I noted Mr Ravi’s contentions on “high living standards” and felt that needed some checking. The reason was because even if income disparity is wide, if the bottom base is higher than the rest, all a wide income disparity means is that the rich earn far more than the rich of the rest of the world whilst the poor in Singapore aren’t that poor. So I did a quick look at IRAS’ annual reports, MoM and singstat’s statistics.

There are about 1.8-1.9m resident workers in the labour force. The median wage is ~2.3k for full time and $540 part-time.

However, based on IRAS’ figures, the average wage should be $4k per month (incl employee CPF) ($74b for 1.52m pple). I tot IRAS figures would be more accurate as this is submitted by employers and individuals (rather than 3rd party).

Out of 1.52m pple assessed by IRAS, 665k (bottom 44%) don’t pay taxes (earning below $20k) with an average employment wage of $17.7k per annum (but higher if including all income).

The 1/8 figure posted by Mr Ravi is too low. 51% of our workforce have secondary school education or lower. 25% have diploma and the remaining have degree.
http://www.mom.gov.sg/publish/etc/medialib/mom_library/mrsd/lf_2007.Par.65413.File.tmp/2007LabourForce_T27.xls

If the 51% = bottom 44%, then their avg wage is ~$17.7k per annum.

419k pple (27%) earn above $50k per year (but not all diploma/degree). The remaining 73% of the workforce (which includes the bottom 44%) earn ~$24k a year on average. So the income disparity is partly substantiated.

Singapore’s unemployment rate is 2.3% (June 2008 figures).

However, I had a quick look at one of the countries Mr Ravi mentioned. Philippines had a 21% unemployment rate (which means $0 income) + S$4,600 (148k ph peso) avg family income per year for the rest.

So I think whilst Singapore may have an equivalent income distribution graph, the distribution is of a significantly larger pie. The bottom segments of the society get more than the bottom segments in other countries. However, what it also does signal is that the rich in Singapore are really very very very rich. Whether that is because SG govt has been attracting all the rich pple to SG to stay is a matter of debate.

I think a better argument can be made. The rich should bear a bigger tax burden.

Ever since day one, the SPP has never really aspire to be anything but a glorified estate management. It’s hallmark policy is nothing more than begging for upgrading funding and nothing else. So what Sin Kek Tong said is nothing new.

Maybe that is why the SDA is a dying party.

If Chiam had not been booted out of the SDP, the SDA wouldn’t be needed and the SDP would have been more than the pariah party today. That’s life.

lim, that would have been your view. If Chiam had still been running the SDP,looking at his meek performance, the PAP wouldn’t have conceded
so much (though it still has a long way to go) political freedoms (demostrations
in HLP, easing restrictions of political videos etc).
I see its the constant engagement and highlighting of the political situation in
Sin to the outside world by CSJ and the SDP that resulted in these measures.
Most of the other opposition parties actually are not worth a mention

Well, you’re entitled to your view. The facts are, when Chiam was head of SDP, there were 4 MPs (one of which was Chiam). Today, there are only 2 (one of which is Chiam).

lol. I read the criticisms of Chiam being an estate manager but I like to read about what SDP has achieved in CSJ’s tenure.

(1) Being the 1st opposition party to lose a defamation suit to a opposition MP
(2) Being the opposition party with the most defamation suit losses ever
(3) Having the most number of bankrupts in the party
(4) Being the first party to have a bankrupt as a secretary general
(5) Being the first political party in Singapore to lose all its MPs in one election, etc…

Rather than constantly trying to blame or put down Chiam, why not ask CSJ if he has ever considered whether he is actually the one responsible for the depressed opposition votes?

This type of mention, maybe not getting mentioned might be a better idea.

Well, you’re entitled to your view. The facts are, when Chiam was head of SDP, there were 4 MPs (one of which was Chiam). Today, there are only 2 (one of which is Chiam).

Er, how come when he went to SPP, and then later as Chair of the SDA, he could not repeat the feat of increasing more MPs?

Not only that in the recent election, Steve Chia from his sister party loss his NCMP seat.

So all these really have to bring into question whether Chiam in SDP was actually responsible for increasing representation in Parliament.

More to the point is it after running SDA for so long that the NSP decided to leave the SDA?

More to the point, even without the threat of being closed down or being gunned by PAP left-right and centre, how come the SPP seemed to be dying?

Worst still when the SPP actually disappear into even less than a footnote in history what legacy has it left?

When people looked back at history, it’ll be a case of SPP, what SPP?

After all Chiam has stolen the limelight.

Even the party’s policy of getting upgrading for Potong Pasir what has it achieve? Lighting in the walk ways and a MRT station named after it. Big deal!

The SDP may go down but at least in the last few breath it has, as a political party, shown how to leverage on the Internet more than the SPP, demonstrated the power of campaigning, prick the PAP enough to show up its flaws, despite the hurdles. Legacies that may not be good for the party but at least good for the nation, when people looked back at history.

And even if it did not stay intact as a formal political party, it will still stay in spirit for “real” opposition to fight on.

If you look at such a history, one wonders if SDP under Chiam could really have survived after all.

Impressed with Chiam certainly not.

What you guys are saying just implied (if not epitomized) the deep animosities within these oppositions. Where’s the unity for god sake? How are they going to combat the PAP and win over the voters if they are so desparate?

I certainly would like to hear some substantive propositions, solutions to the issues that we are currently facing such as bridging the gap between the rich and the poor, more rooms and receptive on political discourse (practically speaking, more open in acepting the freedom of speech and expression), better retirement plan for the old folks (like me)…etc from the Oppositions who are and will be running come election time.

The PAP are not going to make things easy for sure, but they are not doing nothing either. Whether we like it or not, they are very aware of things and are moving gradually (at least they are moving) to address the issues to entice voters. Why can’t they just settle their differences and get united for the sake of citizenry that are on their side to make a larger impact? They have to make use of what is available now (as a whole) to build the trust if they are to stand a chance to make a small difference.

“(1) Being the 1st opposition party to lose a defamation suit to a opposition MP
(2) Being the opposition party with the most defamation suit losses ever
(3) Having the most number of bankrupts in the party
(4) Being the first party to have a bankrupt as a secretary general
(5) Being the first political party in Singapore to lose all its MPs in one election, etc…”

So what ? Did Dr Chee and his accomplices do it for personal agenda and gain ?Did he and his accomplices to jail, face bankrupt for doing criminal thing like stealing, gang fight ? Nope. They do for noble cause, to sacrifice to bring oppression to public awareness, and these are consequences of their action. It is a big sacrifice to go against unjust law of illegal gathering, to question the authority. They lose big but they win big. Never has I seen a opp party that effectively achieve the result using international pressure. Not even those opp party members before him. Most of the popular opp party members that majority love believe they can do it by themselves in pathetic Singapore and paid terribly price for it, endup in Jail and bankrupt but yet fail to achieve anything radical. Now, DrChee endup in Jail and bankrupt but end up create international awareness and becomes visible prominent figure in the fight for democracy. That is the big difference ?

“whether he is actually the one responsible for the depressed opposition votes?”

Popular votes do not translate to competence and capability and am actually glad that SDP has low vote because they do not need to face status quo and be cautious for fear of losing popular vote. More often, opp party tend to play on safe side of things for fear of losing popular vote that unfortunately diminish their effectiveness.

Just as no one should go to business for money but one should go to business to win and serve customer. Only by doing that, money will come naturally and abundantly.

It is the same for politics scene. One should never go politics for sake of winning popular votes but one should go to transform and change the nation for goods of citizen. Only by doing that, votes will come its way. I have no doubt that Dr Chee will win big in next election as the public aware and tired of the dirty tricks of the ruling party to discredit opp party.

SDA and WP party in my opinion , are living on borrowed time if they insist on playing on safe side of things and believe popular votes are the way to go. Either ages are catching up with them or people are fed up with their non-performance. If they continue to stay that way, it is just a matter of time, they will lose their seat. Worse, they will have no deserved legacy to speak of.
They are like a army on top of mountain surrounded by enemies. Resources and morales are running low as day goes by. The army are weakening and enemies just wait patiently for them to die off. Afraid to take action, afraid to incur the wrath of the soldier by attacking. So play defensive strategy till the end of last breath.

PAP is never a party known for playing fair and it will be its advantage to improvise new rules to capture those seats again. Who to stop the ruling party from creating kangaroo rule anyway as opp parties are always adaptable and play by the rule no matter how disadvantage they are ?
Time and time again, I see opp parties complain about how election are not fair but then still play in it, thinking that popular votes will win it. For how long can dignity and sympathy give opp party votes ?

Dr Chee did show that adaptability to rules has a limit and play the attacking game through guerilla warfare, and hence test the rule every here force the government to change its stand due to peer pressure. He know the ruling party is big but is less mobile and swift. Guerilla warfare and international alliance is the only way for a small fry to win against largest opponents as the history of warfare has taught us.

Observer(SG-HK):

What you guys are saying just implied (if not epitomized) the deep animosities within these oppositions. Where’s the unity for god sake? How are they going to combat the PAP and win over the voters if they are so desparate?

Unity for unity sake without a clear direction is a good as nothing and in some cases will be even more detrimental.

Look at the SDA, and to some extent the WP, what do they want to do?

Ok, the WP has a sort of party manifesto to give indication of what sort of political landscape they would like Singapore to be. And if you piece the often uncoordinated thread of communications and actions, you can see an underlying strategic move: get into parliament, gain power and displace the PAP however long that would take. Personally, I think they have not translated their strategy into tactics. But putting my personal scepticism aside, I can see their logic.

With the SPP/SDA or even the NSP, after Steve Chia, there is nothing at all to pointing to that long term goal. Just examining Chiam performance in Parliament, all I see is focus on getting upgrading for Potong Pasir.

The SDP approach, to me, is clearly in nothing short of a revolution. I suppose you can see a strategic goal that is similar to WP but different tactics. Initially, I was sceptical but have increasingly saw the value of it. Of course, it would take a lot of personal guts to do what they do. However after much thought, especially, when you come against a machinery like the PAP and, as event shows, the so-called civil services and other instrument of states. There is very little room to manoeuvre, except the SDP way.

In a sense the SDP way is much like the way I was told to approach my exams in school. I remember my teacher telling us, aim to score a 100% but if you don’t you will hopefully pass. If you aim only for a passing grade, you will only get a passing grade at best and if you don’t meet it you fail. So by aiming for a revolution and if you don’t get that, you get a evolution.

In the Singaporean context, the biggest problem is the Kia Su and Kia See mindset of the Singaporean electorate. The best way to do this show that you are not Kia Su and Kia See rather than pander to the base characteristics very much like the WP and most of all the SPP/SDA. Changing mindset to me is more important that wining one seat here and another there under PAP rules.

So if there was to be unity on the opposition, should it be in the ways of the SPP/SDA, the WP or SDP? Or to put it another way, to unite on the Kia Su and Kia See way or the buay Kia Su and Kia See way?

To me diversity is probably a much better way. That way survival of the fittest not in political party terms but in political philosophy. So if one party falls another can take it up.

In fact if unity is to be had in the opposition camp, I rather see them leverage on the SDP garang-ness to punch the way and the WP to then follow-up. Sadly, I don’t see that happening.

Turning to what the SPP chairman said…..

“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?”

In a way, what is happening with in the financial turmoil and banking crisis going on now, is analogous to the chairman’s view.

Before the run up to the turmoil, people who shouting with at the madness of the financial systems were brushed aside as scaremongering. Defenders of the system before the turmoil was say look at all this bank and that bank, they have AAA credit rating. Inflation is low. Interest rate is low. Assets are raising. In such a situation, why should people protest?

Let’s hope people with the attitude of the SPP chairman learn from the current turmoil.

Look at the state of the SDP. It’s even worse off than whatever bad you can dig out of SDA and WP. There are hardly any members left in that party and most of the time they have to use the help of activists who do not want to join the party.

I’m surprised at the myopic-ness of SDP supporters by implying they should lead the opposition and even more put off that their focus is always on themselves and other opposition parties. The PAP is the enemy, period. SDP supporters better awake from slumber.

Now, I am thinking, is SDP even an opposition party?

“Look at the state of the SDP. It’s even worse off than whatever bad you can dig out of SDA and WP. There are hardly any members left in that party and most of the time they have to use the help of activists who do not want to join the party.”

Well, maybe you will like to define what is the role of the opp party and to what the extent the opp party has fulfilled its role in Singapore ?
I even confuse by what the subservient opp party is doing, and how many of their so-called mandate is fulfilled ? Incredibly, I find none significant. The government just downplay and brush it off.

Though I have to agree that SDP seem to act as activists than as a party. Whatever ways it goes, it show that if it behave as party, it will endup been no difference from rest of the opp parties, that is played by the rule, and perished by the rule. At least they use a different approach and strategy. Did I see SDP as a activists works ? Yes, it works, it shows, IBA shows, questioning the authority shows. It shows that Dr Chee and his accomplice is fighting for a cause not for some upgrading plan, or whatever carrots for his constitency (if he going to win one), he is fighting for Singapore against a government who love to turn black into white, and white into black (Aren’t we have enough of those nonsenses ?).

