With due respect to your uncle, I would like to suggest that ‘Opposition’ need not be a Dirty word.

PAP was Opposition before right?

Its the people inside it.

Do they really serve the people ?

Is there Transparency as in Full transparency?

TC investment – how much total sunk cost?

In a healthy demcracy, there IS a need for a credible Ruling party AS WELL AS a credible Opposition party. The Opposition party has political power to do the Check and Balance. That is the role and purpose of their existence. When no one votes for opposition, what you will get is 1 party state. Can the people do the check and balance?

Well written article (:

As much as the current government has its faults, I don’t believe that the opposition parties are currently ready to take up the helm of leadership yet.

But in the same way, the PAP should not rest in its laurels and continue to work hard at maintaining the trust of its people through tangible actions and justify the amount of salary they receive.

ask your uncle whether he thinks Lee jr is the best to lead the country, since he believes the PAP recruitment process would only throw up the best men.
it is obvious your uncle is extremely grateful and so am I, but for me it is only to the first generation of PAP leaders. Goh C T was the start of a downward spiral and Lee jr is a damned joke ! Loyalty and gratitude does not mean one should close both eyes, and one should be wiser with age and experience.
It is so clear to many elderly kakis and myself that we have one old fool behaving like an emperor surrounded by eunuchs and your uncle believes it is good for the country. I may not be able to impart much to the younger generation but at least I can show them an old folk like me will not swallow bullshit all the way to the grave.

Gerald,

As the society progresses, the quality of opposition candidates will be better and better. The government performance lead by the current PAP leaders is degrading. Without a good opposition party, it will be a sad future for Singapore. Human history already proven that absolute power corrupts. We definitely need check and balance in our systems.
Migration is definitely not a solution. This is our country, we have to make it a better place for our next generation to live. We need to give oppositions to have time to nurture and grow. Hopefully one day Singapore will be have 2 parties system like most of the developed countries.
If you think you have the capability, please come forward to lead us.

I do not use the term “opposition party”. I just call them “political party”. Sometimes, I use the term “alternative party”.

We should not label any party as “opposition party” as this may give the impression that it will be their role in society. One day, they may be the “ruling party”.

In other countries, they are called the “conservative party”, “socialist party”, “liberal party”. I hope that our politicial parties can be described according to their political beliefs.

A lot of Singaporeans like to eat Char Kway Teow. They like Char Kway Teow fried in a specific manner. If someone offer them kang dang with Char Kway Teow, mostly they say you seow ah (even though some people like to eat kang dang as well).

I think if the opposition want open a successful restaurant in Singapore, the opposition need to understand how to cook Char Kway Teow the way Singaporeans like it.

Some might argue, maybe Char Kway Teow is not what Singaporeans like. Maybe its Kang Dang. Maybe Chicken rice is better. Sure, I could be wrong.

What kind of food Singaporeans like? Don’t know, ask lah. Why so scared to ask? But whatever the food, you must know how to cook it before you can sell it.

“Anyone can cook” – Chef Gusteau

Honestly, there is no real reason for our Govt t not o relax a bit on its people. For example in this Internet world, it’s a real joke for our Govt to be so uptight on free speech. There should be enough leeway for each of us to be entitled to our own opinion without fear of being sued at the slightest unhappiness of our political leaders. Equally on illegal assemblies, it think it’s another nonsensical legacy of our PAP government. If PAP is so confident of the people’s support what is there really to fearful about.

Is it that you won’t be able to enjoy your million-dollar salary?

From #6, some might say, the incumbant restaurant is a damn good restaurant. They got huge market share with a solid product. Their chef constantly change but their old recipe gets pass down from generation to generation, new recipes are also added.

Their restaurant has its share of complaints. People have to queue, transport is getting inconvenient and prices keep going up. Some people they like to serve out of town people rather than their local customers first.

In this scenario, can another restaurant do better? What will make people switch?

personally, I feel there are some good, forward looking people in PAP who are not like LKY or WKS mold. Unfortunately, the influence of LKY is still very strong. Ironically, stronger than when Goh was PM. It’s almost as if he’s worried that his son might undo his legacy or something. For better or for worse, any hope for change would lie with the generation of ministers like George Yeo, Khaw Boon Wan etc. I’ve given up on LHL.

I prefer the USA system of government. The legislature, i.e. Congress, passes the law. The President is the chief executive. He appoints his team comprising of the best people available in the country (i.e. does not have to be elected political leaders) but has to be approved by Congress The Supreme Court is an independent third body.

I hope that, one day, the Singapore political system will evolve into the American system of “checks and balances” and each of the three organs carry out their respective roles.

This will be a more stable system.

