Ravi Philemon / Writer
After the 10-minute demonstration against maid abuse by a not-for-profit group, Singapore People’s Party chairman Sin Kek Tong was asked for his comments on the necessity for protests and he responded, “Maybe one day, if there are no longer any single-member constituencies in Singapore, I will protest. But can political issues engage Singaporeans’ hearts and minds, when their stomachs are kept well-fed and the standard of living remains high?” (Straits Times)
This statement of Mr. Sin appears to be quite valid on the surface; but is in reality invalid, because it suffers from a number of fallacies and flaws.
Expand perimeters
Mr. Sin says that he will protest when the day comes where there will not be any single-member constituencies. This in reality may never happen. My gut feeling is that there will always be single-member constituencies in Singapore. But even if single-member constituency goes the way of the dodo bird, why wait for that to happen before you speak up? Should we not make full use of existing and available avenues to expand the perimeters of liberty?
The Speakers’ Corner is one such facility to express true convictions.
The government of Singapore may have a phobia of public demonstrations. They may have even convinced themselves to believe that since peace and stability is good for the economy, public demonstrations and public protests will only destabilize the economy and break investors’ confidence. But they may have since realized that citizens who live under pressure, without any avenues to vent their grievances, may be a greater threat in destabilizing the economy and investors confidence, as those that live under pressure may eventually break out into demonstrations that may not be peaceful. In fact, PM Lee acknowledged the existence of such a group when he said in his National Day Rally Speech, “I know that many Singaporeans who are not so poor but also not so well off feel that they are pressured”. (Straits Times) Of course some hold to the idea that “the freedom to demonstrate is meaningless unless it is applicable to all of Singapore”, but I beg to differ.
The perimeters of freedom to demonstrate can be gradually increased and extended. Champions of worthy causes should make use of the existing avenues and facilities to prove to the government that public demonstrations and protests can be held peacefully and even to the benefit of the economy of the country; and using the examples of such events to lobby the government, to expand the territory, to eventually cover the whole of Singapore.
Illusion of the well-fed Singaporean
Mr. Sin seems to be under the illusion that Singaporeans are well fed. A Straits Times article dated April 13 2008 states that “rising food prices have prompted more people to turn up at places serving free meals”. (Straits Times) One temple alone, reportedly feeds 1500 people on weekdays and 6000 people on weekends. Some free meals centres have also reportedly had to turn away the hungry as they could not cope with the demands. Of course it can be argued that those who eat at the free meal centres are ‘free-loaders’. But this is a simplistic argument. Of course there will be ‘free-loaders’ in any social benefit programme; but the majority who benefit from the free meals programme are the homeless, the elderly and the low-income workers. Even the government acknowledges that not all Singaporeans are ‘well fed’.
Community Development, Youth and Sports Minister Vivian Balakrishnan admits that the government is looking out for such people, “to help families in need with additional vouchers for food or even additional cash vouchers, as well as to work with local organizations and vendors and hawkers, so that we make sure that we can give the assurance, that nobody will go hungry in Singapore”. Even if ‘no Singaporeans go hungry’; and it is a very big IF, it begs the asking, ‘how many meals a day do they have?’, ‘How filling is the meal?’ and ‘How nutritious is the food?”
Myth of high living standards
Singapore’s Trade and Industry Minister Lim Hng Kiang stated recently, “Whether there is an increase in the cost of living for a particular household depends on that household’s spending patterns. Switching to cheaper products can reduce the cost of living despite a rise in the CPI.” (MTI) The recent widespread inflation in Singapore has caused an erosion of the purchasing power of Singaporeans. The lower-income Singaporeans, especially, and the “sandwich-class” people have been affected by the spiraling cost of living. Switching to cheaper products, besides reducing the cost of living can also lower the standard of living.
Singapore is a country that has the highest GDP per capita in Asia after Japan; but it ranks alongside Burundi, Kenya, Philippines and Guatemala in terms of income disparity.
It certainly seems that Mr. Sin who is an opposition politician, has bought wholesale the myth created by the government that all Singaporeans enjoy a high standard of living. More than 1/8 of the resident population of Singapore has only secondary school or lower education. This group of people often also has very little marketable skills. Unless a concerted effort is made to raise the standard of this group of people and improve their marketable skills, besides further falling in the standard of living, we can expect other pressing social issues to rise.
Harmful perception
There is a perception that the opposition politicians in Singapore are only talking about human rights issues and are not properly informed about the ‘bread-and-butter’ issues of the ordinary Singaporean; that they go into hibernation for about five years and only come out during election time.
