Ravi Philemon / Writer
After the 10-minute demonstration against maid abuse by a not-for-profit group, Singapore People’s Party chairman Sin Kek Tong was asked for his comments on the necessity for protests and he responded, “Maybe one day, if there are no longer any single-member constituencies in Singapore, I will protest. But can political issues engage Singaporeans’ hearts and minds, when their stomachs are kept well-fed and the standard of living remains high?” (Straits Times)
This statement of Mr. Sin appears to be quite valid on the surface; but is in reality invalid, because it suffers from a number of fallacies and flaws.
Expand perimeters
Mr. Sin says that he will protest when the day comes where there will not be any single-member constituencies. This in reality may never happen. My gut feeling is that there will always be single-member constituencies in Singapore. But even if single-member constituency goes the way of the dodo bird, why wait for that to happen before you speak up? Should we not make full use of existing and available avenues to expand the perimeters of liberty?
The Speakers’ Corner is one such facility to express true convictions.
The government of Singapore may have a phobia of public demonstrations. They may have even convinced themselves to believe that since peace and stability is good for the economy, public demonstrations and public protests will only destabilize the economy and break investors’ confidence. But they may have since realized that citizens who live under pressure, without any avenues to vent their grievances, may be a greater threat in destabilizing the economy and investors confidence, as those that live under pressure may eventually break out into demonstrations that may not be peaceful. In fact, PM Lee acknowledged the existence of such a group when he said in his National Day Rally Speech, “I know that many Singaporeans who are not so poor but also not so well off feel that they are pressured”. (Straits Times) Of course some hold to the idea that “the freedom to demonstrate is meaningless unless it is applicable to all of Singapore”, but I beg to differ.
The perimeters of freedom to demonstrate can be gradually increased and extended. Champions of worthy causes should make use of the existing avenues and facilities to prove to the government that public demonstrations and protests can be held peacefully and even to the benefit of the economy of the country; and using the examples of such events to lobby the government, to expand the territory, to eventually cover the whole of Singapore.
Illusion of the well-fed Singaporean
Mr. Sin seems to be under the illusion that Singaporeans are well fed. A Straits Times article dated April 13 2008 states that “rising food prices have prompted more people to turn up at places serving free meals”. (Straits Times) One temple alone, reportedly feeds 1500 people on weekdays and 6000 people on weekends. Some free meals centres have also reportedly had to turn away the hungry as they could not cope with the demands. Of course it can be argued that those who eat at the free meal centres are ‘free-loaders’. But this is a simplistic argument. Of course there will be ‘free-loaders’ in any social benefit programme; but the majority who benefit from the free meals programme are the homeless, the elderly and the low-income workers. Even the government acknowledges that not all Singaporeans are ‘well fed’.
Community Development, Youth and Sports Minister Vivian Balakrishnan admits that the government is looking out for such people, “to help families in need with additional vouchers for food or even additional cash vouchers, as well as to work with local organizations and vendors and hawkers, so that we make sure that we can give the assurance, that nobody will go hungry in Singapore”. Even if ‘no Singaporeans go hungry’; and it is a very big IF, it begs the asking, ‘how many meals a day do they have?’, ‘How filling is the meal?’ and ‘How nutritious is the food?”
Myth of high living standards
Singapore’s Trade and Industry Minister Lim Hng Kiang stated recently, “Whether there is an increase in the cost of living for a particular household depends on that household’s spending patterns. Switching to cheaper products can reduce the cost of living despite a rise in the CPI.” (MTI) The recent widespread inflation in Singapore has caused an erosion of the purchasing power of Singaporeans. The lower-income Singaporeans, especially, and the “sandwich-class” people have been affected by the spiraling cost of living. Switching to cheaper products, besides reducing the cost of living can also lower the standard of living.
Singapore is a country that has the highest GDP per capita in Asia after Japan; but it ranks alongside Burundi, Kenya, Philippines and Guatemala in terms of income disparity.
It certainly seems that Mr. Sin who is an opposition politician, has bought wholesale the myth created by the government that all Singaporeans enjoy a high standard of living. More than 1/8 of the resident population of Singapore has only secondary school or lower education. This group of people often also has very little marketable skills. Unless a concerted effort is made to raise the standard of this group of people and improve their marketable skills, besides further falling in the standard of living, we can expect other pressing social issues to rise.
Harmful perception
There is a perception that the opposition politicians in Singapore are only talking about human rights issues and are not properly informed about the ‘bread-and-butter’ issues of the ordinary Singaporean; that they go into hibernation for about five years and only come out during election time.
Mr. Sin’s statement seems to reinforce this perception of the opposition politician among Singaporeans once again. These perceptions of the general public are harmful to the cause of opposition politics. The social landscape of Singapore is quickly changing and policies or policy initiatives to ride on this new wave of social changes, should be quickly thought through and advocated by the government, opposition parties and even agencies and individuals who champion social causes; and by doing so they will remain viable in the dawn of a new era.
Picture of needy from Straits Times.
———-
HELP keep the voice of TOC alive!
If you like this article, please consider a small donation to help theonlinecitizen.com stay alive. Please note that we can only accept donations from Singaporeans. Thank you for your assistance.Do you have a flair for writing? Volunteer with us. Email us your full name and contact details to theonlinecitizen@gmail.com
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 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. Whether they totally agree with the SDP tactics or not is really up to them. Those that disagree I found often use this argument, often starts with a blanket response, ah the SDP discredit the opposition. After reading and challenging their assumptions, and they still disagree, I notice that the respond changed from a complete disapproval to qualified “yes I agree with their goal but I don’t agree with their tactics”.
Not too long ago, as part of my statistics course, I decided to do a project involving measuring how people think about politics in Singapore. My result showed that quite often people like to think what they want to think. But some were prepared to change their minds if they were more informed. Even if they were not prepared to change their minds they were prepared to accept that facts that their initially hold could be inconsistent (not necessarily wrong) but they would still interpret to facts to fit their conclusion.
Case in point is lim. He wants to use facts to fit his own prejudice. Than that is his prerogative. All I and others can do is to point out the inconsistencies of his own argument. But if he choose to believe what he choose to believe who am I to tell him he to think otherwise?
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.