How can Singapore move into this system? It requires a constitutional change, which needs two-third approval of Parliament. Even if we keep to our Parliamentary system, we can find a working model that allows the best in the country to serve, even if they are not the elected leaders.

I shall write about this idea in a separate paper.

7) Alan Wong on October 29th, 2008 1.07 pm
If PAP is so confident of the people’s support what is there really to fearful about.

A very good point! why should they be so fearful of any opposing party? why should they hide things from the people? why should they not answer to all the those questions raised by the people instead they keep raising their own salaries and implementing hugh taxes during economic crisis? why? can anyone answer all these questions?

6) lim – short, sweet and direct to the point – Singapore style. I like it.

5) Tan Kin Lian
- agree with you.
apart from such alignments, the opposition must consider a total image makeover.

For one, I do not see the kind of engagement I would like to see.
We all know the constraints, we’ve talked about it for ages. What then do we do to work around these constraints?

It cannot be: “I cannot talk because I got no microphone”, all the time.

We cannot blame the generation of opposition leaders like JBJ. Their generation do not have tools like what we have now, for example, the internet. They have to go to the street corners to sell themselves and what they stand for.

Today’s world is so different and there are so many other channels we can make use of to reach out to the masses.

Unfortunetely, I believe, as Gerald’s uncle does, that the opposition is nothing more than smoke. Let’s be objective about this. I do not like to run down the opposition, believe me, it pains me even. But we have to be real to ourselves.

Election after election, we wait and wait and wait for something to happen. For example, we had hoped that the opposition parties would come together to form a united front and contest the election under one banner. It did, but the top opposition candidates were all missing from this alliance. How to make the impact we had hoped for?

More importantly, I would like to see the opposition coming out form the shell of ‘Checks & Balance’. Give us something more than this. Set targets, objectives and do all you can to draw up your plan for the country and what the electorate can expect should we vote you in. Never mind the laughing and sniggers from the ruling party, these are expected. Never mind if your policies are continuation of the current ones.

Tell us, how do we fit in.

Show us how you would run Singapore differently. This is not very difficult at this point in time.

This PAP govt has already lost the confidence of the people. What then can the opposition do to win their favour? People like me have no clue who I would vote for at the next election. Would I have to destry my vote? Win me over.

This is why I have suggested to TOC to grab at the popularity of HLP and think of ways to use HLP to promote TOC. Who knows, we might not even need an opposition if TOC can continue to enhance its image and reputation by being the alternative voice of the people.

It might just be the dawn of a new political system.

The opposition has to think out of the box – really … and there is no time to lose.

alot of hidden things only start to surface when something big happened to singapore, like the 14 PAP $$$millions TC sinking funds which are meant for carrying works such as repairing damages at HDB common areas or other maintainance works, instead they were being used for other property or euity investments no one citizen in singapore knows about this until exposed. Every investment big or small is still a gamble and the monies are from the taxpayers. Tell me what if they lost those investment monies? isn’t it obvious who will be the affected ones to recover the losses?

I totally support Mr Tan ’s views.
Opposition to singaporeans who are not familiar with democracy process may be thought of as a Dirty Word.

Lets replace the term ‘Opposition Party’ with ‘Alternative Leadership Party’.

We must have more to continue QUESTIONING

Mr Tan, just wanted to highlight Philippines has the same model as the US.

Has such a system worked for Philippines?

Also, if 2/3 parliament vote to change it. Does it mean 2/3 parliament can vote to change it back? If so, then such exercise is meaningless cos whichever party with majority in power will just do what they want.

@7-11, It is interesting impression to paint of the PAP being running scared. If only it was a real one…. comic books anyone?

“People should not fear their government. The government should fear the people” – V

All well said and the irony remains as it did from 1959 and will probably through 2059.

Everyone is an armchair critic (me too!!!) with half a million suggestions on how to cook the char kway teow. When handed the kwali and spatula they freeze and say: well, that’s not my job. Its only my job to critique. A Kantian imperative almost though few will catch this hilarious insinuation.

Then do not ask for a participative democracy. You make a mockery out of the entire system including the language in which this discussion takes place.

With a population thus the PAP deserves to lord it over all us serfs. We have collectively asked for it simply by shying away from participation and fervently sticking to cow sense myths propagated by the local media. Though this too is beginning to change … as are the local media’s style of ‘random’ deployments in and out of the political desks ……

Common excuses run the gamut from:

‘I’m too old for politics’ – ‘I’m too young for politics’ – ‘My parents won’t let me participate’ – ‘My friends tell me that I will lose my job’ – ‘I do not know what to do, you do it’ – ‘They are the opposition, let them deal with it’ – ‘Politics does not affect me’ – ‘Politics is too dirty (really? and how would you know if you never joined?)’