Mr. Sin’s statement seems to reinforce this perception of the opposition politician among Singaporeans once again. These perceptions of the general public are harmful to the cause of opposition politics. The social landscape of Singapore is quickly changing and policies or policy initiatives to ride on this new wave of social changes, should be quickly thought through and advocated by the government, opposition parties and even agencies and individuals who champion social causes; and by doing so they will remain viable in the dawn of a new era.
Picture of needy from Straits Times.
———-
So far, Activism has been more proactive and effective in raising awareness on social issues than opposition in general, in my personal opinion.
now, there a more opposition parties.
to me, its funny.
are they aware of where they stand?
do they think that having many opposition parties is a smart strategy for any of them? do they know what environment they are in and what kind of system they are trying to compete in?
take a baby step then think of bigger steps lah.
what do opposition rank as THE MOST obstacle to their success?
that is what they should focus on till the next election. else same old same old.
….ermm….to be fair, I would say that TOC is ‘lucky’ to be also given a lot of MSM publicity which helped it reach out to the people and engage them. this is one part I cannot understand about the MSM and TOC.
Is it correct to say that activism pose less direct threat, politically ?
The MMS paid much attention and gave much publicity to TOC individual members. I have not seen the same applied to WP.
102) Activism more effective on September 26th, 2008 7.51 am
I do not think it is pure luck of TOC. It is more of the timing issue and their hard work.
When you are less bias in your reporting on issues that impacted the citizenry, you tend to get more active & concerned citizenry participants. And the fact that the contributing articles (quite a majority of them) touches on the very basic living of Singapore non-elite citizenry, issues that concern them where MSM somehow had neglected or ignore the hidden truth of the stories played an important role to their success today.
Secondly, when genuine views are not suppressed (although light moderation is a must to avoid racial or discriminatory personal remarks), you tend to get the true sentiment of the majority particpants. This is what the MSM will never able to achieve if they continue to act just like a mouth piece.
Political parties has its own agenda to worry about. They are afterall a political entity and will stand for election. Whatever is written or expressed in their party’s blog will be reflected during voting time.
104) Observer (SG-HK) on September 26th, 2008 10.44 am
————————-
Could you clue me in on why WP is not in given the same kind of publicity?
I regard WP basically favorably.
Is WP views that bad ?? Are their concerns not of public interest?
care to enlighten?
105) Activism more effective on September 26th, 2008 11.50 am
“Could you clue me in on why WP is not in given the same kind of publicity?”
The answer is pretty obvious and I think you have got it all along. MSM practically are the mouth piece of the ruling party. WP is considered a rival.
“Is WP views that bad ?? Are their concerns not of public interest?”
The aspects from a political party versus a public forum entity is very different. At a given point of time, a political party may represent it citizenry if they win in the election in some constituencies. So, they are expected to do more just like we expect the ruling party and the other opposition party.
In one of my earlier comment, I commented that for any oppoisiton party, if you want to improve your standings and the voting support, it is not just the local issues (i.e. everyday life issues that impacted the citizenry) that they should be concerned with (its a given), I hope they address their foreign policies as well. In this aspects, I see little or none. And mind you I am not directing this only to WP. On top of concerns, there must be subtantive resolution.
Let’s take the recent Lehman debacle that affects 9 local banks whose investors had lost their “thought safe investments” to these twisted derivatives mistaken as “Bonds”. Who took the initiative to help these helpless souls? The Opposition parties? The Ruling parties?
Let me share with you. In Hong Kong where I now work and live, it is the elected Democratic Party leaders who voluntarily reached out to help affected investors in the “MiniBonds~Twisted Derivatives debacle” to force the Hong Kong Government and Hong Kong Stocks Security to take action. A full inquiry into wrong doings of Banks and Investment Houses here are now underway. That is how reactive party leaders are. This is just one faint example. For one thing I do know is that MAS is moving albeit slow. I think Opposition Parties can be more pro-active, likewise the ruling parties.
To: Tan Ah Kow
Unlike you I have not done any official surveys. Talking to about 20-30 my friends about politics reveal to be difficult as most are not interested. It’s not due to any upgrading whatsoever as you kept emphasizing. (By the way you might want to know that the whole upgrading plan is near completion and less people are held ransom by this fear.)
Whenever I broach Chee, the common descriptions fall into 3 categories – he’s some mental problems, he’s a clown, and he’s a PAP plant. But admittedly 1 or 2 are Chee supporters, not because he changed mindsets, but because he is “brave”. Whatever it is, we will never come to an agreement on this “mindset change”, so be it.
“Well look at the WP/PAP(PCF) cycling issue. It was the TOC who broach the issue of hypocrisy on the part of the establishment not the WP. Hey even their official channel was not updated.”
I think differently. Both did their homeworks in different ways. And did you not realise one of the articles by TOC on this issue actually came from Melvin Tan, a WP member?
