BAD incident tat cause by opposition party happen in singapore..:) REMENBER,not all the opposition have same attitudes..
WITH only TWO SEAt in parliament,,how opposition help citizen to Question gov or solve problem tat citizen face??
2 vs 80?? how much effort do they can help people??
at least needed balance ma,then it is fair..
PLUS,DO U GUY GIVE OPPOSITION PARTY A CHANCE !!
U GUY,JUST BASE ON YOUR OWN MIND..
ONE SIDE VIEW!! BASIED people.
goV just increase all thing,THIS CALL TAKECARE OF THEIR CITIZEN?? GOOD FOR THEM…
PLEASE LAH,every single people also know the simple logic to increase $$ in order to solve problem..
we,singaporeans needed is just SOLVE THE PROBLEM WITHOUT INCREASE FEES $$..
if any party CAN do tat,then they can continue to be goV,if not,not worth for citizen to VOTE FOR THEIR PARTY…
am i correct??
ALL people need a single chance,u can give an party 43 year chance to rule singapore,can”T give other party just 4 year plus??
don be so basied,every opposition party need only one chance…
singaporeans..-_-