The absence of critical thinking and common sense is the linchpin by which the PAP thrives to this day. Knowing that innovation in the economy is the way forward the political leadership of the day have started making changes, very subtly, to allow critical thinking and common sense to take place … and to modify the political structure accordingly so that they remain in power.

The price hikes and other such ‘hardships’ on the population are but political smokescreens.

haha well said #15!

Its typical of Singaporeans. How many of us think of setting up restaurant only to have our relatives and “supporters” telling us it will never work. Its not easy.

Yet if the opposition wants our votes, they need a menu that can attract us to visit, more importantly order and later perhaps, continue to visit. Gombak and Nee Soon Central branches managed the first but not the last. Why do people continue for PP and Hougang?

There will be people who will say this restaurant not good, that restaurant not good. But most people will ask what’s your menu. Good to eat a not.

If one can’t understand the above analogy, then maybe both politics and restaurant business not for you.

Congrats, Gerald!
Your Uncle is smart and according to Mr Lee, genetics play a part and so, you are indirectly Smart too since he’s your uncle.

But, I would have to agree with your uncle on that.
If the current batch of opposition gets voted in, I will start my immigration process but I would change ALL my SGD dollars into other currencies first.

The current batch of opposition cannot make it.
Whether the next generation of opposition can make it, we will have to see.

Uh, btw, its a good time to put your S$ into other currencies eg pound and A$ now. Dun need to wait.

#19)
Don’t worry about that. I have money in other currencies.
But you still need SGD money to live in singapore right..

Hi Lim (#14)

For each system of Government, we can find examples of good and bad practices.

I like the US system because it has the mechanism to get the best people to be available. It can work well. But it can also work badly, depending on the people involved.

I do not like the Signapore system of GRCs and walkovers.

Mr Giam,

U said, “an educated senior citizen like my uncle”.

You uncle was educated and grow to riches under current PAP government. I do not know what do you mean by “educated”. However, I am shocked by the lack of passion and commitment of such educated man like your uncle.

It is perfectly alright for him to love and support any political party, be it PAP or otherwise. What is really sad is he simply want to leave him beloved country simply becuase of perceived instability. Isn’t he really ungrateful? Why did he not return the good deed of PAP by staying on and fight for PAP?

If this is the attitude of people educated by PAP; then it does say something of such educated man or the quality of PAP education. If your uncle is below the age of 60, most likely he had gone through NS as well… it is doubly sad….

#23: Yes, I agree with the part about the lack of passion and commitment.

But I don’t think it is fair to apportion all the blame on the quality of PAP education or NS as these migrants must have their myriad of reasons for doing so. In many cases, the role that friends and families play are of greater importance. After all, the reason why most of us would want to stay in Singapore for the rest of our lives is due to our familiarity with local culture, the memories embedded in our favourite haunts, and most importantly, the presence of friends and family.

I believe (and hope) that most of us here are pro-Singapore, that we will want to stay in Singapore for the rest of our lives (assuming ceteris paribus). But let us for a moment step back and consider this: would you still stay if you have naught a single friend of family remaining who is dear to you in Singapore?

Singapore is my home, but home is also where my dreams and the dreams of my loved ones’ collide.

It is precisely the elder batch who gave us the current system.
To safe myself, I must say I am neutral.

This is an interesting discussion. Thanks all for the interesting comments.
Frankly, the PAP is a very smart ruling political party and I think they did the right thing by tiring its best to preserve it’s political survival.
Having seen so many neighbouring countries suffer politically, they have learnt that democracy may not be good for the state and probably not for their own political survival. For example, we see how countries like Malaysia, Indonesia, Thailand and Philippines suffered for their democratic politics. Parties and presdients come and go becasue of people power. There is instability in the country which may not be good for the country.
Nevertheless, if our ruling party is to import what they ido n Singapore to these countries, people will rise up and demonstrate. When I visit countries nearby, I see that people are very politically conscious and patriotic. I cant see that in our people here. Maybe we are too busy working and paying off our huge HDB loans to the government.
I read so many adverse comments on our leadership here that it is surprising that the PAP still goes on winning landslide victories during GE. DO we have a lousy opposition party? Are the post-65ers still faithfully voting for the ruling party? I dont know but so far if I hear correctly, the high cost of living has alienated many people from the govt. People are fed up but they have no where to turn to. They feel hopeless and helpless. Their hand s are tied.
TOC certainly has stood up and rose a few notches in the eyes of the common people. Nevertheless, it has to decide whether it wants to be a political force to be reckoned with and register itself as a party or remain behind the safe wall of the internet.
Great things happen becasue they are great people rising up to do something for the country during certain grave period. The timing looks good now with the financial crisis. People fears are heightened and they look up to anyone who can show them the leadership.