“Even in parliament who was the more aggressive in questioning the rationale? Certainly not Sylvia or LKT.”
Why I am not surprised with this statement given your prejudice against WP, or maybe it’s just a difference of opinion again. The most hard hitting questions I remember actually came from LTK, who pointed out PCF wanting to pull its kindergartens out of opposition wards. Since you were not referring to the WP MPs let’s see who else asked question. An NCMP, Eunice Olsen. If she is who you referred to as aggressive then I can more or less confirm, at least for myself, your prejudice against WP.
“Look at the by-election issue, it was the TOC that raised the issue first not the WP.”
I think who brings up issues first or last has nothing to do with being reactive or not. When issues first surface we all read the newspapers and we know what the issues are. Unless you say that WP was probed into raising an issue, then it is reactive. If WP chooses to raise it in parliament so they can ask it in ministers faces, they have to wait until parliament sits.
For a moment I thought “reactive” referred to who reacts to PAP moves. Then I would say that no party is different. Who doesn’t?
“Then I must ask you want do you mean by “activist” and “political party”?”
There’s always a risk for a political party to champion causes without caring if overdoing it will put people off. Come election time, people expect them to contest. Any other organization that does not have this baggage can do wherever they want. We don’t expect TOC to contest do we? Not me. If TOC doesn’t not, we are not surprised. But if WP refuses to contest the next election, I think people will be surprised, maybe even as angry with the Barisan for boycotting parliament years ago.
Maybe the only happy ones are from the SDP because there’s one less for them to outshine. They give me the impression that they’re basically here to appear better than other parties even if it does not lead to good for the people.
Opposition parties have to face the electorate which is a test of its acceptance or rejection of views. Getting 20% like the SDP did, is a rejection of generally whatever it stands for. Whatever it brings up now, people will say they have only 20%. This is the whole problem. TOC do not have to face it and no one will ever know how much support it has.
Wisely,
Whenever I broach Chee, the common descriptions fall into 3 categories – he’s some mental problems, he’s a clown, and he’s a PAP plant. But admittedly 1 or 2 are Chee supporters, not because he changed mindsets, but because he is “brave”. Whatever it is, we will never come to an agreement on this “mindset change”, so be it.
There you go again. You don’t want to understand my position and instead castigate it as your definition vs my definition.
In my reply to you I said if that is what you have chosen to define mindset change, than that is your prerogative. And I accept your explanation as-is.
By qualifying your statement with this: “Whatever it is, we will never come to an agreement on this “mindset change”, so be it”. You seemed determine to somehow suggest that the INTENT of your survey is comparable to mine and that we have to somehow agree on either one.
My survey had a different objective altogether. You should try to appreciate it for what it is not what you think it should be.
My survey is based on whether if you took a bunch of people with a set of prejudicial mind to see if they could look at a set of fact and than shift their attitudes. Also the intent of the survey was NOT to confirm whether the majority of people considered if Chee was a looney or not. I have no doubt if you did such a survey you just might get such an answer.
Most important of all, it was a case of comparing the performance of SDP and WP.
As I have said when the survey was done to make people give a hearing of the SDP and WP’s view to see if there is a perceptive shift (the operative word here is Shift) of mindset. One was more subjective the other was less subjective approach. The less subjective approach was to make people look that the two party formal communication channels and enumerate things the learned from the channels which they didn’t know about. The more subjective approach is based on the premise of challenging their presumptions of a political party and then see if after any challenge whether there is a shift in their presumptions.
I emphasis again the goal was to detect Shift. Not like yours which is to squarely aimed confirming a subject, i.e. whether Chee is a looney or not. So what you are wanting me to come to an agreement is whether an apple is an orange or vice-versa. In other words agree that two different things are the same.
I hope now you see the difference.
What is strange is that in your much earlier argument you have said that WP and so-called moderate opposition parties have brought about mindset change — your definition — because they have made people realised oppositions are not normal people after all more so that SDP. So if you wish to strengthen your argument, might I suggest you go do a before and after survey to see if that proof your point. I have no doubt that will proof your believe.
“There you go again. You don’t want to understand my position and instead castigate it as your definition vs my definition.”
I think you got me wrong and your conclusions of my remarks are strange. In retrospect, I come from the same angle as you. I had already accept your views and likewise you don’t have to agree with me.
I think a lot of people are more acceptance of Chee compared to the past. And this is growing among the younger, more educated ones. But if the people they are winning over are just like those who stick to PAP now, then I don’t see the difference between the PAP now and after the SDP comes to power.