Opp party in Singapore ought to think out of the box, and be flexible, and if one approach don’t work then use other approach that works and proven by others. The only thing that I realize opp party in Singapopre is not ready to risk their reputation and their career, and just want to eat both side of the cakes. Sad to say, they are just going through motion.

Who is myopia when more than 4 decades, I yet to see any opp party produce result other than SDP. SDP may not be popular but it produces result. For the rest of opp parties, show us the result and don’t ask us to wait til the old man disappear from face of the earth along with nation’s wealth.

All I see is that opp parties keep lamenting about unfairness in election, and do nothing about it. PAP will never play fair, you know it , everyone knows it, the world knows it, so why keep using the same old formula that does not work ? The only console is SDP is doing something about it in its own way, breaking the unjust rule, and exert pressure on governement to achieve result. The good thing is that SDP is testing the unjust law, it is not inciting violence or riot nor uprising against the government. They do it in a peaceful way after all their members are just like you and me, having a family with children. They fight for their future generation to have a better life for them , you and me, not asking the government for some stupid carrots and upgrading benefits.

The PAP voice on the internet is a whimper. The opposition voices dominate here. Of all the things I have read on the internet, I have never seen SPP or WP advocates think they have accomplished more than the SDP, or even the PAP.

I would say all opposition parties are equally guilty of accomplishing very little. The voters led to this outcome too. Those advocating the SDP are proposing too many arguments that border on the ridiculous, and could still come up with a long essay. Reading them makes me wonder if it is the same Singapore we are living in.

Ideally, there should be a boomerang effect at play, but there’s little substantial alliance politics at work with all the opposition parties at the moment.

Secondly, while the SDP has not won a single seat in Parliament, their tactics have brought undeniable exposure to the uneven playing field of Singaporean politics. They are media savvy, and are very rapid in getting their message out to wire agencies.

Being a globalised state, the level of governance is sensitive to a certain extent to externalities and this is where the SDP has chosen to plan its moves.

I would not rule the SDP out in the future though, with regards to parliamentary presence, but they will need a more diverse approach to follow up from activism politics and ensure that the gains are not lost in the meantime.

I have stated many many times before that the present Opposition parties or members of those parties are “hopelessly inadequate”. They are unfit for the job. They are so called “shot” into Parliament by ‘accident” or “wants”. Look at how they performed in Parliament for the past years. Have they come up with anything “new” or seized up “matters of importance and substance”and pressure the Government to change or rethink policies? Nothing. Are they just “followers”? If they are, then it is time to boot all of them out in the next General Election.

We need fresh faces, fresh ideas with bright and sharp minds to be elected and represent us as Opposition in Parliament. The present group of “old hags” Oppositions can pack up and go home and sleep.

Just look at today Shit Times – 41 yrs old Mr Cameron leading the British Conservative Party. We need more 30s & 40s’ somethings to lead the Opposition. The “Qualified Peoples” – plse stand up and be counted and stop all these “talk and do nothing” only discussions. Otherwise, we will regret & end up into this “talk and write shop” after the next General Election.

“I would say all opposition parties are equally guilty of accomplishing very little.”
Am I surprise given little resources and little support by the people and government ? Just tell your boss that you support opp party and you help out in their activities and see how your boss warn and poke fun of you.

“The voters led to this outcome too.”
Could we blame the voters ? They are just been pragmatic and realistic. The gov will be glad to use upgrading fund on their own territory than those on opp party
’s ward. In democratic western country, this is blatant corruption but in Singapore, it is business as usual for government. But who to tell the emperor that it is corruption in case someone get punished ? So do you think that the voters will vote for WP and SDA in next election ? You can have dignity and sympathy vote once but you can’t give it forever. Not when voter start to lose confidence of party that advocating changes and improvement in their life.

“Those advocating the SDP are proposing too many arguments that border on the ridiculous, ”
Ridiculous ? You means opening Hong Lim Park is ridiculous ? You means having to hear how pathetic is our PM and MM in real court case perform miserably is ridiculous ? You means IBA exposing the truth is ridiculous ? You means having democracy is ridiculous ? You means testing unjust law is ridiculous.
I find your statement ridiculous when all these things are happening right before our eyes. It is both surreal and ridiculous, isn’t it ? Result is ridiculous, isn’t it ?

Maybe you can tell us more about what you find is ridiculous ? Uniquely Singapore is ridiculous too.

I am not a politician but a citizen that has to choose a candidate(or GRC which is perverse to me) come Election. So, I do have interests in the Political Parties operating in SIN.

The Opposition Political Parties in SIN as far as I can remember, are fragmented all along. As such I was pleasantly when JB J named his latest party as ‘Reform Party’ with a number of Opposition Politicians at its’ inauguration. There seemed an attempt at emulation of Annuar Ibrahim of Malaysia, however, he is still alone at his politiking. So was and is Chee Soon Juan, getting the attentions of foreigners? For what reason and purpose, what the use of having the attentions of foreigners who are at most admiring the Man rather than his purpose as an opposition politician?

If Opposition Parties and Politicians are not interested in Singaporeans(Citizens), I suggest they play no politic at all. Personal glory first and peoples’(fellow countrymen) wellbeings secondary is what I see in these lone ranger politicians. Their efforts at connecting with the Locals are miniscule.

The silence and quietness of the Oppositions in SIN lately are indications of their inabilities to fight the Incumbent Regime and it is simply because none of the Oppositions are able to garner sufficient supports from the masses. They are too quiet when the People need them to be active and vehement at a time of great difficulties and challenges.

It is definitely very difficult, almost impossible to tackle the Machineries and Schemings of the Rulers. In fact, I would say the Only Way left for the Oppositions in SIngapore is for them(Oppositions) to convince and win the hearts of the Local People.

As it is, some oppositions win personal admirations, hero worships, some win some friendships but none won the hearts of most Singaporeans.

“For what reason and purpose, what the use of having the attentions of foreigners who are at most admiring the Man rather than his purpose as an opposition politician?”

Foreigners help to exert pressure on our government to improve democracy, don’t they ? Sure, foreigners might have problems on their own, or may even harbour agenda, don’t seem perfect but then the world is not perfect either. So just focus on result, when result is obtained, the rest can come later.

So whatever ways opp party used, produce the result and show the people. It is time to focus on result rather than focus on the means to achieve that.

“If Opposition Parties and Politicians are not interested in Singaporeans(Citizens), I suggest they play no politic at all.”
Unfortunately this will never happen in this imperfect world, not in Singapore Inc, so we have to face it and move on.

“Personal glory first and peoples’(fellow countrymen) wellbeings secondary is what I see in these lone ranger politicians. Their efforts at connecting with the Locals are miniscule.”
Well, lone rangers or not, it is their own ways to trial and errors on what work for them.
“Their efforts at connecting with the Locals are miniscule.”
Frankly, do the locals even know what they want ? Substance or image ?

“As it is, some oppositions win personal admirations, hero worships, some win some friendships but none won the hearts of most Singaporeans.”
Perhaps it is true, but then what define the “hearts of most Singaporeans” and their want ? As you says, you win some, you lose some but it is still better than standing still.

Whether Dr Chee and his accomplices have their own personal agenda, who really care now ? People should care more about result rather than BS now. Support those who show result. Singaporean should becomes pragmatic by now, and not give in to BS during election.

SHOW US THE RESULTS. PERIOD.

Since you take the line of SDP vis a vis other opposition parties, I will answer you in the same way.

“Am I surprise given little resources and little support by the people and government ?”
Are you agreeing with me now that the SDP achieved no better than other opposition parties? This contradicts your other points.

“Could we blame the voters ? They are just been pragmatic and realistic. The gov will be glad to use upgrading fund on their own territory than those on opp party’s ward.”
But those in Potong Pasir and Hougang were not swayed.

“In democratic western country, this is blatant corruption but in Singapore, it is business as usual for government.”
US is one of the bastions of money politics. Get your facts right.

“But who to tell the emperor that it is corruption in case someone get punished ?”
Some opposition candidates (not from the SDP) used the term “daylight corruption” but were not sued. It didn’t win people voters either.

“So do you think that the voters will vote for WP and SDA in next election ?”
Do you think they will vote for the SDP? To quote Low Thia Kiang, no one has a “crystal ball”.

“You can have dignity and sympathy vote once but you can’t give it forever.”
Are you very sure people don’t vote SDP because of sympathy?

“Not when voter start to lose confidence of party that advocating changes and improvement in their life.”
If voters start to lose confidence of the party, both Chiam and Low will be out. Right now the only party that has lost the people’s confidence is the SDP.

“Ridiculous ? You means opening Hong Lim Park is ridiculous ?”
Yes it is ridiculous to me. Funny, I got the impression that even SDP thinks it’s ridiculous.

“You means having to hear how pathetic is our PM and MM in real court case perform miserably is ridiculous ?”
I think Chee didn’t perform any much better either. He was caught off guard by MM in some instances. The only thing is that the ST and the SDP website each put up only their positive side. Guess which has a higher readership?

“You means IBA exposing the truth is ridiculous ?”
What has IBA’s expose got to do with only the SDP?

“You means having democracy is ridiculous ? You means testing unjust law is ridiculous.”
Did I say all that?

“Maybe you can tell us more about what you find is ridiculous ?”
Since you want to challenge me, I will take up all your points on this page. Maybe in a day or 2, I will tell you what I think is ridiculous.

Wisely ,
Sure, then tell us what you find ridiculous ? You never says that , that is why it will be good to define what you think is ridiculous, and why i asking you whether you mean that. Some act of PAP are ridiculous, some policies are ridiculous. Opp parties behaving ridiculously Tell us what is not ridiculous ? Having F1 in Singapore is ridiculous especially in the night but still we have to try something new, don’t we ?

The people and the world is not perfect, don’t expect perfection, that is the message I trying to bring forth. It is always the people that expect perfection because they are not the one doing it. I don’t expect the PAP and opp party to be perfect either , I don’t think that PAP is all that bad but we know that absolute power will corrupt and it will then be hard for them to figure what is right and what is wrong after all who to tell them they are wrong after more than 4 decades of iron fist ruling ?

We have to be realistic and pragmatic, and cannot expect a PERFECT person to tell others that they are doing wrong, not when a person is doing for a good cause.

“I think Chee didn’t perform any much better either. He was caught off guard by MM in some instances. The only thing is that the ST and the SDP website each put up only their positive side. Guess which has a higher readership?”

So what ? Who never make mistakes in life ? At least he tries even though mistakes are embarassment. Even the PM create a laughing stock out of himself by newspaper censoring of his mee siam mai hum. Yeah, they can do all the marketing themselves, promoting themselves, praising themselves, but ultimately please show the result. Higher readership ? Who really care ? Just bring down the cost of living, just make our lie better, just give right to citizen, change the law for better , give check and balance etc .

You don’t need to be perfect just to make life better for others but then if they want to people to believe in your act, please do show results. It is the same for any party.

Name me a successful person in singapore that is living and perfect to you. It is not hard to dig out his flaw and his past mistakes.

Be real or are we still living in the make-believe world created by ourselves ?

Your replies seem to be coming very promptly. Are you standing by this website or what? I am going to bed soon but can’t resist one more reply.

There are 2 things you mentioned
1. Some things being ridiculous
2. Mistakes should be forgiven

Both make sense. But your application of benchmarks is not. Some people behave ridiculously to you but some make mistakes and should be forgiven. That’s very odd.

I think you need to prove that SDP alone produced results. You made the allegation, please prove it. I don’t feel my life has changed because of SDP alone. If it has, it probably has to do with the PAP or the whole opposition, not just the SDP.

“I think you need to prove that SDP alone produced results. You made the allegation, please prove it. I don’t feel my life has changed because of SDP alone. If it has, it probably has to do with the PAP or the whole opposition, not just the SDP.”

If one can’t even tell from observation and own judgement then what is there to prove ? Evidence can’t prove anything, it can’t even prove one’s innocence now. Remember the factual guilt issue. It is the same thing that people says that PAP create and make Singapore because they observe it and judge it by the ruling party’s effort, and therefore give them a vote. But then is it entirely through PAP ? How about citizen and opp party’s efforts ? Just because PAP is pervasive doesn’t means that the citizen and opp party is insignificant. So why people still think PAP deserve it, it is because of act of convenience and by large that PAP contribute greatly to Singapore’s growth as what people think.

It is the same for SDP and Dr Chee, and considering those coincidences where all these chain of events happen. (Hong Lim parks, IBA reports, court’s recording, ), and given that Sylvia’s Lim’s suggestion (From Youtbe) are not even implemented by government , I believe the SDP’s effort greatly contribute to these changes.