22) Tan Kin Lian on October 29th, 2008 3.38 pm Hi Lim (#14)

For each system of Government, we can find examples of good and bad practices.

I like the US system because it has the mechanism to get the best people to be available. It can work well. But it can also work badly, depending on the people involved.

I do not like the Signapore system of GRCs and walkovers.

————————————————————————————-
Since Mr Tan dare to say this, I will also second him by saying that I feel the same – Its not fair that many never get to vote elections after elections.

In case the ‘nick’ish minded says I am exaggerating and bashing , I will add this to balance my statement so that he can have no grounds to say I exaggerate or pure-bashing. Nick, this is for you: “wow, they are so bombastic, with the kind cooperation of peaceful singaporeans, ERP is implemented without protest.”.

Happy? If not enough of nice words, let me know.

For all Nick knows, I am their supporter and wants them to improve leh? Maybe = maybe not. When someone use the word ‘maybe’, I can also say he is saying ‘maybe not’. Afterall , maybe what i just said is maybe not totally untrue, maybe.

yours bluntly,
crass 94.9 AM Fleeing dogman

The US system has not worked well for the Philippines but that does not mean Singapore will not succeed with such a system. The key to success for any endeavour is in the people.
I believe the people of the Philippines and Singapore are very different in terms of motivation, sense of purpose, discipline and desire to succeed.
The Philippines has tens of millions of people spread throughout a few thousand islands and many are not as literate compared to Singapore.
I agree with Kin Lian Singapore is well placed to apply the US system of check and balance.

“I like the US system because it has the mechanism to get the best people to be available.” – Mr Tan

I beg to differ. Their system produced 10 years of a certain George W Bush Jnr. If he is the best available, the standard isn’t very high.

In the time of worst recession, the US are going to turn to Obama, an inexperienced person who will become the next US president, he being a person who will not even select the best person for even his vice presidency.
——————————————————————————————–
“I do not like the Singapore system of GRCs and walkovers.” – Mr Tan

I agree and share your view. Walkovers at least can be resolved by opposition abandoning Chiam’s by-election strategy which no longer works. Give us a choice lah! Elected presidency, one candidate, sound familiar? Hope you change your mind.

GRCs boils down to the fact that the Singapore constitution can be amended too easily rather than the fallacy of the rest of the system.

Like the US system, in theory, the Singapore president can reject proposals. Unfortunately, parliament can override any objection with a 2/3 majority (same in US with congress and senate, they have tactics called filibusters). That’s why voting congress or senate is so important in US but adopting the US system will not solve the Singapore issue if more than 2/3 of Congress and Senate will still be from 1 party. When Congress and Senate are majority from 1 party, the same can be done to citizens ie constitutional changes.

Constitutional changes should be restricted to at least 90% in support. As much as I want it, it won’t happen. Giving up such power is not so easy.

Its like UN. Efforts have been made to reduce the power of the veto and expand the security council. However the veto can only be abandoned by the veto wielding countries. It won’t happen even as the argument is fair. Too much power to give up.

To effect a 90% change is easier than relinquishing the veto, it can happen if no party holds a 66% majority. In such cases, neither party has anything to lose and both are more likely to compromise (unless one party believes it can at some point in future, obtain the 66% majority).

Ultimately, the electorate is responsible for the % votes of each party. If the electorate chooses to elect everyone from 1 party (even in the US system), its not going to change a thing.

To think that the US judiciary is independent is also unrealistic. US supreme court judges are selected by the president (approved by congress) and often to represent or forward a certain line of argument eg Roe vs Wade.

Whether it’s US, or UK or India… the bottom line remains that the only way forward is to have a full healthy democracy WITHOUT the GRC system, and jury system.

It’s true the inherent dangers of a US system can produce the likes of George W Bush. However, let’s not forget that the open democracy in USA also means that the Bush administration is not able to hide their incompetency and lies for too long. Most Americans now are sick of the Rovian politics practiced by the far right. Ultimately, while even a US-style democracy is open to abuse, the fact is that the system also allows for ’self-correction’ faster than a dictatorship, or a one-party state.

Our MM likes to think that if the opposition wins it is a ‘freak result’. To him, people who chose opposition are irrational people voting on emotions alone. A ‘freak result’ will lead to the ruination of the country. If we look at South Korea and Japan (closer to home), since the time when they had full democracy, it is true that they had many incompetent governments. But in spite of this, the countries are generally well-off. The system works.