This whole debate started because of the disdain shown by SDP advocies towards not PAP but other opposition parties. I don’t think their opposition counterparts like SDP either but I haven’t seen any display of it so evidently. If the SDP wants to share the same “enemies” that the PAP has, then I am not sure where it stands anymore. All this has nothing to do with your points but was what sparked me to roll the ball.
Wisely,
Why I am not surprised with this statement given your prejudice against WP, or maybe it’s just a difference of opinion again. The most hard hitting questions I remember actually came from LTK, who pointed out PCF wanting to pull its kindergartens out of opposition wards. Since you were not referring to the WP MPs let’s see who else asked question. An NCMP, Eunice Olsen. If she is who you referred to as aggressive then I can more or less confirm, at least for myself, your prejudice against WP.
You can think whatever you like about my view.
All I am going to say is that the other question raised a question that was fundamental to the crux of issue. In fact, had the kind of question being asked outside parliament, the person might have been sued for defamation for implied undue political influence of a nominally independent institution. The question was direct, “was the divide between what is political or not artificial” — phrase to that effect. Since the ruling of the police was fully supported by minister, the question was bordering on the defamatory.
More to the point it had the nub of the issue, which is: Is it right for there a conflict of interest here, especially in the context of law?
The WP question was more a case of trying to show that PCF was political or not.
I’ll leave you to decide, which is more pertinent.
“This whole debate started because of the disdain shown by SDP advocies towards not PAP but other opposition parties.”
Wisely,
When people are questioning the approach taken by opp parties is ineffective or not in light of PAP’s iron fisting rule, people presume it as disdain ?
When people asking if opp party playing by the rule yield any effective result compare to SDP, people presume it as disdain ?
if others could understand Tan Ah Kow’s point, why not Wisely ? There ought to be some reasons why.
I concur with Tan Ah Kow’s reasons, and I am surprised that he has so much patience with you. Now the goal to understand his reason is to pick up his main points, and not overwhelmingly focus on minor distractive and irevelant details for picking and substantiate argument. If you do that, it is not hard to see where Tan is coming from.
This whole debate started because of the disdain shown by SDP advocies towards not PAP but other opposition parties. I don’t think their opposition counterparts like SDP either but I haven’t seen any display of it so evidently. If the SDP wants to share the same “enemies” that the PAP has, then I am not sure where it stands anymore. All this has nothing to do with your points but was what sparked me to roll the ball.
All I can say is I don’t answer for others.
There maybe times my views seemed supportive of SDP and, possibly, if taken as a whole could be construed as an advocate of the SDP. It could also be an indicator of being bias, but I am a human being after all.
Ultimately I can only answer for my views not others.
Post #104 by Observer(SG-HK) is very agreeable to me.
As it is, I see non-political activists in Singapore play a much pro-active role than the far too quiet oppositions. It is either the Oppositions run out of ideas, if not, their ORDs(SAF Term) are near.
Liked what many others in Cyberspace are asking, now is a time for actions with all the turbulences in the Financial Institutions and Political/Social fiascoes, why the silence?
patriot
To: Tan Ah Kow
“In fact, had the kind of question being asked outside parliament, the person might have been sued for defamation for implied undue political influence of a nominally independent institution.”
The way I see you define what’s defamatory is even more extreme than the PAP’s. I don’t see her question had anything to do with undue political influence.
“The question was direct, “was the divide between what is political or not artificial” — phrase to that effect. Since the ruling of the police was fully supported by minister, the question was bordering on the defamatory.”
I think the question was the PCF was an arm of the PAP and therefore should be covered under the act. From her point, the police was imposing the technical details of the law but were they looking at the extrinsic details. Was that defamatory? I am sure you will disagree if I say LTK will be sued by PCF for that remark if he said it outside parliament.
“There maybe times my views seemed supportive of SDP and, possibly, if taken as a whole could be construed as an advocate of the SDP.”
Although you can’t speak for others, the whole thrust I saw was to paint WP, or SDA, as being below SDP and if not enough, NMPs and websites. The SDP seems to think that when the WP and SDA falls, they will be the only lobbying power left. My view is only that WP/ SDA may not outshine others but others did not outshine them other. There’s no need to prove it by going to the extent of picking needles from eggs. Time will tell if the SDP is doing it rightly, but I think their biggest obstacle may be the same as the PAP. Too much trying to speak up for itself and compare to others until it turns people off.
“It could also be an indicator of being bias, but I am a human being after all.”
I think lim was accused of the same, and I guess he is human too.
To: Daniel
“When people are questioning the approach taken by opp parties is ineffective or not in light of PAP’s iron fisting rule, people presume it as disdain ? When people asking if opp party playing by the rule yield any effective result compare to SDP, people presume it as disdain ?”