“I don’t feel my life has changed because of SDP alone.” Your life did not change but your perception of government has changed, didn’t it ? My life didn’t change either. I did not get rich, get more business, get less GST.

It really sad that we lose our own instinct to make the call and stand by own conviction. What people want is evidence, evidence and more evidence, but not many evidences are qualifiable, credible and tangible especially where image is more important than substance here. There are even evidences/statistic suppressed/skewed by government, and then what are people going to do about it. Answer: Nothing. Therefore don’t trust given evidence/statistic too much because it is no longer validable and credible, it is best to trust your own observation, judgement and due dilligence especially in Singapore where white can turn black and black can turn to white depending on “who’s talking”.

“Both make sense. But your application of benchmarks is not. Some people behave ridiculously to you but some make mistakes and should be forgiven. That’s very odd.”

Of course, each individual has different idea on what constitute oddness, ridiculousness, and grieviousness of mistakes.

But then it isn’t about oddness/ridiculousness/mistakes anymore considering all things been equal eg PAP has its own share of creating blunders, coverup and move on, LKY splitting nonsense that “something is doing us”, etc,
hence to be fair, the best thing is to focus on the result. It is about achieving results and that should be the focus and benchmark for any opp party.

For example, take the case of Jay Chou. His friends and those around him found him so odd, ridiculous and reticient before his popularity, and many perceived him as abnormal. But once he achieve results and sales ,suddenly he was been perceived as a genius and prodigy ! This is the power of result. Once you achieve the result in spite of oddity, you silence all the critics, and people see you differently, and people willing to overlook your mistake and deficiency. This is the world we living in. A very realistic and practical world. So to many, it doesn’t really matter as long as one’s mistakes are minor (not like HK sex scandal) as long as one accomplish something great.

Wisely (#22) and Daniel (#23):

I have been reading both your arguments. While both of you agree that we need better opposition politicians, the benchmark for results differs between both of you. For me, I am glad that Dr Chee´s protest and personal sacrifice has set the stage for internet deregulation and relaxation of Speakerś Corner rule. However, fact remains that the protest is allowed and is not recognised as a right by the PAP government. There is still so much more to fight for. We need Opposition politicians to push the boundaries. Only a threatened PAP will listen to and act for the peopleś woes because it would be the only way it can reclaim its mandates.

Hi Daniel; good morning!

Like to tell You that pragmatism is not all positive, me think it is pragmatism that’s going to do Singapore in soon. And when that happens, it will show that the EVER PRAGMATIC LEADERSHIP is the cause for the downfall of this society.

There was some discussions between Commenter IrCTP and me at Aaron Ngs’ Blog where I believed IrCTP opined that the Present Regime has always being pragmatic for the good of Singapore and its’ people. Reading Socio Political Blogs in Cyberspace for the last two over years, it seems to me that most if not all netizens view pragmatic policies and practices actually make our society what it is today.

Btw, I do believed that the American People facing the financial institutions meltdown are also beginning to see where pragmatism leads them to. Many there are beginning to realized that greeds of their business leaders have caused the meltdown. PRAGMATICALLY AND REALISTICALLY, Business Leaders want to make the most profits all for themselves selfishly, similarly, Political Leaderships will pragmatically and practically demolish all oppositions with all means, including unfair and unjust tactics, even legislations, which You are keenly awared.

In the earlier days of Independence, the people were pragmatic and accepted the Pragmatic Rules of the Leadership that leads to much of the problems we are facing today. Now, out of frustrations with the Ruling Regime, should we be desperate to conclude that any means to replace it, is pragmatic and good? I would think it is dangerous to embark on the slippery slope, that is pragmatism.

At this moment in time, Singaporeans are pragmatically and practically awared that they cannot depend on the Oppositions(Political) to actualize any political changes in our country. We have to depend on our collective efforts. We are lucky that there are some very wise professionals and intellectuals albeit non politicians that are active in Cyberspace and are going onto the open(spaces) to enlighten/educate us.

Personally, I wish that conscience and other human virtues will prevail over pragmatism and selfishness in the Leadership as well as us, the peole, for our common good.

patriot

Whilst I do not share the direction/action of certain opposition parties (actually only one) but I do think there should be more debate like here, on the direction of opposition politics. It will better clarify the distinction between the parties.

I think as an experiment, the opposition should forget about election cooperation in one election and allow multiple voter selections in electoral wards (or at least some of these wards). This will give a true gauge of voter preference. Whilst this might split the vote in one election, it will provide a better gauge of what direction (esp in opposition politics) voters prefer. In the following election, decision factors on who to field would be improved as voter preference is identified.

Right now, I think there is a very small group of people who are trying to direct the direction of opposition politics. Rather than being in shell, allowing voter preferences will support this direction.

btw, pragmatism is often good too.

Dear Tan Ah Kow,

“Unity for unity sake without a clear direction is a good as nothing and in some cases will be even more detrimental”

I think the Opposition Parties knows it well if ever they can settle their differences and join force to combat for the betterment of Singapore (i.e. balanced power). Let’s not under estimate the intelligence of these oppositions.

The passionate arguments, view points expressed over here by concerned and caring citizenry are nothing new except it has now far reaching effects and rippling impact with the advent of the internet and thanks to the dedicated concerned citizenry (TOC and the likes) who hosted it.

But you realized that through these years (since 1981), the Opposition Parties knew all along that they are up against a united PAP (whether willingly or hardballed). If they are truly working towards for betterment of the citizenry other than personal or selective interest glorification, they must (i.e all Opposition Parties there are) be as unified as the PAP to come up with comparable if not better substantive propositions and solutions to issues that are affecting the everyday life as well as the country’s future.

Sad to say, none (the opposition party) at moment are capable of giving substantive and clarity of what they can actually help the suffering citizenry if voted in. It is not just local politics and local issues that they should be concerned with. I have not heard any of them dealing with the issues of foreign policies.

It is not an overstatement to imply that the coming election is like engaging in a battle. In any battle field, pitching against the mighty force, the disparities of under dogs will almost certainly doomed for failure if not even if successful is not going to make noticeable impact. There are no collective sets of clear and substantive, thoroughly thought resolutions that the “supporting” voters (especially those on mutual ground) can compared to in order for them to cast their votes.

To combat a unified team with saturated and unclear leadership (worsen with bickering) is a foregone conclusion. Is it too early to start the ground work? It is never too early. They have got to rid of their 70’s~80’s mindset and start working. Old ideas and acquired knowledge if injected to a new breed with the 21st century mindset of young politicians who are really committed and dedicated to serve its people could proved to be a powerful potion (that if it is of collective united force).

Citizenry mindset will change if it affects them as it is evident now. But the Oppositions really need to show that they are worthy to influence the out-come.

Personally, will I vote the opposition for the sake of voting (granted if my constituency is not a walk over come election time), at moment, I have got to say “No”.

“Of course, each individual has different idea on what constitute oddness, ridiculousness, and grieviousness of mistakes.”
Fair enough. Then you’ll excuse me if I say PAP, SDA, WP are good but make mistakes but SDP is downright ridiculous. Although you’re free to disagree.

“But then it isn’t about oddness/ridiculousness/mistakes anymore considering all things been equal eg PAP has its own share of creating blunders, coverup and move on, LKY splitting nonsense that “something is doing us”, etc,”
Considering things being equal, Chee or SDP doesn’t stand out in terms of results or making mistakes. It’s very rare for a politician who’s not in govt office to blunder to the extent of Chee.

You should have said that all things being equal, PAP is the one with million dollar salaries from outr taxpayers and should be more accountable. But the last I remember, you were not holding PAP accountable. You were holding WP and SDA accountable. You were holding Chiam and Low accountable. But Chee is free from accountability then?

“hence to be fair, the best thing is to focus on the result.”
That is what most people vote PAP for, isn’t in? Who produced more results than PAP? But you say it’s not fair.

“It is about achieving results and that should be the focus and benchmark for any opp party.”
So what is this result that you have been talking about? Till now you have only mentioned Hong Lim which even SDP has scorned at.

Daniel: This are the points as promised.

“Did Dr Chee and his accomplices do it for personal agenda and gain ?”
No one doubts Chee is not doing things for personal gain but same goes to the other opposition leaders. What makes Chee so special?

“They lose big but they win big.”
What did they lose and what did they win?

“Never has I seen a opp party that effectively achieve the result using international pressure.”
What has international pressure change? The things Chee pushed for remain unchanged. Every time he goes to jail, international pressure never cut his sentence or led to his release. US emissaries are still coming to Singapore and doing business with the govt.

“Most of the popular opp party members that majority love believe they can do it by themselves in pathetic Singapore and paid terribly price for it, endup in Jail and bankrupt but yet fail to achieve anything radical.”
That sounds like Chee himself.

“Now, DrChee endup in Jail and bankrupt but end up create international awareness and becomes visible prominent figure in the fight for democracy.”
Who made him a visible prominent figure for democracy? The 77% who voted against him?

“Popular votes do not translate to competence and capability”
That is true.

“and am actually glad that SDP has low vote because they do not need to face status quo and be cautious for fear of losing popular vote.”
In other words, SDP does not need to answer to the people? Like the PAP?

“More often, opp party tend to play on safe side of things for fear of losing popular vote that unfortunately diminish their effectiveness.”
If the opposition is effective, why would they lose the popular vote?

“Just as no one should go to business for money but one should go to business to win and serve customer. Only by doing that, money will come naturally and abundantly.”
There are also businesses that serve customer to their best but end up losing money. It’s what you sell to customers that count. That is why I think all the other opposition parties are doing better than SDP because they sell what customers want to buy.

“It is the same for politics scene. One should never go politics for sake of winning popular votes but one should go to transform and change the nation for goods of citizen. Only by doing that, votes will come its way.”
In principle, that is true. But the way you apply it here, to the SDP or the rest, does not make sense.

“I have no doubt that Dr Chee will win big in next election as the public aware and tired of the dirty tricks of the ruling party to discredit opp party.”
Why do you, as an SDP advocate, not know that Dr Chee is a bankrupt and cannot contest? You should say that the SDP will win big. I doubt so, but let us see what happens in the next election.

“SDA and WP party in my opinion , are living on borrowed time if they insist on playing on safe side of things and believe popular votes are the way to go.”
Can you specify what is this borrowed time? This statement doesn’t make sense.

“Either ages are catching up with them or people are fed up with their non-performance.”
Age is catching up on everyone, isn’t it? People are fed up of their non-performance would have voted them out long ago. But Chiam was elected 6 times and Low 4 times despite being ineffectual as what you said.

“If they continue to stay that way, it is just a matter of time, they will lose their seat.”
When they die, of course they will lose their seat. Chiam is one foot in the grave and is still holding onto his.

“Worse, they will have no deserved legacy to speak of.”
Chiam already has a legacy. Even JBJ has too. Low is still building his. Chee? You can check with people on the street.

“They are like a army on top of mountain surrounded by enemies. Resources and morales are running low as day goes by. The army are weakening and enemies just wait patiently for them to die off. Afraid to take action, afraid to incur the wrath of the soldier by attacking. So play defensive strategy till the end of last breath.”
The SDP is also surrounded by enemies but they charge out and the enemy kills them. The difference is who dies faster. Biding time can allow it to send reinforcements later. If it doesn’t come, so be it. But it’s better than to charge and die.

“Time and time again, I see opp parties complain about how election are not fair but then still play in it, thinking that popular votes will win it. For how long can dignity and sympathy give opp party votes ?”
And what is the SDP contesting election for?

“Dr Chee did show that adaptability to rules has a limit and play the attacking game through guerilla warfare”
That is true but he is a smashed guerilla.

“and hence test the rule every here force the government to change its stand due to peer pressure.”
How did Chee force the government to change its stand? By heaping all the credits on Chee, are you sure no other reasons are behind any govt change? Why, that sounds like an insult to the Roundtable, Mr Brown and the Myanmarese students.

“Guerilla warfare and international alliance is the only way for a small fry to win against largest opponents as the history of warfare has taught us.”
Doesn’t seem to work in Myanmar and Taiwan?

“Well, maybe you will like to define what is the role of the opp party and to what the extent the opp party has fulfilled its role in Singapore ?”
Any layman will know that the PAP is the govt because it has more than half the seats in parliament. You need to win enough seats to displace them as the government. Long ago, people thought it was not possible in Malaysia. Look at it now.

“I even confuse by what the subservient opp party is doing, and how many of their so-called mandate is fulfilled ? Incredibly, I find none significant. The government just downplay and brush it off.”
Civil servants are now allowed to contest elections. That could be a result of Sylvia Lim’s foray. If you dismiss this as hogwash then the same should apply to the same hogwash that SDP helped to open up Hong Lim park.

“Though I have to agree that SDP seem to act as activists than as a party”
This is important because if SDP is activist, you shouldn’t be comparing activists and party. There are activists and parties all over the world but no one compares them the way you do.

“Whatever ways it goes, it show that if it behave as party, it will endup been no difference from rest of the opp parties, that is played by the rule, and perished by the rule.”
You are saying SDP wants to be different? But now it looks like SDP is more perished than the others.