Ultimately, if the GRC system is scrapped, then if the PAP wins, it will be a clear mandate. The reason why there is so little trust and respect for the government is precisely because many people think they don’t win fair. If the GRC system is scrapped, I personally think that there would be six or seven opposition MPs as opposed to the current two-and-a-half.

And lastly, the part whip should be abolished. Like i mentioned earlier on, there are quite a few good people in PAP like Dr Lily Neo. The PAP is doing itself a dis-service by muzzling their own people.

“I beg to differ. Their system produced 10 years of a certain George W Bush Jnr. If he is the best available, the standard isn’t very high.”

While you are mostly right on the whole article. Don’t you think that bad egg can still be voted out after the restricted 2-term as compared to ours where 2 out of the so far 3 terms were not contested in a our so-called ELECTED presidency.

It is really no fun that the this joke is being played on the people who have gradually come to accept this form of circus is the normal order of the days.

Whereas the high level of transparency & openess (along with unneccesary noise perhaps) in the US allow people to have a more informed decision making process.

If you have a good system by design, you may still have people making the wrong decision.

However, if you have a not so good system, this may hinder the whatever optimum decision that could be made.

If an electorate fails to recognise the power of its own vote, then no system but an authoritarian one need apply.

The fundamental basis of power in Singapore is parliament not the presidency. If one does not take heed in exercising one’s constitutional right to vote in a parliament in a responsible manner, then one does not deserve a democratically-elected government.

It is not easy to establish a restaurant in a locality where an incumbent enjoys significant support. Unfair barriers to entry makes it more difficult. Yet, in Singapore, no one says the consumer can only go to that one restaurant. Yet such businesses start, exist and eventually thrive throughout the world.

If people only go to one restaurant and no others, then only one restaurant will thrive. Does that mean no more restaurant should ever open? Is that how life works?

Few, if any, restaurant ever just open and deserve to have customers. It often takes hard work and sacrifice but that’s not enough to make a successful restaurant.

A smart politician, like a smart entrepreneur in such circumstances, will find a way to reach his consumers.

Having said that, camping outside the doors of the sole restaurant won’t ensure more restaurant choices though…

28) enhance check and balance on October 29th, 2008 6.22 pm

Well said! Any system, no matter how perfect ON PAPER , can be broken and quite easily, depending on who does the crime.

Learn lessons from TW story related to Egmont Group.

1. Just to make it super dummy guide to understand this concept :
The administrator of a system can access all information , if he wants to and is determined enough.

2. Under duress , the key holder will open the safe.

Now, let me know have I clarified all doubts about it?

32) you said ‘Having said that, camping outside the doors of the sole restaurant won’t ensure more restaurant choices though…’

I would disagree with you on that. I would take it that you meant the campers are the SDP people. Now while I would largely agree that i won’t want any of the SDP members to run our country, the truth is that perhaps more so than the other opp parties, they have done a remarkable job of opening our eyes to many of the questionable things the PAP does. Taking your analogy an bit further, they are camping outside the restaurant with signs saying that ‘hey the restaurant is overcharging, etc etc’.

I don’t know if the SDP’s claims are 100% true and verifiable. But at least, it gives me a chance to want to know more. To start questioning and not accept the PAP message as doctrine.

Martin Luther King didn’t have to form a political party to fight for the rights of the African Americans. But by teaching them they don’t have to accept second-class treatment, he contributed greatly to the civil rights movement.

But if one is a restaurant owner who isn’t over-charging, then a group of campaigners stood outside the restaurant with over-charging signs, is that fair?

Are the campaigners the people to decide when it is fair?

Isn’t that the purpose of laws and a judiciary to decide if that is fair?

If this restaurant owner go to the police, and the judge says its not fair. The campaigner say the judge is not fair. What to do? Camp outside the court room? Wear kangaroo T-shirt? Very useful?

If this restaurant owner go to the police, and the judge says its fair. The restaurant owner can say the judge is not fair? What to do? Camp outside court room? Wear kangaroo T-shirt? Very useful? lol.

“Martin Luther King didn’t have to form a political party to fight for the rights of the African Americans. But by teaching them they don’t have to accept second-class treatment, he contributed greatly to the civil rights movement.”

Martin Luther King didn’t have to form a political party cos he wasn’t standing for election. He represented the rights of the people. Mr Tan Kin Lian doesn’t have to form a political party to represent the views of thousands of Singaporeans affected by the mini-bonds. He represented their views.

I’m not so sure Singaporeans feel the need to form illegal assemblies to protest the rights of political parties or certain individuals to hold illegal assemblies. I’m not so sure Singaporeans feel the need to sell political newspapers on roadsides. In fact, Singaporeans get criticised nonetheless. WE get foreign perceptions that ALL Singaporeans are a bunch of useless a**holes for not supporting such events. I’m not so sure this kind of representation is what Singaporeans want.