To me it’s disdain, but I never said this disdain is wrong. I have disdain for several things about SDP too. Even WP you know I have a few disdains. If it’s disdain, I call a spade a spade.
“if others could understand Tan Ah Kow’s point, why not Wisely ? There ought to be some reasons why.”
The same applies to everyone. I don’t see my point understood too. Who are the others?
“and I am surprised that he has so much patience with you.”
Don’t blame me for wasting your time when people (not Tan Ah Kow) started to respond in this way. I think after they asked me to define what ridiculous was, they should expect me to come up with things they don’t agree with.
“Now the goal to understand his reason is to pick up his main points, and not overwhelmingly focus on minor distractive and irevelant details for picking and substantiate argument. If you do that, it is not hard to see where Tan is coming from.”
Was it? I thought Tan Ah Kow suggested that I do a survey on more focused and specific questions. I would be taking up the suggestion, for your information.
Wisely,
The way I see you define what’s defamatory is even more extreme than the PAP’s. I don’t see her question had anything to do with undue political influence.
Fine if that is what you believe.
I am going to repeat my point again not because I want you to believe me but I want to make sure people understand what I am trying to say not what you think I am trying to say.
My argument is that the question posed by NCMP address the nub of the whole issue more so than LKT. What is my reasoning, not yours:
(a) A minister through its subordinate agencies has the power to discriminate between what is political and not political, without clear guideline.
(b) By questioning the way the NCMP did, it is very much questioning the way the discrimination is made and this is bordering on questioning the integrity of the minister. Note the question what, is the differentiation between what is political or what is not artificial. In other words, it was questioning whether the police and by implication the minister use an excuse to conclude the way it did. The question was NOT: Minister can you tell me how you come to the same conclusion as the police.
This may not be directly defamatory but certainly quite close to it. Consider this, when Chee asked Goh Chok Tong, where was the money, that was considered to have defamatory.
Although you can’t speak for others, the whole thrust I saw was to paint WP, or SDA, as being below SDP and if not enough, NMPs and websites.
Er are you saying that I can’t have my view. And if I chose to express it the way I do, I can’t.
Yes, personally based on the information I have about WP/SDA I am not impressed with them. And I present my rationale for that. You may disagree with it. And likewise, I can disagree with you.
But please don’t misrepresent my view.
I think the question was the PCF was an arm of the PAP and therefore should be covered under the act. From her point, the police was imposing the technical details of the law but were they looking at the extrinsic details.
The point was that there is no Act or written statue or written law to say that political parties cannot have “outside” gathering. There is a written act to say that permission must be sought in order to do so. The distinction about PCF political or not was made at the discretion of the police force and by implication the minister. Also, whether to allow political parties to hold outside gathering is made at the DISCRETION of the police.
So arguing on whether PCF is or not a political party is either here nor there.
The SDP seems to think that when the WP and SDA falls, they will be the only lobbying power left.
Well go ask the SDP. I am not a member of the SDP or its spokesman. I just happen to agree with their modus operandi.
My view is only that WP/ SDA may not outshine others but others did not outshine them other.
Fine. Good for you. Are you suggesting that I MUST agree with you.
There’s no need to prove it by going to the extent of picking needles from eggs.
I have merely laid bare my rationale for the way I come to my view. After all, if I want to strengthen the consistency of my argument, I would lay my presumptions upfront. As for how other people is going to conclude from my argument, I leave it to them.
If you feel there is an inconsistency in my chain of argument point them out. If I see one in yours I point them out. Is that what you mean by picking needles.
Time will tell if the SDP is doing it rightly, but I think their biggest obstacle may be the same as the PAP.
Then let time be the judge.
If my “support” for SDP turns out to be fruitless and me proven to have egg in my face so be it.
Too much trying to speak up for itself and compare to others until it turns people off.
If I turn you off why bother responding to my comments.
I think lim was accused of the same, and I guess he is human too.
Er let’s be clear. I never said he can’t be bias or that he is not human.
What I was pointing out was that lim used data the fit his own logic and that, to me, was an inconsistency. I never say he can’t be bias or not human. Of course, he can be bias if he wants to. I’ll even defend his god given right to be bias. But does it mean I cannot comment on his inconsistencies, particularly his used of three data points and then come to the conclusion he did?
More to the point let’s the contextualise my respond. What I was saying, in case you forgot, is that I refer to a Scientific experiment that suggest that people generally come to some conclusion based on their own prejudice. And that trying to shift mindset is very difficult if not impossible task. In essence the research suggest, if you have a fearful disposition you are more likely to vote for “right wing” policies and if not you will vote for left wing. That’s the essence of it all. I kind of concur with my research, which I fully admit is not exhaustive, that people with certain prejudice about something are likely to use facts to support a pre-determine conclusion. Then I point out lim as a case illustration, who on the basis of three data points concluded that Chee was the cause of opposition poor performance.