“It shows that Dr Chee and his accomplice is fighting for a cause not for some upgrading plan, or whatever carrots for his constitency (if he going to win one), he is fighting for Singapore against a government who love to turn black into white, and white into black (Aren’t we have enough of those nonsenses ?).”
Are you sure all other opposition fight for are constituency matters? That is not my impression. JBJ and WP just made their stands on the by election thing, even NMPs too. But nothing was heard from SDP or am I wrong?

“Opp party in Singapore ought to think out of the box, and be flexible, and if one approach don’t work then use other approach that works and proven by others.”
That is what Chiam and Low did. The oppose-everything methods of their predecessors did not work. Even Lim Yew Hock a former chief minister failed to be elected. Chee is merely learning from those who led to PAP’s big margin wins in the earlier years.

“The only thing that I realize opp party in Singapopre is not ready to risk their reputation and their career”
Is risking reputation and career a prerequisite in opposition politics?

“and just want to eat both side of the cakes. Sad to say, they are just going through motion.”
What are the both sides of the cake? What are motions and what are not motions?

“Who is myopia when more than 4 decades, I yet to see any opp party produce result other than SDP. SDP may not be popular but it produces result.”
What results did the SDP produce? (4th time asking)

“For the rest of opp parties, show us the result and don’t ask us to wait til the old man disappear from face of the earth along with nation’s wealth.”
Did any opposition party ask us to wait for the old man to disappear?

“All I see is that opp parties keep lamenting about unfairness in election, and do nothing about it.”
Is SDP or Chee any different?

“The only console is SDP is doing something about it in its own way, breaking the unjust rule, and exert pressure on governement to achieve result. The good thing is that SDP is testing the unjust law, it is not inciting violence or riot nor uprising against the government.”
After testing the unjust laws, did anything change? They protested outside parliament. Are we allowed to protest outside parliament now?

“They do it in a peaceful way after all their members are just like you and me, having a family with children. They fight for their future generation to have a better life for them , you and me, not asking the government for some stupid carrots and upgrading benefits.”
Chiam and Low are also fighting for Singapore but you don’t seem to appreciate them.

Thank you.

(Donaldson Tan: I agree with you. The only reason why I started the ball rolling was not because I am against SDP but because SDP is against opposition parties. Yes I am against them at times but I keep it private. SDP advocates need to have a taste on their own meds.)

“30) Wisely on September 24th, 2008 11.11 am

“If the opposition is effective, why would they lose the popular vote?”

Wisely, is it so simple ? Effective ? How to ? That we must play by the rules of engagement as defined by the incumbent party ? Why should their rules be considered de facto ?

Hey we are not talking about criminal activities like murder and daylight robberies or even to incite racial and religious hatred which must be avoided at all costs ?

We are talking about the nature of freedom that each human being treasures, either to express joy or at times to express pain, if any.

“After testing the unjust laws, did anything change? They protested outside parliament. Are we allowed to protest outside parliament now?”

Result is not defined by how it starts but by how it ends. Unless, you have conceded that it has already ended.

Sometimes, you need another group of people from another generation to finish what has been started. If it is for a good cause, it is worth it. Unfortunately, different set of people may have to pay a high price to start the ball rolling for other people to enjoy it.

Since when are we allowed to protest anywhere else in our country, let alone outside parliament. Oh I forgot, Speakers Corner !!!. Well, it is only a recent inclusion and perhaps you may be able to tell us who has clocked the most visits there.

“SDP helped to open up Hong Lim park.”

LOL. Must be on the same democratic level of Al Gore claiming to invent the Internet or John McCain claiming to invent to help create the Blackberry.

“Chiam and Low are also fighting for Singapore but you don’t seem to appreciate them.” – wisely

Thank you. I think even PAP politicians have more respect for our ELECTED opposition MPs than some of the people in the opposition.

The tax-free monthly allowance of $14,000 plus the prestige & health-care benefits, etc can be a very good career prospect for getting elected as an opposition MP, no?

“32) lim on September 24th, 2008 11.48 am

“LOL. Must be on the same democratic level of Al Gore claiming to invent the Internet or John McCain claiming to invent to help create the Blackberry.”

This is glaringly too far-fetched and perhaps only you Lim have managed to find the slightest bit of connection / association.

“SDP helped to open up Hong Lim park.”

Surely Hong Lim park will not open up just like that, knowing too well the very protective style of our dear garment. Even aunties and uncles (not all) know their modus operandi quite well when it comes to dealing with people having different views from theirs. Aiyah, speak to aunities and uncles lah.

It does get better these days – hey we must give certain credit when it is due. Right ?

But again, did they do it voluntarily without any solicitation (in another words from presure).

“PAP politicians have more respect for our ELECTED opposition MPs than some of the people in the opposition.”

In life, that is called trade off. A choice of having the lesser of two evils (not literally evil but just to show an analogy). Curry favour the one with less threats to show that you are not as bad as it sounds when it comes to opposition.

Not everyone is against ELECTED opposition MPs and I find the post by 28) Observer (SG-HK) on September 24th, 2008 10.45 am very apt and enlightening.

Definitely, all opposition parties have their own specific party philosophy & strategies and we have to respect that.

“Worse, they will have no deserved legacy to speak of.”
Chiam already has a legacy. Even JBJ has too. Low is still building his. Chee? You can check with people on the street.

My first post here, me just passing by (in this forum) and saw this ? remark by Wisely, thought I like to offer my opinion as a ‘people on the street’.

Chee? His legacy? Help me to open my eyes to the fallacy of non-corruptability of the PAP govt legacy. PAP are corrupted, if not financially but definitely morally. That was my personal perception and opinion.

A bunch of hypocrites, words don’t fit their actions many a time! Most times, many of them (in PAP) I would labelled them as LIARS and CHEATERS from the ways they tried to explain certain policies or actions created by themselves and caused hardships to the many people on the street or opposition politicians!

Most opposition politician lack merits nor the credentials to be considered formidables ones and SDP has been in disarray eversince CSJ leadership. Chiam & Low have been re-elected by voters who see them worthy – they cannot be wrong. There are some issues our govt. has got to work out in the loosing wards, study the discontentment of the residents there and rectify them. One thing is sure – money alone cannot buy voters nor can everything be perfect.

When one got to keep the pace globally, it bounds to create discomfort and some times leave behind the ’slower’ ones…this is inevitable as well the chain-reactions of it…BUT…I am sure the issues of lower-income group, the poverty level, lowly-educated groups etc and their survival is close to the heart of our government. NO ONE will be left behind by our Govt.!

We have done great domestically and globally, of course, not without minor hitches here and there – overall we survived and will thrive better under the current government!!

“Wisely, is it so simple ? Effective ? How to ? That we must play by the rules of engagement as defined by the incumbent party ? Why should their rules be considered de facto ?”
Compared to other country political parties there’s still a lot the SDP has not done in terms of breaking the laws. Be like the PAD which charge into govt building. After all SDP is here only to break rules and as long as there is one rule they haven’t broken, don’t tell us they are not playing by PAP rules where the other opposition parties are. Chee can start by declaring himself President of Singapore. That’s breaking the rule constitutionally.

“Hey we are not talking about criminal activities like murder and daylight robberies or even to incite racial and religious hatred which must be avoided at all costs ?”
I can tell you that some criminals break laws because they are forced by the situation. If a man robs a bank because he is out of a job for a long time, nobody wants to lend him money and his kid will be starved to death in 3 days. His is a more noble cause than the SDP, but do you think the police will spare him if they catch him?

“We are talking about the nature of freedom that each human being treasures, either to express joy or at times to express pain, if any.”
I can’t feel this nature of freedom thing. Unlike the above example which a father loves the child, I can feel the SDP doing it for themselves.

“Result is not defined by how it starts but by how it ends. Unless, you have conceded that it has already ended.”
Fine. Then how come you agree that WP and SDA’s results have ended?

“Since when are we allowed to protest anywhere else in our country, let alone outside parliament. Oh I forgot, Speakers Corner !!!. Well, it is only a recent inclusion and perhaps you may be able to tell us who has clocked the most visits there.”
Yes someone just said SDP opened up Speakers Corner, so why aren’t they clocking the most visits there?

so many angry people, so many things to discuss, so little time.

To all you unhappy and angry people – I wish for you that you will find happiness and peace in life.

Sad.
There is so much of goodness out there but somehow it the unhappiness and anger that always take control.
Sad.

To: Talkcocking

“The tax-free monthly allowance of $14,000 plus the prestige & health-care benefits, etc can be a very good career prospect for getting elected as an opposition MP, no?”

$14,000 is a lot of money to you? Maybe to you but not to me. I can easily make that it one month and I am sure Chiam and Low can make it too. They don’t need to be cheapskate over $14,000. You Chee does not make that kind of money? How will he be able to feed his wife and kids? From where, that I don’t want to question.

“Definitely, all opposition parties have their own specific party philosophy & strategies and we have to respect that.”
But some people are not respecting that. Saying the opposition is not doing enough is not the same as as saying the opposition intentionally does not want to do enough to keep the PAP strong. This allegation by SDP advocies is absurd. If anyone from SDP has the proof that Chiam/Low/WP/SDA sat down with the PAP to discuss and arrange the present status, please show it.

What I would like to highlight here is the fact that in our quest for more opposition MPs, there’s always a risk of getting one too many opportunists into the parliament, thus setting the clock back for Singapore’s democratisation process.

The fact that there are quite a few young ambitious members within WP and quite a few PAP admirers among them too. Low is smart enough to not build up his party as a vehicle to provide free rides at his own expenses.

As I observe, the official WP website is not properly utilised with a purpose of not running the risk of libels or parliamentary sanctions etc, whereas those who have political ambitious can freely run their individual blogs.

Just my two cents worth.

There are always opportunist politicians in every country. What is the solution? Not to pay them an allowance? Or pay them $1000?

I can safely say that Singapore MP allowance is at international benchmarks although the same can’t be said for ministers which are much higher. I can also say that even $1000, opportunists will also want to come forward. Do you believe if I tell you people hanker and politick for positions that do not pay salaries? A lot happens in hway kuans and associations. Just ensure parliament is not dominated by one party will do.

“The fact that there are quite a few young ambitious members within WP and quite a few PAP admirers among them too. Low is smart enough to not build up his party as a vehicle to provide free rides at his own expenses.”
Do you have inside info? Are you a WP insider? Ambitions, PAP admirers, how Low runs the party, it’s amazing that you know all that by just observing. One may even need to learn how to read minds.

“As I observe, the official WP website is not properly utilised with a purpose of not running the risk of libels or parliamentary sanctions etc, whereas those who have political ambitious can freely run their individual blogs.”
That applies to all parties isn’t it? Inasmuch as SDP website is the most updated, I still see so many websites and blogs around that support only SDP.

“No one will be left behind” , tell that to those who are in the queue for free food,
collecting cardboxes, attending to public toilets , cleaning foodcourts etc.

“overall we survived” , yeah. no one has starved to death yet. clap,clap,clap.
“and will thrive better under the current govt”, yeah. you mean the PAP members themselves including yourself will benefit the most lah ! oops and myself also if I learn to carry their bola bola.

“After all SDP is here only to break rules and as long as there is one rule they haven’t broken, don’t tell us they are not playing by PAP rules where the other opposition parties are.”

That is why he is needing all the special attention. We also have to respect the pace that other opposition parties want to take. No beef on that.

“If a man robs a bank because he is out of a job for a long time, nobody wants to lend him money and his kid will be starved to death in 3 days. His is a more noble cause than the SDP, but do you think the police will spare him if they catch him?”

It is a philosophical & some uneasy social question that each and everyone of us has to ask if such noble case really arises. To steal in order to survive (especially for food).

Police being police will not spare anyone who breaks the law – their bread & butter and promotion are dependent on how good they enforce laws. They will have to change their action the split second the law changes.

They are the enforcers – just doing their job and they do not care much whether you steal to settle your gambling debts or to buy food for “his kid who will be starved to death in 3 days”. That is how frigteningly detached the role of certain vocations is.

“Then how come you agree that WP and SDA’s results have ended?”

Was this ever being mentioned. Perhaps, wrong impression has been given. In fact, WP and SDA are doing a very good job in their very own right. I value the work they are doing and I salute them. We need more of them and others.

“so why aren’t they clocking the most visits there?”

Surely you are not referring to those casual visitors like aunties and uncles who may be clocking it consistenly everyday by sitting there enjoying the morning and late evening breeze.

“Surely Hong Lim park will not open up just like that, knowing too well the very protective style of our dear garment.”

lol. But to claim that it is through SDP’s efforts is miraculous. In fact, I stand corrected. I now think Gore and McCain has a better claim. At least they had a hand in legislation that facilitated the 2 mentioned events.

If anything, I will credit the holding of international events such as the earlier IMF (and in part the Olympics in China) as well as the coming youth olympics that contributed to the opening up of Hong Lim park.