When Singaporeans can’t go into toilet because of their skin colour, can’t get jobs paying the same pay because of their skin colour, can’t sit on the same bus and a million other things because of their skin colour, I’ll stand by that same people and let them use my toilet even if they have a different skin colour.

Telling Singaporeans they have second-class treatment is a huge difference from Singaporeans actually having second-class treatment. Singaporeans aren’t dumb. We know the difference. Have a nice day.

do remember where the neighbouring countries who are “politically unstable” came from. they evolved mostly from a political system with heavy military influence, till today, with the exception of malaysia. such evolution takes time, and they are still ongoing. Many times, what they have gone through such as protests and changing of governments and active oppositions are known characteristics of democracies. We see the same things in USA. Does our newspapers hint or comment that USA is politically unstable? I don’t think so. Its important to see through the veil that our newspapers have woven around us, and that they are trying to make us believe that neighbouring countries are unstable hence it will not be good for Singapore to go the same way. In other words, fear-mongering.

However, our system has stayed stagnant, and some can even argue that it has worsened from authoritarian to a resemblance of a dictatorship. its time Singaporeans wake up, and the other political parties too to form a united front to contest and prevent this disintegration into dictatorship.

i’m still praying one day before the elections, the divine being up there will love that old man…..and allow Singaporeans to live again.

5) Tan Kin Lian – In the UK, the Opposition is called “Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition”, while the ruling party is called “Her Majesty’s Government”. Perhaps we can consider following their nomenclature (minus the Her Majesty part, of course).

10) Tan Kin Lian – Actually I prefer the Westminster system whereby the Ministers must all be elected MPs. Sure in the US, Congress must approve the President’s pick for Cabinet ministers, but they almost never block. And we are supposed to have independent courts, the last time I checked. But it seems only a handful of people really believe that (and they all earn more than $2 million a year).

Generally, I think our system – custodial President, unicameral Parliament, Cabinet and PM drawn from Parliament – is an excellent system. The only problem is we have given an overwhelming mandate to one party, so they think they are God and can rule as such. (Actually, even God doesn’t rule like that. He actually gives us a free will.)

Interesting point highlight by yay. “I don’t think so. Its important to see through the veil that our newspapers have woven around us, and that they are trying to make us believe that neighbouring countries are unstable hence it will not be good for Singapore to go the same way.”

I guess the control over the press has sort of blinded normal Singaporeans and restrict the way we look at things. This is why political apathy is prevalent Singapore compare to the region. Coupled with the economic growth champion by PAP that has benefited the citizens, it has become a norm that it is due to the leadership that has brought us to the country 1st world status.

From independence till the 1990s, credit must go to the PAP for the sound economic strategies. However, we need to understand that the PAP is not divine like, and cannot stop or prevent any financial slow down. There is a strong need to present a voice that is to counter the actions of the PAP. Like i said, they are not divine and are not always produce the best policy. This happened in the 1983 regarding the Graduate Mother Scheme.. and now.. our Minister Mentor is speaking about the theory of eugenics again.

“People want to hear different, and better ideas from the opposition on how to run the country, not just gripes about every little fault of the PAP.”

Ditto to that. If all it took to be a credible alternative party was to come up with John McCain-ish snipes and flames against the enemy many of us here can do so admirably. =D

Great article.

I think the next GE will be an interesting one indeed. Can’t wait to see the effect (or lack thereof) of the advent of non MSM.

Gerald, you surmised:

While I was slightly dismayed to hear these words from an educated senior citizen like my uncle, I have no doubt that he represents a significant constituency of citizens who have a “rags-to-riches” story to tell.

Personally, I am not surprise by people who holds views not unlike your Uncle’s. I mean if you scan the bloggersphere, you can generally find people holding similar but not necessarily as strident views. Notable example, can be found in CatherineLim.sg or Littlespeck.com**. On a personal level I have friends, who were once, what one might refer to as, “activist” but have know become a firm believer of the PAP-way (i.e. what I call the Vivian Balakrisknan type). For want of a term, let’s call these groups as “The Status Quo” type.

I am sure not all in the Status Quo type holds exactly the same view as your Uncle’s but they do believe that whatever change you want to institute to the Singapore’s political scene, you have to do it from within the PAP sphere.

Basically, these Status Quo type have the mindset that (a) Politics is politics and (b) Economics is economics. The two issues must not mix. Of course, in real life the separation between the two is purely artificial but in the minds of the Status Quo types, that separation is as real as they make it out to be.