Of course as a student of statistics, I have my bias, in that how can some one use such a small sample data and then come to the conclusion he/she did. I am not saying that he can’t use that facts to fit his prejudice. After all, all scientific theories starts from essentially a hypothesis or prejudice if you like. He is perfectly entitled too. And good for him/her for at least attempting to try to justify his reasoning.
Now, if you say what about me, I am using my research as a basis for argument am I not being bias? Well may be so. I lay my reasoning to be ridiculed or inconsistencies pointed out.
Anyway,
“If it’s disdain, I call a spade a spade.”
You can’t call something a spade a spade where it is entirely your own “SPADE”. How many people agree with you here ?
“Who are the others?”
Here you go again… just like Lim
“Was it? I thought Tan Ah Kow suggested that I do a survey on more focused and specific questions.
Of course, be more focus but do focus on the main point and topic and not suddenly stray to something less than relevant.
example, if talk about effectiveness of using civil disobedience against unjust law in Singapore, suddenly someone will focus about character of Dr Chee and how he is non-credible, no integrity and blah, and blah… a unnecessary distraction and irritation.
“I would be taking up the suggestion, for your information.”
Good for you.
To: Tan Ah Kow
I guess none of us are holier than thou. We went about this maybe in the same way, and are more or less equal in merit and guilt throughout the conversation. Only the angle and side is different. As long as we recognize that we are flawed, prejudiced and saying things that others may not agree, then let the others be the judge.
I only want to say that I point out things which I see as inconsistent, illogical and non-factual, and left subjective opinions alone. Opinions produce different results. A few blind people thinks an elephant feels like a fan, rope or tree but one of them says he feels something like mercury, I will point out where his he actually touching?
Actually I had more rebuttals at the detailed level that I think are inconsistent and illogicial but if I go into it, your supporter will say I am nitpicking – which may be true. Please don’t say I have a problem with your view. You have the right to hold your view but it’s my right too to say that your view is inconsistent or illogical – and your right again to say I am wrong. That’s what this whole thing is about.
“You can’t call something a spade a spade where it is entirely your own “SPADE”. ”
And your spade is the same as everyone else?
“How many people agree with you here ?”
And how many people agree with you? Since you were the first to say “other people” when it’s only you. After more than 100 posts I never even dare say that people agree to my view.
“Here you go again… just like Lim”
So what if I am like Lim? It’s a valid question – how many people do you represent?
“Of course, be more focus but do focus on the main point and topic and not suddenly stray to something less than relevant.”
The main point – as I kept repeating – is that people want to prove that SDP is far better than SDA or WP and I think it’s not the case. You have the right to pick whatever is in your favour and I have the right to pick mine. Who is to say who is turning the conversation out of point?
Wisely,
Actually I had more rebuttals at the detailed level that I think are inconsistent and illogicial but if I go into it, your supporter will say I am nitpicking – which may be true. Please don’t say I have a problem with your view. You have the right to hold your view but it’s my right too to say that your view is inconsistent or illogical – and your right again to say I am wrong. That’s what this whole thing is about.
I am not against you for picking inconsistencies in in my argument. Hey, I am sure there are many. You can pick as much as you like. That is the point of a debate. You present your view, I present my view, you poke inconsistencies in my views and I yours.
What I object to is you trying to misrepresenting my views. Like implying I accuse lim of something which I did not suggest by taking everything out of context. Or misrepresenting my survey intent for some it is not. Or that I am somehow a spokes person for other people.
If you want to speak for yourself go ahead. But don’t speak for others. They can speak for themselves.
“What I object to is you trying to misrepresenting my views. Like implying I accuse lim of something which I did not suggest by taking everything out of context.”
The only thing I said about you on lim was that you said he was prejudiced and was the same thing you were. You said : “Case in point is lim. He wants to use facts to fit his own prejudice. Than that is his prerogative. ” Lim is also supportive of SDA / WP as I was and if he doesn’t admit it then he’s not being fair.
“Or misrepresenting my survey intent for some it is not.”
Did I? I didn’t understand the crux of your the different survey patterns at first but now I do. But I don’t think I don’t think I misrepresented it. Even if I did my admission of not understanding it has overturned such a “misrepresentation”.
“Or that I am somehow a spokes person for other people.”
Did I?
“What I object to is you trying to misrepresenting my views. Like implying I accuse lim of something which I did not suggest by taking everything out of context.”