The Govt is a little more conscious of their international image. For the SDP to claim credit really takes the cake and symptomatic of their straw clutching self-ego boosting activities…

Like I said, SDP should stand against WP/SDA in electoral wards and we shall see who in the opposition the Singapore electorate think its worth their vote. Then we can really identify how many Singaporeans believe and agree with what the SDP prescribes.

“That is why he is needing all the special attention. We also have to respect the pace that other opposition parties want to take. No beef on that.”
I have no beef on that too. Tell that to SDP advocates please.

“Was this ever being mentioned. Perhaps, wrong impression has been given. In fact, WP and SDA are doing a very good job in their very own right. I value the work they are doing and I salute them. We need more of them and others.”
I read the comments again and again. SDP advocies don’t seen to be telling me WP and SDA are doing a good job and SDP has another good purpose. The sentences sounded like SDP is going the right way and WP and SDA are the wrong way. Perhaps you should try to start reading from the top of this page.

“45) lim on September 24th, 2008 2.56 pm

lol. But to claim that it is through SDP’s efforts is miraculous. In fact, I stand corrected. I now think Gore and McCain has a better claim. At least they had a hand in legislation that facilitated the 2 mentioned events.

If anything, I will credit the holding of international events such as the earlier IMF (and in part the Olympics in China) as well as the coming youth olympics that contributed to the opening up of Hong Lim park. ”

You are just trying to grab on whatever little tweak that is floating in the water. You do have more imaginations that I thought.

“Like I said, SDP should stand against WP/SDA in electoral wards.”

Well only time will tell whether these 3 parties will want to take the risk by standing one against the other. On the side, I wonder whether they will have the chance to pick up your suggestion here and after that even give it the slightest consideration as far as the current situation is concerned.

Unlikely. If I was Chee, I wouldn’t take the risk. Losing to any opposition party will seriously dampen his self image of credibility and self confidence. I think he still has the intelligence to understand where he stands at this time vis a vis the other parties. No surprise to see SDP advocates coming out with articles entitled “flawed statement of so and so opposition politician” (I agree with wisely in that respect).

By standing in 1-to-1 contests, at least the SDP can still tap on the hard-core “will vote an opposition straw man” segment of voters (which to be fair there is also an equal or maybe bigger segment of “will vote a PAP straw man” segment).

For WP and SDA, their philosophies is partly opposition unity (more so for the SDA) and people like Chiam can remember the effects of the 199X elections.

Having said that, I’m not even sure there will be a SDP for the next election (if the latest defamation action is concluded). We could probably see the Justice party arising and subsuming the SDP. Sad to see the most successful Singapore opposition party consigned to history at the hands of a phd.

The above is based on an assumption that the Singaporean electorate is an informed electorate who is able to access or be given full-spectrum information.

Else, it’s all cheap talk for pro-PAP camps because they can simply justify the presence of a technical voting structure without substantive electoral education that is not partisan or even skewed.

“46) Wisely (I’m cool) on September 24th, 2008 3.02 pm

The sentences sounded like SDP is going the right way and WP and SDA are the wrong way.”

Let SDP have their own more noisy but visible effective way – it serves some purpose. We must also respect WP and SDA on their own quite but discreet effective way – it also serves some useful purpose. Each has their own good reasons and some definitive strategy.

Everyone of us wants betterment of the country but based on different approaches which are very good as more varieties act as good moderating & counter-checking agents among themselves.

Observer (SG-HK):

I think the Opposition Parties knows it well if ever they can settle their differences and join force to combat for the betterment of Singapore (i.e. balanced power). Let’s not under estimate the intelligence of these oppositions.

The issue here is not about the intelligence of the oppositions but in my mind it is about political philosophies not parties. Political parties are basically groupings of people. Some political parties like the democratic party or the republicans in the US are a grouping of people with diverse political ideologies.

In Singapore political parties including the PAP are basically driven by single figures (LKY in PAP, Chiam in SPP, LKT in WP, JBJ in RP and CSJ in SDP). You see party such as NSP and others are nowhere because there is no strong personality to pin on. As such the political party == the political philosophy of the leader.

Even the PAP may not be as united as it seemed. Mainly because the PAP is run by a very small clique of people. The rests of the members are just for show. If you can knock the leadership of the PAP, the rest will fall. Look at the PAP leadership, they don’t even pick from within their own party.

As for the opposition, it is wrong to say that they have never been united. They did change track, back in the 80s when they decided to go for the “by-election” strategy (i.e. not contest each others wards) and let the PAP win the majority to hold the government.

The problem is not at the opposition end but the people of Singapore. It basically sums up to the Kia Su and Kia See mentality. Basically, they fear the unknown so the vote for the PAP. Basically, that is why Chiam and LKT has some staying power because these are known quantity. (Known does not mean able)

Personally, in terms of unity front, the opposition has done as much as it can. The problem is with the people. If they cannot see past the Kia Su and Kia See mentality there is very little scope for electorial change. When people start blaming the opposition for lack of unity, it is really an excuse to hide the fact that they themselves are afraid of the unknown. Or they get attached to personality, and only see one side.

Look at the Chiam vs Chee debate. Often the logic get lost. Supporter of Chiam will say that look when he was in SDP he had four MPs. Whereas in Chee SDP lost all. From that they conflate the poor opposition performance as a whole to Chee. Yet it seemed to escape them that how come after leaving SDP, Chiam had not been able to repeat his feat when he was in SDP?

What I think the SDP is doing right, given the current circumstances, that they are trying to change the mentality. That is the starting point. I do not think the WP and others are doing that. They have instead pander to the base instinct of the electorate, which is not going to help in the long run. That’s my view.

I emphasis again that the SDP philosophy, not necessarily the Party (i.e. the SDP can change reform under a new name and still retain the philosophy), as it stands is needed now. Because the current circumstance calls for it. To me the political philosophies of Chiam and LKT and by extension the SPP/SDA and WP just won’t work in the long run.

When Singapore becomes a normal even contest between political parties than I would agree that SDP philosophy will work. I may then be more incline to the LKT philosophy.

Imho, the non political social activists, the likes of Leong Sze Hian, TOC and many others are more potent in changing the Local Political Landscape in time to come.

Bloggers, notably those from TOC, Intelligent Singaporeans, Sg Daily, Mollymeekmeek, Mr Wang (says so), Sg Politics, Dr Huang(of nofearsingapore), Mr Brown and many others incuding the Elusive Darkness and his gang, will also greatly influence the electorates’ political/social understandings and awareness.

Opposition Leaders in Singapore are either too old, of self-importance and other than fractious amongst themselves, are unable to connect well with their fellow countrymen. The greatest and most critical difficulty of all for the Oppositions is that few Singaporeans have affinity and feeling for them. They(Oppositions) really have to work very hard to build relationships with the People!

patriot

I wonder what SDA thinks about Mr. Sin’s comments. SPP claims that they aspire to see a 2 party system in Singapore. I wonder how this will be possible if Sin Kek Tong seems to imply that Singapore and all Singaporeans are doing good under PAP.

[quoteImho, the non political social activists, the likes of Leong Sze Hian, TOC and many others are more potent in changing the Local Political Landscape in time to come.
Bloggers, notably those from TOC, Intelligent Singaporeans, Sg Daily, Mollymeekmeek, Mr Wang (says so), Sg Politics, Dr Huang(of nofearsingapore), Mr Brown and many others incuding the Elusive Darkness and his gang, will also greatly influence the electorates’ political/social understandings and awareness.
Opposition Leaders in Singapore are either too old, of self-importance and other than fractious amongst themselves, are unable to connect well with their fellow countrymen. The greatest and most critical difficulty of all for the Oppositions is that few Singaporeans have affinity and feeling for them. They(Oppositions) really have to work very hard to build relationships with the People![/quote]

Maybe in the next generation…there are still many in Singapore who cannot use the internet…if we go to any Meet the MP session, we can see that the PAP employs many ‘Ah Beng’ businessmen who volunteer, to connect to the general public as they ‘Ah-Beng’s’ speak the language of the general populace. In return, the ‘Ah Beng’ businessmen get networking privileges to expand their businesses. Perhaps the opposition should make use of their Ah Beng connections as well.

“Yet it seemed to escape them that how come after leaving SDP, Chiam had not been able to repeat his feat when he was in SDP?”

My response seem to have been missed. I repeat.

Rather than constantly trying to blame or put down Chiam, why not ask CSJ if he has ever considered whether he is actually the one responsible for the depressed opposition votes?

If you’ve been in Singapore over the past decade, you’d know CSJ has been the lightning rod. Apparently, the SDP advocates are still in denial how CSJ has affected opposition politics and fortunes over the past 3 elections.

51) Tan Ah Kow on September 24th, 2008 4.36 pm

No argument on your assessment of the mentality of the people. That will take a big crisis to shake the mind-set. I certainly and postitively hope we all change for the better.

Hypothetically, let’s assumed that the next generation of voters are rid of this kiasu, kiasee mentality, voters still need to know what and why are they voting. Right?

Like someone had commented, voters will choose the lesser of the two evil (not that we have a lot of choices to make).

Party’s philosophy or not, it is clear to the commentors here, there appeared to have great animosities within the Oppositions and if this persist through to election time, the eventual winner will certainly be the incumbent (not that they will loose, I don’t think they will loose by majority but instead they might just win them all). That I think will do anyone who hope to see a step in balance of power no good.

There are no denial that any political party will have its own philosophy and self governing interest, however, if at moment there are so much disgruntle on the ground, we certainly would hope to vote for a change with a candidate or a group of candidates that can and will deliver substantive solutions to those issues that had the citizenry on its edge. Can you forsee any or have you forsee any at moment? Again, I said it earlier, it is not just local politics and issues. Singapore relies a lot of exporting as well, so good foreign policies is critical as well.

Honestly, I do not see that in any of the opposition parties. The incumbent oppositions did a fair show but if things are to change or at least vie for a stronger representation in the parliament after the next election, it’s time to call for unity of the Oppositions. Being united with common objective and aligned synergy (they have got to work it out) that voters can identify will fair a better chance of winning more seats in the constituencies that they intend to contest in (given the resources, we know its limited at moment but doesn’t mean you cannot attract like minded people in the future if they are serious about it). Nobody says it is easy, but if they are serious about for the people and for the country, they will have to do it. I do not believe there is any other way out for tiny Singapore.

The Oppositions are well aware as you are and every concerned citizenry who wanted change (I hope) the mentality of the x-number of voting citizenry.If they (the Oppositions) do not change their mentality as well and convince the voters their worth, I don’t believe the voters mentality will change and we do not even need to cast our votes at all. It will be a walk over in most of the constituencies.

Having said, it doesn’t necessary mean that even if they are united and change their mentality to convince the voters of their worth, then they will win in the coming election. Even if they do not win in the next election, the fundamental structure is there to grow and given time ,may be another two elections down the line, I strongly believe the political landscape in Singapore will be very different.

The matter is whether these disparate Oppositions are willing to forego its own ego, philosophy and what not for the sake of its citizenry who are yearning for change. I am not surprise at all if PAP come to their conscience suddenly and draw a balance to calm the disgruntle citizenry to continue their ruling.

You have said it, some of the PAP members (I believe some are on neutral ground), their hands are tied at moment for implied reasons. Will they jump ship someday if there is really a strong, unified and comparable Oppostion front?

I agree observer (sg-hk)

The WP has a workable strategy that no longer requires opposition unity. They have been “silently” working the ground in their targeted areas and some of it I believe will eventually pay off.

The decision to send the team against the PM in AMK shows their lack of fear and that is resounding to a lot of younger voters (easier and legal way to show lack of fear than to be fined/jailed for civil disobedience). Yaw’s declaration on his voting preference ironically coincides with a lot of Singaporeans and despite the flak from the other opposition guns, it does connect with many voters who have the same thought process but are less open about it. The last WP manifesto was also well-written enough to draw attention and flak (but not publicised enough yet to connect to voters)

Issues like Serangoon Gardens FW dorm has created uncertainty with the potential to tilt votes. Being in Aljunied GRC, it doesn’t take a genius to understand who will get the benefit of a fall out and only 6% swing separates the 2. Getting credible candidates like Sylvia Lim that appeal to younger voters adds to that. Add to that cost of living issues, worries over food safety etc are just some other contributory factors.

The PAP can only get away with incidents like the Gomez saga or redrawing boundaries (serangoon gardens could be a priority) so many times…Flats can only be upgraded so many times…..

Assuming the WP doesn’t get into future CSJ-type incidents, I do think they will be the first opp party to break the GRC stranglehold. It won’t be easy cos if I can see, the PAP would have seen it far earlier and they’ll have a counter.

But if that barrier can be breached, Kiasu Singaporeans like to flock to winners…

I don’t think anyone is under the illusion that opposition unity will mean more than just territorial cooperation. Once I tot a united opposition manifesto might help but I doubt if the parties will be able to agree but that’s no longer relevant. Singaporeans no longer expect opposition unity. Worse, some are even turned off by the tacit linkages with SDP’s tactics.