Sometime you hear from these Status Quo types seemingly clamouring for change, what they really mean is change must apply to (a) not (b). When they clamour change to (a) all they mean is for a PAP administration to be less high handed to criticism. They still want an authoritarian government but a kinder and gentler one. They don’t want to change the institutional arrangement as it is now and in particular for those who benefited from it not to loose what they’ve got.

Do they form a significant proportion of the Singapore society?

I will probably have to agree with your notion of “significant” and whatever percentage you choose to apply, my view will probably not too far different.

On your point, as you put it: “What the opposition fails to see”, your diagnosis is as follows:

(a) What they fail to see is that the “swing” voters (i.e., those who may vote either way on Polling Day and who effectively decide the outcome of an election) are largely voting for a party to form the Government, not individuals who merely snap at the heels of the PAP behemoth.

For and for most, I am not sure how you can be certain that “swing” voters are necessarily thinking in the same way or necessarily think in the way you do. I mean, it could be that these “swing” voters do want a opposition voice in Parliament to act as a check but want one that they like (e.g. they want a opposition but just don’t want a so-called Chee Soon Juan type).

Even from the Status Quo types, you will find that certain elements don’t mind having an opposition figure here and there. So you could classify them as the “swing” type. But in my opinion they ain’t going to vote with a mind of wanting an alternative. As you have noted in your conversation with your Uncle you noted this was the view he had: “joining the opposition in and of itself indicated a character flaw”.

Others in this Status Quo group may not hold such strident views but I dare say it would not be too far off the mark (i.e. the most common excuse is they are not experience to run a country). I often remark that even if a combined force of God, Allah and Buddha joined the opposition, they will still be viewed with scepticism.

(b) People want to hear different, and better ideas from the opposition on how to run the country, not just gripes about every little fault of the PAP.

Assuming that your view of the Swing voters’ view hold true. Then the next question is: do these voters know what the alternative system the want?

If these voters themselves don’t know what they want, what hope is there for the opposition party to sell any alternative system?

Let’s say the opposition managed to attract a Noble prize wining economist, only work in academia never a minister, and he/she presented an economic plan that is radically different from LKY, who would this swing voters vote for?

Ok it could be argued that someone with a Noble prize itself would be a kudos and because the plan is associated with the prize winner, the swing voters might believe that to be a “credible”. They not know if the economic policy is good but coming from a “credible” person so the plan must be credible.

But the brutal truth is the opposition party is not, any time soon, and for that matter the PAP, is going to get a Noble prize economist on board. But let’s say a lesser economist came up with the same alternative plan that is also worthy of a noble prize but how can the swing voters tell?

What if the guy with came up with plan was a Chee Soon Juan type?

More importantly, how would the lesser economist get his message through in a media environment that is careless, if not hostile, to the opposition?

Hey if the opposition did come up with a Noble prize wining policy, the Nobel Institute awards it, the PAP might say, see all these foreigners are meddling in our local affair :-) I know someone would probably agree with such sentiment ;-)

Jokes aside, you see it is very easy for you and me to expect the “opposition” to come up with good alternative idea. But the question how do we as voter know what a good idea is?

And if as you suggested people who hold your Uncle’s view represents a “significant constituency” what message can any opposition sell that would attract these people other than to do what the PAP is currently doing. Oh maybe that’s why the Workers’ Party is chimes so much with the PAP!

Note (**): Although these are sites own by known persons, the views expressed on it may not be actually their views. This is because, the site may have more than one stakeholders, the person who own the site and the person who maintain the site. Also the site may reference other articles. Hence, I am only noting the site and the kind of articles you find as representative of a pattern of thought which may or may not ultimately be the site owners.

Yes, surely we need dedicated people to lead the nation. We also need those with compassion and drive to direct and lead us; Not against our welfare, forgetting our rights as citizen and having red tapes. It’s illogical that our government spent so much on foreign investment that is quick to fail rather than spending on our own training and development and helping the SME. These company are for the country but usually it’s the state that ate them up in lowest quote, lowest cost etc, that these SME cannot sustain and give good training for our citizen. Thus, they are forced to hire FT who come, learn, earn and go elsewhere while our own citizen toil day and night, just to pay some illogical cost of HDB and property. Just enough to make a living, grow old, sell tissue paper and die penniless, w/o seeing our full CPF money. Ask the PAP, do they want to develop the citizen or FT who come and go. But too bad, every time the PAP only thinks of easy way out and easy solution. They didnt think of long term plan and development. Just like paying money to get a silver medal, so what? Still they got the money, married off and never come back. That’s all.