The only thing I said about you on lim was that you said he was prejudiced and was the same thing you were. You said : “Case in point is lim. He wants to use facts to fit his own prejudice. Than that is his prerogative. ” Lim is also supportive of SDA / WP as I was and if he doesn’t admit it then he’s not being fair.
Well then say so! Why say it as like this I think lim was accused of the same, and I guess he is human too.
It sounds like I am accusing lim of not being a human.
In any case, have I not said I am super human and not prejudice.
When you repond to me this is what you say:
Although you can’t speak for others, the whole thrust I saw was to paint WP, or SDA, as being below SDP and if not enough, NMPs and websites. The SDP seems to think that when the WP and SDA falls, they will be the only lobbying power left. My view is only that WP/ SDA may not outshine others but others did not outshine them other. There’s no need to prove it by going to the extent of picking needles from eggs. Time will tell if the SDP is doing it rightly, but I think their biggest obstacle may be the same as the PAP. Too much trying to speak up for itself and compare to others until it turns people off.
I have already said my views are my views. So why are you lumping what you think SDP is thinking?
Again I am not SDP. So how can I answer for them?
More to the point how can I answer what YOU THINK others are thinking about?
If it was meant to be a general point than make it to the general. When you make it a query to me, I am of the impression that is you want me to answer something for which I did not say.
In any case, have I not said I am super human and not prejudice.
should read:
In any case, have I said I am super human and not prejudice.
“Well then say so! Why say it as like this I think lim was accused of the same, and I guess he is human too. It sounds like I am accusing lim of not being a human.”
I am sorry for my poor English but that was what I meant. I think the debate here is quite mature and I don’t expect people to say things like he’s not human or something like that.
“I have already said my views are my views. So why are you lumping what you think SDP is thinking?”
I started by saying “Although you can’t speak for others” so it is quite clear that the whole paragraph is not directed at you. Maybe it’s my poor English again.
“If it was meant to be a general point than make it to the general. When you make it a query to me, I am of the impression that is you want me to answer something for which I did not say.”
I am quite clear you are not with SDP. I think we are making general points, no? If you feel it is not appropriate to answer then don’t. So far I never challenge people who skipped certain things I raised because it’s not my style.
This guy is as out of touch as the pap ministers. Is he a pap mole ?
chorus (#67) and wisely (#76):
You want examples of how SDP effected international pressure. Hereś one:
In 2007, Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) invited to a SDP forum were banned from speaking. The same MEPs subsequently screened ¨Singapore Rebel¨ in the European Parliament which contributed to the easing of the Films Act. The same MEPs also negotiated the EU-Singapore Free Trade Agreement and they shifted the weighting on Singaporeś human rights records significantly such that PAP has no choice but to ease up political restrictions.
Good example. I was waiting to hear something like that. No doubt I find it strange that SDP has to lobby so hard to lobby the PAP in return compared to people like Anwar and Thaksin. But it’s good for SDP who is least supported by Singapore voters to have achievement in one area. Let’s hope their continue lobby will lead to a more democratic election system which is what they hope for too.
Harry (#125):
It is guys like him that reinforce public opinion that Opposition is irrelevant and that Opposition exists such that voters can vote them to show anger against PAP than rather vote Opposition to put them in government. Opposition parties in Singapore must evolve to show that they are relevant and that they are connected to the people.
Presently and at this moment, all Opposition Parties and members and Advisors of those Parties are not fit for the job. How can a person declared publicly to be on Hunger Strike be drinking glucose at the back of his home??? How can a “cheat” in using taxpayers moneys to compensate his transport and other expenses be an upright and honourable member of our House??? How can a person, a member of the House “back-out” from the challenge to build a few blocks of HDB flats from the then Minister of Housing Development??? and most surprising, an old timer Opposition member had to act like as a koyo seller setting up shop all over the city areas with battle cries of “democracy”‘ ,”freedom of speech” and “protest marches”. These are lame-duck Oppositions. They should be kicked out from being Opposition many donkey years ago. Indeed, these one man party people are kicked out anyway!! by their own stock in the Party. They do not deserve to be uphold and admire at all and less mentioned and talking over here!!
Again, we really need to see young, new and smart “bloods” to be elected into our Parliament as New Opposition. Can anyone take this challenge? Talking cock and writing cock now is a waste of time. Do you agree?
Wisely (#127):
Now it makes sense why Chee Sook Chin was not allowed to attend the Stanford Summer Fellows on Democracy and Development Programme at Stanford University in June 2008.
“Presently and at this moment, all Opposition Parties and members and Advisors of those Parties are not fit for the job. How can a person declared publicly to be on Hunger Strike be drinking glucose at the back of his home??? How can a “cheat” in using taxpayers moneys to compensate his transport and other expenses be an upright and honourable member of our House???”