The strategies of the differing opposition parties are so diverse, I no longer see a way that it can be bridged.

Lim:

Rather than constantly trying to blame or put down Chiam, why not ask CSJ if he has ever considered whether he is actually the one responsible for the depressed opposition votes?

I won’t speak for others but I personally don’t see it is the case of Chiam being constantly put down. More a case of the failure of Chiam being blamed on Chee.

I accept that you would like at the same fact differently but when I look at it, my conclusion, which you may disagree, is that Chiam is his own worst enemy.

Here are the facts as I see it.

(a) To repeat, Chiam is often credited as having brought about 4 MPs when he was in SDP. Yet, when he left he not only had SPP but also NSP and others as part of his allies under SDA, he as not being able to repeat his feat. So then question must be asked who’s fault is it.

(b) Many often point to Chiam’s electorial success as vindication of being “successful” indicators and say that Chee blackens the opposition camp. If Chee is so vile to the electorate than the performance of Chiam ought not to have been influence by Chee. Why did his “halo” effect not rub off on other so called comrades in his own party?

(c) Chiam’s party is has all the long being “reponsible” and why is his party still so insignificant and as I can tell on the verge of being nothing more than a zombie? Why the NSP leave the SDA? Were all this the fault of Chee?

On the point about Chee’s supporter view. I dare say that most have often voice irritation at Chiam or for that matter try to put Chiam down is because the achievement (however small but profound) of Chee has not be recognised. And people often use Chiam to blacken Chee not the other way round.

As for the argument that Chee is responsible for putting down the votes of opposition. It worth noting that long before Chee entered the scene, the opposition vote has never been high enough for me to suggest that Chee factor had any correlation. At this juncture, I want to add it is not he problem of the opposition, Chee notwithstanding, but the attitude of the electorate themselves.

It is the electorates themselves that have entered into a faustian pack with the PAP. They have decided to sell their soul to the devil they know for material comfort. So if I was fair to Chiam (and Chee) is that he has little room to manoeuvre politically speaking.

Observer (SG-HK):

Hypothetically, let’s assumed that the next generation of voters are rid of this kiasu, kiasee mentality, voters still need to know what and why are they voting. Right?

Forgive for saying this. This is a strawman argument. In fact the straw is so dry that one hot breath and your argument just goes to flame.

The argument that you are trying to apply here is workable in a hypothetical scenario that you paint. But it does not reflect the reality of the situation.

First and foremost, party politics in the sense of people grouping together compromising on political philosophies to establish broad front to win an election will not work in the current reality.

Even in the PAP context, party politics ceased to exist from the GCT era onward. pre independence, the PAP was a broad(ish) church involving compromise between the left and the right to throw the British out. Pre GCT, you had semblance of factions. Post GCT, that is all gone. Virtually all the new leadership are co-opted from outside the party, directly from the civil services not from the PAP grassroot.

Increasingly, now the civil services, GLCs and the PAP leadership are so intertwine that it is likely that the fortune of the two are dependent on each other now. So on this score, you cannot just elect out the PAP (assuming that the they don’t change the rule) you also need to de-PAP tise the entire civil service. Clear example is the WP/PAP(PCF) cycling cases handled by the police.

In fact, in my last visit to Zimbabwe, I found that country’s political scene resembling that of the one in Singapore.

Secondly, given the first reasoning, you will see the scope of action for the opposition political parties are limited. To win on an electoral basis, they have to do it in a all or nothing approach.

I know the WP strategy is to chip away electorally at the PAP hold on parliament. But unfortunately for this strategy the power-based is not on the legislature any more. Many of the laws in now-a-days are made by minister (i.e. the leadership of PAP). So even if the WP could come anywhere near threatening the PAP, it can be changed.

Look at the situation up north, when Anwar is about to form a majority from BN defection, the ISA is used to dent Anwar’s support based. Same as what is happening in Zimbabwe. Ok maybe the PAP may not be so brutish, but there is the useful defamation tool, which increasing based on summary judgement.

Thirdly, even if your hypothetical scenario applies, you still have the problem of the electorate, which after some many years of thinking in the Kia Su and Kia See way, would they actually really want to vote for the opposition?

Hey I bet even the opposition were a unity front consisting of God and Allah and Buddah it won’t work. They will still vote for the PAP. Why?

The electorate will say, to the unity front, proof to me that you are God/Allah/Buddah. If not I rather vote for the devil I know. That is the hurdle that you have to overcome.

Why do I say that. Look the SDP has exposed how shambolic the rule of law in Singapore is. Others have uncovered the myth of Singapore economic prowess. Yet has that moved the Singapore electorate, like in HK when they protested against the introduction of security law, to demonstrate against incidence?

Hey if you look at the WP, when the hypocrisy of the police was raised in TOC, did they as a party pushed for change in the law?

Firstly, like to thank Mr Tan for his posts which I may not agree but nevertheless at least is worth reading. My responses below.

Mr Tan said:
(a) To repeat, Chiam is often credited as having brought about 4 MPs when he was in SDP. Yet, when he left he not only had SPP but also NSP and others as part of his allies under SDA, he as not being able to repeat his feat. So then question must be asked who’s fault is it.

Chee’s. If you’re old enough to remember the excitement of the 1991 election and Goh Chok Tong’s face in election night, you would have said that anyone under the SDP banner on that night would have had a decent shot at being an MP. In 1997, why did Cheo and Ling lose their MP in 1997? It was precisely the entire Chee saga. You can ignore that fact but the electorate didn’t. Thereafter as a result of the Chee saga, the electorate was a lot more circumspect. That’s my personal observation/experience of the period.
————————————————————————-
Mr Tan said:
(b) Many often point to Chiam’s electorial success as vindication of being “successful” indicators and say that Chee blackens the opposition camp. If Chee is so vile to the electorate than the performance of Chiam ought not to have been influence by Chee. Why did his “halo” effect not rub off on other so called comrades in his own party?

Chee turned off the electorate to the opposition. It wasn’t just Chiam who suffered.
————————————————————————-
Mr Tan said:
(c) Chiam’s party is has all the long being “responsible” and why is his party still so insignificant and as I can tell on the verge of being nothing more than a zombie? Why the NSP leave the SDA? Were all this the fault of Chee?

As mentioned, the opposition lost the trust of the electorate as a result of the Chee saga. Today, Chiam is 73 years old. If you still expect him to perform as he did in 1980, you must be joking.
————————————————————————-
Mr Tan said:
On the point about Chee’s supporter view. I dare say that most have often voice irritation at Chiam or for that matter try to put Chiam down is because the achievement (however small but profound) of Chee has not be recognised.

The issue against Chee has always been more that he sacrificed the trust of the electorate which was placed with Chiam. His lack of achievements doesn’t help. The irritation at Chiam only comes from 1 quarter. SDP. Not from his electorate.
————————————————————————-
Mr Tan said:
And people often use Chiam to blacken Chee not the other way round.

Actually, it was the SDP (which includes Chee) that was found to defame Chiam rather than the other way round. People don’t use Chiam. They cite his case as the example of how Chee had chose to get rid of Chiam in opposition with the voter’s preference. The election results speak for themselves.
————————————————————————-
Mr Tan said:
As for the argument that Chee is responsible for putting down the votes of opposition. It worth noting that long before Chee entered the scene, the opposition vote has never been high enough for me to suggest that Chee factor had any correlation. At this juncture, I want to add it is not he problem of the opposition, Chee notwithstanding, but the attitude of the electorate themselves.

That’s because you’re not looking at the numbers. When Chiam joined 1980 PAP 77.7%. 1984 (chiam won his MP seat) 64.8%. 1988 63.2% 1991 (watershed year) 61%.

After the Chee saga, 1997, 65%. 2001 75.3%. 2006, 66.6%. No difference? You must be joking.

You can blame it on the electorate but the cause was Chee’s actions. Gombak and Nee Soon central’s electorate’s choice can’t be blamed on Chiam. Only a rubber stamp electorate would have ignored Chee’s actions.

lim:

Chee’s. If you’re old enough to remember the excitement of the 1991 election and Goh Chok Tong’s face in election night, you would have said that anyone under the SDP banner on that night would have had a decent shot at being an MP. In 1997, why did Cheo and Ling lose their MP in 1997? It was precisely the entire Chee saga. You can ignore that fact but the electorate didn’t. Thereafter as a result of the Chee saga, the electorate was a lot more circumspect. That’s my personal observation/experience of the period.

But that still does not answer the question that after Chiam had left the SDP how come he had not being able to repeat the success when he was in SDP by bring all his comrade.

Chee turned off the electorate to the opposition. It wasn’t just Chiam who suffered.

If the electorate is so crap that they can’t even tell the difference between Chiam and Chee than whose fault my point is that the electorate is really stupid. Are you suggesting that?

Also, how come Chiam make no attempt to appeal to the electorate. Hey even at one point, he only won his seat by the skin of his teeth.

As mentioned, the opposition lost the trust of the electorate as a result of the Chee saga. Today, Chiam is 73 years old. If you still expect him to perform as he did in 1980, you must be joking.

Come on what about the period when he left the SDP. He was young then. What has he done? It’s no use using the excuse that he is old now so he can’t do a thing. Has he done anything to build he’s party and not just his own image?

Actually, it was the SDP (which includes Chee) that was found to defame Chiam rather than the other way round. People don’t use Chiam. They cite his case as the example of how Chee had chose to get rid of Chiam in opposition with the voter’s preference. The election results speak for themselves.

Er let’s be clear Chee was not in the leadership when Chiam was censored by his leadership. It was Chiam who chose to leave the SDP. I mean if he was so tok kong how come he did not win the support of his leadership?

As for being found defamed by a judiciary in Singapore, well I reserved judgement as to how useful that is.

That’s because you’re not looking at the numbers. When Chiam joined 1980 PAP 77.7%. 1984 (chiam won his MP seat) 64.8%. 1988 63.2% 1991 (watershed year) 61%.

After the Chee saga, 1997, 65%. 2001 75.3%. 2006, 66.6%. No difference? You must be joking

Interesting use of numbers but still does not proof a point.

Did you know that statistically when a crane visit a place there is a high percentage of pregnancies? So does that proof that Cranes was responsible for bring babies.

Your use of number does not proof one way or another. It is just coincidence.

All in all, what you argument seemed to proof is Chiam’s inadequacies and then blame it on Chee. Thanks for proving my point.

Mr Tan said:
But that still does not answer the question that after Chiam had left the SDP how come he had not being able to repeat the success when he was in SDP by bring all his comrade.

Actually it does. In 1984, he was not hobbled by a sceptical electorate. In 1997 onwards, he was. That is the difference caused by Chee.
===========================================
Mr Tan said:
If the electorate is so crap that they can’t even tell the difference between Chiam and Chee than whose fault my point is that the electorate is really stupid. Are you suggesting that?

The electorate aren’t stupid. They voted Chiam (and still do today) but not Chee. The issue is whether anyone else can get in. The electorate compares the potential with the worry that they could become another Chee.
===========================================
Mr Tan said:
Also, how come Chiam make no attempt to appeal to the electorate. Hey even at one point, he only won his seat by the skin of his teeth.

You think he didn’t? Its a bit difficult to avoid the bad press in the last few years surrounding Chee isn’t it.
===========================================
Mr Tan said:
Er let’s be clear Chee was not in the leadership when Chiam was censored by his leadership. It was Chiam who chose to leave the SDP. I mean if he was so tok kong how come he did not win the support of his leadership?

If Chiam chose to leave the SDP, that explains why he had to sue the SDP for unfair dismissal which he won and to take him. lol. Spade’s a spade.
===========================================
Mr Tan said:
As for being found defamed by a judiciary in Singapore, well I reserved judgement as to how useful that is. Well, I could do with the money. Interesting use of numbers but still does not proof a point. Did you know that statistically when a crane visit a place there is a high percentage of pregnancies? So does that proof that Cranes was responsible for bring babies. Your use of number does not proof one way or another. It is just coincidence. All in all, what you argument seemed to proof is Chiam’s inadequacies and then blame it on Chee. Thanks for proving my point.

lol. I could have predicted your response. When faced with facts, just say its pure coincidence. I’m happy to know Cheo and Ling lost their jobs through pure coincidence. Also that Chiam happened have won 6 elections as pure coincidence as well. You are entitled to your opinion. The rest of us are entitled to an opinion on your objectivity.

Have a nice day.
===========================================

60) Tan Ah Kow on September 24th, 2008 7.24 pm

Don’t worry a thing and no apology needed. This is an open forum and i beleive all views are welcome.

Thanks for your analysis. So the bottom line is why contest when the outcome is a foregone conclusion? To draw from your conclusion, Singapore is virtually hopeless for any chance of balanced of power.