Oscar Choy,
Does it really matter if the opp party is less than perfect ? Someone has to do the job. So when PAP contest as opp party in 1959, was PAP perfect then ?
A way to prevent opp party from arising is to let the Singaporean think that PAP is perfect and opp party has to match PAP in term of perfection. But at what price perfection is been paid ? Coverup blunder, move on etc. You get the point.
“How can a person declared publicly to be on Hunger Strike be drinking glucose at the back of his home??? How can a “cheat” in using taxpayers moneys to compensate his transport and other expenses be an upright and honourable member of our House???”
let me ask you a question whether if it is true or not, will that change your opinion on Dr Chee ? If you doesn’t like that someone, you will find other means to find fault, right ?
Now, most importantly, what are you going to do with PAP who many find more inconsistencies than Dr Chee ? Surely you read about some of their policies that make you feel so moronic and insult your intelligence.
So what are you going to do on PAP’s side ? I presume to most of us here, the answer NOTHING. If you really want to find fault with opp party, do likewise for PAP then you probably find it pointless to focus on the characters, so why not focus on the opp party’s strategy and effectiveness. So are you focusing on the wrong thing to criticize ?
To find material that shows SDP is engaging international effort to help make change in Singapore. By all means do read on SDP site even if you think that it is partisan as it updates the news on what Chee and SDP are doing. I’m sure people here are mature to figure out right or wrong.
Same for PAP. If you want to know about what PAP doing, read its site.
Don’t have to think too much whether it is a partisan or not. Use your intuition and instinct or whatever.
Good call Oscar Choy !
Can you lead the way ? or maybe we are not aware that you have been doing more than talking cock also. Care to fill us in what you have achieved in encouraging the younger Singaporeans to take a more active role in politics ?
Because it is their future. Semi retired like me with bad health is looking forward to kicking the bucket but I still think of my children and other young Singaporeans.
Be realistic Oscar, the PAP have done tremendous damage to the opposition, especially those that are deemed a threat or too active for their own good.
The PAP are extremely cunning and have a certain meaness. Tell us whether you have a strategy to deal with that.
There is no universal definition on what constitutes a “hunger strike”. Not taking anything at all is but one. The most common is consumption of only water. Because the aim of hunger strike is not death and hunger strike is not a “famine strike”.
Tell me someone who does not feel hungry by just drinking only glucose water, That can be considered as a hunger strike.
The killer was why Chee carried out the strike – over his personal sacking. I and maybe some people don’t see it had much to do with national issues. What’s more they felt that he overreacted because he would have no problems finding another job.
I strongly believe that the “majority” of Singaporeans also hold this view and, can safely conclude that the Opposition Parties & their lackeys are all hopeless, good for nothing and, incapable to rise to the occasion to sieze up opportunity to act. Why?
1. When there are instances of challenge in Parliament by the ruling Party, they are seen as putting their tails in between the hind legs, back-out and kept quiet!!! These are very sad events and it only happened perhaps, in our present Parliament.
2. When do we see the working Oppositions in our House actively engaged the ruling party’s MPs and openly challenge them with their own form of policies or statements OR actively table motions in Parliament to discuss and subject these motions for votes? None. And this is already 2 years since the last election. Do not tell us the Oppositions do not have directions and guidance of what they want Singapore to be like? or I suppose they are just plain followers of the ruling party and flow along and agree with them.
I mentioned “majority” earlier on because the simple fact remains that the ruling party will be “return” again to form the next government. That is why I urge all interested people in Singapore to at least stand up and put yourself up as creditable candidates in the next General Election so that we will put in place new and young blood presenting strong, convincing and opposing points in our House and challenge the ruling party’s members.
The present Oppositions and their lackeys are all “washout” and they are what we termed “politically finished”. They can go home, retired and sleep!!
.
Someone questioned about so called UNITY amongst non PAP – I hate to use the term OPPOSITION – parties.
This person and othrs like him/her should question the relevance of the WP, SDA etc & their contributions.
Suggestions & proposals for improved policies?
That’s just a cowardly scam to free-loading…………what’s the use of paying exorbitant salaries to LKY & his fellow u know what & the public sector big guys?
Hi (134) Oscar Choy,
I f “Opposition Parties & their lackeys are all hopeless, good for nothing and, incapable to rise to the occasion to sieze up opportunity to act”, what are you? Are you saying that you support all that the ruling party is doing? Or are you even worse than the opposition parties whom you have totally discredited?
No matter how poorly the oppositions performed, at least I admired their courage to voice up publicly without using nicknames, which many of us dare not do so even at TOC.
Instead of criticizing oppositions, I believe we should provide constructive suggestions for improvement if we really feel that the ruling party has failed us.