So in your opinion, what will it takes for the change to happen? (Please, we already know that when someone of influence pass-on, there will be some sort of changes even within the ruling party and hopefully the electorate), so let’s not make assumpiton on that.

Honestly, as positive as I would like to be, I personally cannot see drastic changes happening, really, may be 2 more elections (if I live long enough to witness it).

lim: Actually it does. In 1984, he was not hobbled by a sceptical electorate. In 1997 onwards, he was. That is the difference caused by Chee.

Excuses, excuses. If Chiam cannot even fight his own fight and start blaming others than one has to question is ability.

Chiam could have spoken to the electorate more loudly. Why didn’t he? Did Chee stop him?

lim:The electorate aren’t stupid. They voted Chiam (and still do today) but not Chee. The issue is whether anyone else can get in. The electorate compares the potential with the worry that they could become another Chee.

On the one hand you said the electorate are not stupid but than you say Chee’s antics blacken mind the electorate to opposition. Thus suggesting that the electorate is stupid. So which is which?

Yes Chiam may have won in his constituency but why has it not rub off on his party?

Does it not proof that Chiam has no leadership at all?

Here again are you suggesting that the electorate is stupid can’t tell SDA from the SDP? After all these are different political parties. If they can’t tell then maybe the electorate are indeed stupid. That seemed to be your argument.

lim: You think he didn’t? Its a bit difficult to avoid the bad press in the last few years surrounding Chee isn’t it.

Again excuse.

lim: If Chiam chose to leave the SDP, that explains why he had to sue the SDP for unfair dismissal which he won and to take him. lol. Spade’s a spade.

Let’s get the facts right. Chiam did not win for unfair dismissal. He chose to leave but he did not resign from the SDP because he did not want to lose his MP seat. He waited until he was a member of SPP before he left.

What happens was when the SDP accused him of being a stooge of the PAP, did Chiam sued.

lim: lol. I could have predicted your response. When faced with facts, just say its pure coincidence. I’m happy to know Cheo and Ling lost their jobs through pure coincidence. Also that Chiam happened have won 6 elections as pure coincidence as well. You are entitled to your opinion. The rest of us are entitled to an opinion on your objectivity.

Well I guess you have very little in education on statistics. So no point explaining the crane story.

Let us consider your interpretation of the fact: that is when Chee come into the scene, he cause the opposition vote to tank. Ok then explain to me your statistics: the Chee saga, 1997, 65%. 2001 75.3%. 2006, 66.6%.

How come the PAP vote fell from 75.3% to 66.6%? After all Chee was around and even more strident? Does it not going by your logic for the PAP to go up?

So tell me where is your correlations?

Cheo and Ling lost their seat under SDP. But it still does not explain how come Chiam under another party could not produce more MPs than his own seat?

Observer(SG-HK):

Thanks for your analysis. So the bottom line is why contest when the outcome is a foregone conclusion? To draw from your conclusion, Singapore is virtually hopeless for any chance of balanced of power.

Personally, I think the strategy of contesting as a means to gain power is probably fruitless at this juncture. For the opposition contesting election as an exercise to sharpen one’s political acumen is a useful exercise. Also using the election as a means to communicate ideas is a useful exercise. Don’t pin too much hope on expecting real change.

I don’t know what you mean by a “balanced power”. But if by that you mean reach a stage where there is equal opportunity for political party to gain power by election, I am afraid it is going to be a difficult path to thread and quite possibly require an revolutionary overhaul of the mindsets of not just opposition parties but also the electorates and the PAP.

As for what the opposition can do now, the issue is how to get from the current state to the “balance power” state, hopefully without the kind of convulsion you see in Zimbabwe. But chances are it could possibly resemble the kind of situation seen up north.

For the opposition party, the scenario when it comes if/when they do take power will not be an easy one.

The SDP approach, to me is this, if we are going to need a revolution to change thing we might as well toughen ourself up. In other words confront head on. Go for broke!

The WP approach is let us not worry about the future like us take the easier road. When the PAP loose power, it will be a smooth transition. In other words, try to frame your strategy on what ONE THINK the problem is or not confront the problem as it is.

Ok to be fair not everyone has the stomach to be a commando. Some can only be an infantry. So then unity in the opposition camp can best bring about the change from the status quo to the “balance power” state is to for the WP to let SDP do the “dirty work” exposing the hypocrisy of the PAP and for the WP to follow-up. For example, in the cycling case or IBA comments to press for law change in Parliament.

Even the PAP played this game. When the use the “leftist” to show up the hypothesises of the British administration.

All this sounds like dirty tricks but unfortunately given the status quo, the road to the “balance power” state is somewhat limited.

Daniel:

Please kindly enlighten me on the SPECIFIC things that CSJ has done to effect international pressure, change and whatnot.

I assure you I am not picking a fight. I am asking out of ignorance so please kindly let me know. Thank you.

Ah kow (65) you for got to add that under CST, a member of his alliance, Steve Chia also lost his seat. So whose fault is it? Going by lim’s logic it’s CSJ.

Hey I just notice that when CSJ was sent to jail for contempt of court, the sub-prime market exploded. Whose fault is it? CSJ :-)

On when in 1997 when CSJ stood for election, the Asian financial crisis started. Whose fault is it? CSJ :-)

See these are “facts” staring in your face Ah Kow! How can you not accept that CSJ is at fault…… HeHeHe..!

66) Tan Ah Kow on September 24th, 2008 9.09 pm

All this sounds like dirty tricks but unfortunately given the status quo, the road to the “balance power” state is somewhat limited.

That is very true. Politics as is already hard to fathom. Let alone when the incumbent party has a majority and therefore most rules if not all contesting rules are at their mercy. To break this chain requires not just iron will and the determination of a competent contesting party but also a majority of its citizenry support (hopefully the mental state of the citizenry are ready). Even then, one never knows when that really happen whether there will be similar situation like ZWE is anybody’s guess.

Of course, no one want to see that happen. I believe over time, when things are under less constraint, it will gradually change for the better (at least for fair play). That’s about the best we can all hope for.

As to who is doing the dirty work, I express no views on that as I believe when one choose to contest, they already knew how and what the rules are.

chorus:

“Please kindly enlighten me on the SPECIFIC things that CSJ has done to effect international pressure, change and whatnot.”

IBA’s report on Singapore’s rule of law? Even after Sylvia Lim’s openly defending PAP’s laws as “fair and just” & doesn’t need international interference during the conference itself.

Hi Mike

Based on what Mr Tan has said, all of the above is entirely pure coincidence.

Cheers!

@ lim,

you have openly given your views on Chee and Chiam, and we are enlightened.

IBA report reflects an integrity problem with this govt and the judiciary.
Can you give us your views on IBA and their report, whether you support this govt in the manner they rule our country ?
Can this govt claim to be a good example for integrity ?

The bigger question is, is there integrity and issue among the opposition politicians?

“Sylvia Lim’s openly defending PAP’s laws as “fair and just” & doesn’t need international interference…”

The way Sylvia goes around “defending Singapore” for the international audience sort of reminds me of an abused wife who tries to put up a nice front for her abusive husband…then why complaint PAP this and that in the parliament?

73) JJey on September 25th, 2008 10.47 am

“The bigger question is, is there integrity and issue among the opposition politician?”

The definition of “Integrity” in the political arena is somewhat broad (depends on which bench you are sitting on). The underlying fact is that there will always be a thin-grey-line drawn to this. Let’s just say we the citizenry who voted these people to parliament requires these serving public servants to maintain 100% integrity. Can this be done? As much as they all claim to be but they never dare declare they are 100% (because you simply cannot be). For example, how much integrity is there in our SWF investment strategy & declaration?

The problem lies now, when “integrity” is being challenge, one needed to get to the bottom of things what attributed to this challenge and again the implications that it will lead to through these investigations that may result in litigation and eventually a judgment metered out. But wait, I mentioned earlier, it depends on which bench you are sitting on. So, albeit there is an obvious breach of “integrity” in the process of litigation, the ultimate judgment (if ever there is one) may differ or worse, it just dissipated without recourse when all smokes are cleared.

The recent classic examples of Taiwan politics epitomized the double-sword interpretation of the meaning of “integrity”. Lies cannot be prosecuted under the guise of “integrity” interlocked to National Security Issues.

So, in this context, “integrity” is a big word and the virtue value supposedly implied in this word takes on different meaning and interpretation. It’s a complex world more so if you are in the political arena.

“IBA’s report on Singapore’s rule of law? Even after Sylvia Lim’s openly defending PAP’s laws as “fair and just” & doesn’t need international interference during the conference itself.”

IBA’s report was done by the IBA. You mean even that SDP wants to claim credit for? of all the things I read on the internet, I have never seen Sylvia Lim said the “laws are fair and just”. Why do you SDP advocies often like to use this example is something I wonder about.

Maybe the saying is true that, a lie often repeated becomes a truth. And that’s why SDP gets sued.

To: Tan Ah Kow.

Perhaps you can share with us why you think SDP won the 4 seats and why it lost them.

Also please share what kind of mindsets SDP changed. My friends have the mindset that supporting opposition = going jail and becoming bankrupt. I point out that Chiam and Low would not be in parliament. Chee and SDP does not change this mindset. They reinforce it.

@ Berak (#72)… If you’re referring to the IBA-HR report, let’s at least put what both sides say…

This is what MinLaw says….
http://www.straitstimes.com/STI/STIMEDIA/pdf/20080709/ibahr-report2.pdf

I’d leave the other forum readers to decide how accurate the above is.

lim:

Mr Tan point out that when Chee was around, the vote for PAP fell from 75.3% to 66.6%. Can you explain how this is possible?

Uh, 2001 Chee stood for election =75%.

2006, barred from election due to bankruptcy = 66.6% :-)

1 bankruptcy = 9% swing for opposition. Sometimes I have to tell myself Chee is not a mole for the PAP otherwise they wouldn’t have bankrupted him.

Wisely,

Perhaps you can share with us why you think SDP won the 4 seats and why it lost them.

One left SDP and join SPP, and the others were out voted. Maybe because the electorate there were afraid of not getting upgrading money.

Also please share what kind of mindsets SDP changed.

It has been a catalyst for people to challenge the system. Started with one, and then now more are willing to take up civic action.

It has shown the hypocrisy of the establishment more so than any other political parties. I got the sense that people still buy the idea that the system is still correct and that the SDP were barking up the wrong tree. But now-a-days by leveraging on the Internet to disseminate information, it is making it easier for people to make up one’s mind.

I personally have begun to have see the value of Chee’s action. From that I have learned to understand other like minded people like actions by Chia Ti Lik (legal field), etc., and the reasoning behind arguments by people like YawningBread. More importantly, I am now more conscious of what is behind a headline.

My friends have the mindset that supporting opposition = going jail and becoming bankrupt. I point out that Chiam and Low would not be in parliament. Chee and SDP does not change this mindset. They reinforce it.

Then you ought to ask your friend how come he/she don’t use his intelligence to his/her intelligence to understand the context in which Chee was jailed. Or if, he/she really has a personal hatred of Chee, which he is perfectly entitled too, to use his intelligence to distinguish SDP from Chiam’s party, then really there is no one to blame but himself/herself. I mean if he/she choose to be simple minded about things, which he/she is pefectly entitled to, no one on earth can help.

lim on September 25th, 2008 2.38 pm,

So what you are saying that Chee’s action by becoming bankrupt has had change the mindset of the voters. Therefore, proving that Chee has change mindset for the good and confirming that Mr Tan analysis was right!

Ah I see you superior logic now!

“One left SDP and join SPP, and the others were out voted. Maybe because the electorate there were afraid of not getting upgrading money.”

The upgrading programme began in 1990. That explains why in 1991, the electorate voted in 4 MP and achieved 61%.

I’d like to know what did the PAP offer in upgrading to Nee Soon central and Gombak residents in 1997? I wonder why that didn’t appeal to Hougang and Potong Pasir residents… but again by reasoning it should be pure coincidence. lol.

“So what you are saying that Chee’s action by becoming bankrupt has had change the mindset of the voters. Therefore, proving that Chee has change mindset for the good and confirming that Mr Tan analysis was right!”

I’m surprised you still don’t understand. Let me spell out for you in easier words.

2001, Chee was contesting, people voted PAP.

2006, Chee was not contesting, less people voted PAP.

If Mr Tan or yourself want claim credit for SDP for him not contesting thereby causing less people to vote for PAP, that’s your choice. Just find it weird that anyone would want to bankrupt himself as an election strategy. lol. But I suppose this is consistent with the so-called other claims of credit. Very valid indeed…lol.

I believe he’s the cause for the jump in election votes post-1996. The reasons as mentioned.

“One left SDP and join SPP, and the others were out voted. Maybe because the electorate there were afraid of not getting upgrading money.”
Residents of Hougang and Potong Pasir must be very mutated, maybe even superior to other Singaporeans. Right, so what is your view on why SDP won the seats?

“It has shown the hypocrisy of the establishment more so than any other political parties. I got the sense that people still buy the idea that the system is still correct and that the SDP were barking up the wrong tree. But now-a-days by leveraging on the Internet to disseminate information, it is making it easier for people to make up one’s mind.”
I do see some of these things myself but do not see them as a reason to happen because of the SDP or at least not totally.

“Then you ought to ask your friend how come he/she don’t use his intelligence to his/her intelligence to understand the context in which Chee was jailed. Or if, he/she really has a personal hatred of Chee, which he is perfectly entitled too, to use his intelligence to distinguish SDP from Chiam’s party, then really there is no one to blame but himself/herself. I mean if he/she choose to be simple minded about things, which he/she is pefectly entitled to, no one on earth can help.”
You said that the SDP changed mindsets but now I gather that you mean he changed the mindsets of only people who were looking for reasons to support him and this “people” does not include my friends who are also Singaporeans. Thanks for the explanation. I think my friends are intelligent, its the perception rather than the intelligence we are talking about here.

lim on September 25th, 2008 4.20 pm:

But the SDP was contesting. Chee was still the leader of SDP!

Not only that. Another Chee was contesting the election. She was sue and bankrupted. Are you saying that bankrupcy did not put off the electorate to vote for the opposition.

Also, as you say Chee did not stand for election, how come Chiam’s partner Steve Chia lost his seat?

So basically you tok kong logic still proof that Ah Kow was right and that you really agree with him!

Wisely:

Residents of Hougang and Potong Pasir must be very mutated, maybe even superior to other Singaporeans. Right, so what is your view on why SDP won the seats?

So you are saying that every constituencies must think and act like Hougang and Potong Pasir? You mean Gombak and others cannot make up their own mind.

There could be a multitude of reasons. My view is that the SDP may have caught the momentum of a swing towards the opposition. But if by your questioning to trap me into saying it is Chiam’s doing, that may be so. But events later seemed not to have borne out to be the case. After all Chiam’s so-call magic never carried over. So it kind of led me to suggest that Chiam was not the real factor after all.

I do see some of these things myself but do not see them as a reason to happen because of the SDP or at least not totally.

If you have read my argument as SDP being totally responsible than all I can say is that you have misread my argument totally.

All I said was that compared to other opposition political party they seemed to have gained more traction in exposing the hypocrisy of the PAP. In the Singapore landscape in totality, they are but one of many agents of change. Also one aspects of what SDP is doing that differs from others is that they are willing to sacrifice their material well-being more than others. Something I admire but in my heart don’t have the guts to do it.

You said that the SDP changed mindsets but now I gather that you mean he changed the mindsets of only people who were looking for reasons to support him and this “people” does not include my friends who are also Singaporeans. Thanks for the explanation. I think my friends are intelligent, its the perception rather than the intelligence we are talking about here.

I don’t claim my research was conclusive as it was done to pass my exam. However, I think a recently BBC report on a scientific journal showed that people of a certain disposition tend to accept arguments that are comforting to them. Shifting their mindset is no easy task.

I don’t think it was an issue of the SDP as a whole nor do I think Ms Chee has as much an impact on votes. The main characters were generally the 2 ex-MPs who took a back seat thereafter and primarily Mr Chee.

Whilst I’m sure Mr Gandhi and the others in the party are able men/women, their actions aren’t generally regarded as representative as compared to Mr Chee.

Nevertheless, I think we can appreciate the results of the 2006 elections particularly that Sembawang GRC which was headed by Ms Chee only garnered 20+% if I remember correctly which is still below the rest of the opposition.

Don’t forget too that the SDP fielded 11 people in the 2001 elections (which averaged 20%), they fielded only 7 people in the 2006 (which I think averaged 23%). The 4 people (1 of which is bankrupt) less contributes as well to the lesser PAP votes . Nevertheless, that’s the Chee factor.

I do think the rest of the opposition have a good chance of getting a better vote in the next elections but like I said, I’m not even sure the SDP will remain. Perhaps the justice party under JBJ which is more aligned with Chee’s ideas might do better. If they do, its another justification that Chee was a factor.

I believe Chee’s the cause for the jump in PAP election votes post-1996. The reasons as mentioned. If you think that’s what Mr Tan Ah Kow thinks as well, good for him.

“Case in point is lim. He wants to use facts to fit his own prejudice. ” .- Mr Tan

lol. That’s better than saying “Hong Lim Park success = SDP success” or better still, “Cheo/ling loses = pure coincidence”. No facts and yet can still fit prejudice.

Still, you can call it prejudice, these are just my observations. I don’t need people to agree as I’m not standing for elections. But you can be sure who I wouldn’t be voting for in the next one :-)

Still, you can call it prejudice, these are just my observations. I don’t need people to agree as I’m not standing for elections. But you can be sure who I wouldn’t be voting for in the next one

Well who is stopping you from voting who ever you want to vote?

lim on September 25th, 2008 6.05 pm:

But your argument was the Chee Soon Juan was the black hole of all things bad in the opposition camp, especially Chiam. Remember all your statistics was based on Chiam vs Chee. So how come after Chee was no longer standing for election, Steve Chia could not hold his NCMP seat or for that matter not win his own constituencies?

On the one hand you say that Chee was reason for creating a negative perception of opposition. But just because technically Chee Soon Juan was not standing in an election but is still the leader of SDP, which was running in the election, the electorate suddenly becoming more discerning?

Yet all the time when Chee was running the election under SDP and Chiam under SPP, they cannot tell there is totally different parties are running?

Then the electorate become blur by the presence of Chee.

“So you are saying that every constituencies must think and act like Hougang and Potong Pasir? You mean Gombak and others cannot make up their own mind.”
Of course they can. That’s what I have been saying all along.

“There could be a multitude of reasons. My view is that the SDP may have caught the momentum of a swing towards the opposition. But if by your questioning to trap me into saying it is Chiam’s doing, that may be so. But events later seemed not to have borne out to be the case. After all Chiam’s so-call magic never carried over. So it kind of led me to suggest that Chiam was not the real factor after all.”
I am not trapping you. I read your reply clear and f you think Chiam isn’t the factor, so be it.

“If you have read my argument as SDP being totally responsible than all I can say is that you have misread my argument totally.”
OK. I certainly found it easy to misunderstand because we were talking about whether SDP is responsible for this outcome or not.

“All I said was that compared to other opposition political party they seemed to have gained more traction in exposing the hypocrisy of the PAP. In the Singapore landscape in totality, they are but one of many agents of change. Also one aspects of what SDP is doing that differs from others is that they are willing to sacrifice their material well-being more than others. Something I admire but in my heart don’t have the guts to do it.”
You are right but I don’t think the opposition’s roles is not just confined to this two. Many a time, what SDP “exposes” is not hypocrisy but something like what the Hokkien say, “bo liao”.

“I can’t speak for every Singaporeans on earth or even in Singapore, but from my circle of friends, I have found many after reading the SDP’s argument, they have a better appreciation of what they stood for than before they learn in depth.”
OK, so it doesn’t prove that SDP have changed more mindsets than WP or SDA except in your circle of friends.

“Case in point is lim. He wants to use facts to fit his own prejudice. Than that is his prerogative.”
Seems to me that everyone is doing that, not just Lim.

“So how come after Chee was no longer standing for election, Steve Chia could not hold his NCMP seat or for that matter not win his own constituencies?”
Actually, Steve Chia’s votes was higher than the votes he got to become NCMP. It went up despite all the nude maid incidents. It was only because WP’s votes went up by even more and Sylvia Lim got in as the NCMP. Steve was the next highest-scoring. If there was one more NCMP seat, it would go to Steve.

OK, so it doesn’t prove that SDP have changed more mindsets than WP or SDA except in your circle of friends.

Have the WP or SDA attempted to change mindset?

Their agenda has been simply and squarely to pander to the existing mindset. The WP is very reactive and the SDA just plog on with upgrading issue.

Actually, Steve Chia’s votes was higher than the votes he got to become NCMP. It went up despite all the nude maid incidents. It was only because WP’s votes went up by even more and Sylvia Lim got in as the NCMP. Steve was the next highest-scoring. If there was one more NCMP seat, it would go to Steve.

But can you say it was due to Chee or not on this basis? As lim had claimed.

“Have the WP or SDA attempted to change mindset?
Going with the mindset argue, I say yes. They proved, at least to me and some people I know, that opposition members are just normal people and not some weirdos. But SDP by highlighting a lot of PAP things may not be with the intent to change mindset or has changed mindsets.

“Their agenda has been simply and squarely to pander to the existing mindset. The WP is very reactive and the SDA just plog on with upgrading issue.”
What do you mean by reactive?

“But can you say it was due to Chee or not on this basis? As lim had claimed.”
No I don’t agree but it may be due to Chiam. In other words, the reason why SDP lost its seats may be due to the absence of / dispute with Chiam, but may not be due to Chee. I think Ling How Doong had the most severe exchanges with Chiam and not Chee.

Dr Chee has been occupied in sub-court this week to engage anyone here. If he can engage students at our local universities, he can engage any of us here online or offline.

Wisely,

Going with the mindset argue, I say yes. They proved, at least to me and some people I know, that opposition members are just normal people and not some weirdos. But SDP by highlighting a lot of PAP things may not be with the intent to change mindset or has changed mindsets.

Ok if you wish to view mindset in they way you nuance, then I accept your argument as is.

But if you are reading my use of the word as mindset change and representing it as a counter argument, I just wish to clarify that it is not how I see it.

Let me explain what I mean by mindset change. Again I am not challenging your use of the meaning just explaining my position.

First of all, in my view, the issue of the views about oppositions are not a question about whether people who join the oppositions are crazy people or not. In fact, in my research project, which I emphasises may not be exhaustive, the finding suggest that the issue the electorate have with the opposition is their effectiveness. My research do suggest that people do sympathise with the opposition aims but don’t think these people are capable. And coupled with the general Kia Su and Kia See attitude, people are likely to vote based on that basis — better to have the devil I know.

As for the attitudes towards the SDP or Chee, the problem is that people are uncomfortable with his style of probing. And by extension, they dislike his style, they developed a prejudicial view of his message, however, valid or invalid. As you have eluded to this approach is seen as “weirdos” out of a misunderstanding.

Secondly, I also took the opportunity to gauge why people. The research, which I admit is based on very small sample (less than 20 students but randomly selected), I tried to track how well say WP and SDP’s work have influence their understanding of the political issue.

When asked how WP had influence the understanding of political issue, much of the respond was confined to how the WP was paving way for a two party system of government. They can’t see how the SDP had. This result was drawn immediately after the election. A year down the line, I managed to track the 11 of the original 20 and posted the same question. I noted that there was a different respond about the SDP. Though not necessarily favourable to SDP but it shifted from a blanket no to a qualified acceptance (Yes, I can see the point they are doing or hey I didn’t know about this but no I still do not agree with the SDP tatics). The attitude towards the WP remains some what constant and with some disappoint about post election performance.

To make the survey some what more quantitative, I asked just confining to official channel of communications from WP and SDP (i.e. the Internet or mass media), which channel revealed more about things that they did not know. All but 1 said it was the SDP.

Now again I admit the sample was not big and may not be holy representative. All I can say was that it was randomly selected. You can interpret my findings however you choose.

Ok I have not included SDA because at the time it appears that WP and SDP were clear alternative approach.

But that is what I mean by mindset change in respect to political parties.

What do you mean by reactive?

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. Even in parliament who was the more aggressive in questioning the rationale? Certainly not Sylvia or LKT.

Look at the by-election issue, it was the TOC that raised the issue first not the WP.

Ok some conspiracy might suggest that the TOC is actually media channel for WP. If so I stand corrected on the WP not leading the charge on raising issue. But for now I have not yet seen anything in the WP that is suggest it is anything but a party that only reacts, often glacially, to events.

Tan Ah Kow (#98):

With regards to your clarification on ¨what do you mean by reactive¨, TOC actions so far is more like an activist-cum-think-tank than rather a political party. I don´t think it would be fair to compare WP to TOC or vice versa.

Donaldson Tan:

With regards to your clarification on ¨what do you mean by reactive¨, TOC actions so far is more like an activist-cum-think-tank than rather a political party. I don´t think it would be fair to compare WP to TOC or vice versa.

Then I must ask you want do you mean by “activist” and “political party”?

Ok now to answer your question. I am not comparing WP to TOC as an organisation. Nor is much thrust about whether WP is comparable to the TOC.

What I was pointing out was that the WP when it comes to issue affecting it as a political party or one of its function as a political party. It seemed that it can’t/won’t address it until after others be it an activist group or another political party has done so. Only after much ho-har is raised did the party raised in parliament.

On a wider picture, has it attempted to push any political agenda. Or has it just wait for an event to occur and then comment on it.

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.

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?

[...] is the privilege of being “we the citizen of Singapore” for the thousands who turn up at the free meal centres, only to be turned away? What is the value of being “we the citizen of Singapore” for the likes [...]

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.