“Jokes aside, you see it is very easy for you and me to expect the “opposition” to come up with good alternative idea. But the question how do we as voter know what a good idea is?”

Hi Mr. Tan.

My instinctive reaction to your points would be that a charismatic and eloquent orator who can connect to the heartlander and the profile of the ’swing voter’ will be able to solve this problem. At the risk of being politically incorrect, think Adolf Hitler. After all, Hitler was nothing but a lowly Corporal but captured the hearts and minds of Germany through his speaking and charismatic skills. That said, we cannot compare the state of Germany in the pre WWII period with what we have now in Singapore.

My impression is that save the very old ah kong ah ma generation who are 99% definitely going to vote for the PAP, many voters actually have an open mind and are willing to listen to alternative views. Just that when push comes to shove, they do not trust the opposition leaders enough to cast their vote for them. Better be safe than sorry right?

Idealistic as it may be, I feel what (or who) we need is a great leader figure (a ‘hero’ if you will…) who is charismatic enough to connect with the ’swing voters’ whom i believe make up a huge percentage of the voting population. Definitely not the CSJ type, as you put it. I recognise his contributions to the cause but no, he is not the one.

Seriously, I had once communicate with Mr. Yaw Shin Leong in his blog about 1-2 years back. I had mention to him b4, y dun WP come to AMK n do more ground work during non election period? He reply was…. nothing at all, I dun hear from him after this question being ask. Maybe, he’s worried dat i was once a PAP member n he tot dat i m a spy or just somebody trying 2 b funny.

I wld very much, like many others, love to see other parties to win AMK over. I strongly belif, we must haf some changes… otherwise, no way we can further survive after 2011…

lim, your comments will take some time address-

“But if one is a restaurant owner who isn’t over-charging, then a group of campaigners stood outside the restaurant with over-charging signs, is that fair?”

Do you feel the restaurant isn’t overcharging? You may not think so, and i respect your views even if I don’t exactly agree. I see the group of campaigners as doing us a favor. It is up to us to find our and decide if it’s fair or not. When the campaigners say there are rats in the restaurant, but the restaurant shout back ‘No there isn’t!’ And they call the police to chase away the campaigners. Do you take at face value that there are no rats, just as how the restaurant says? Or would the rational thing to do, is to find out for yourself, and get yourself out of the comfort zone to see who is right and wrong?

“Are the campaigners the people to decide when it is fair?”

No they don’t decide. What they do is they raise the issue and leave it up to us to decide. Now what the restaurant is doing, is say that only the retaurant, and the restaurant alone decides what is fair.

“Isn’t that the purpose of laws and a judiciary to decide if that is fair?”

Laws can be unjust. In the past there are laws that forbid non-whites from entering whites only places. The other question is – do you know how transparent our judiciary is? Do you accept that it is transparent because the restaurant say so? How can you prove that it is? I’m not saying that it isn’t, but I’m saying I won’t accept that it is just because the powers that be say so.

JBJ wrote a book about his ordeals during the defamation suit. The courtroom transcripts that the main stream media won’t let you see. I can’t decide for you if you will feel the judiciary is fair or not after reading it, but most importantly, with two sides of the story, then you can decide. The problem is until the age of internet, we scarcely have access to that kind of information other than the restaurant’s newsletter.

“If this restaurant owner go to the police, and the judge says its not fair. The campaigner say the judge is not fair. What to do? Camp outside the court room? Wear kangaroo T-shirt? Very useful?”

Personally, while i prefer a less aggressive and controversial means of engaging the government, the method worked to the degree that it got people thinking if it is indeed a kangaroo court. On my side, I found out about Article 14 of the Constitution. Don’t know if you know what it is. It means that the people of SIngapore HAVE THE RIGHTS to assemble peacefully and without arms.

My question to you is – Constituition says one thing. Law says another thing. Which one is more important? Is the Law that defines what is illegal assembly is arbituary and unreasonable, should it be obeyed? SHouldn’t it be questioned? Didn’t it strike you that while WP cannot organize a cycling event in East Coast, PAP can hold cycling events anytime anywhere they want? Did you question the double standards?

Chorus:

My instinctive reaction to your points would be that a charismatic and eloquent orator who can connect to the heartlander and the profile of the ’swing voter’ will be able to solve this problem. At the risk of being politically incorrect, think Adolf Hitler. After all, Hitler was nothing but a lowly Corporal but captured the hearts and minds of Germany through his speaking and charismatic skills. That said, we cannot compare the state of Germany in the pre WWII period with what we have now in Singapore.

Not sure what you are trying to say here.

But at the risk of putting words in your mouth, if I did I am sorry, but going by what you are saying, you seemed to suggest that you rather have someone who speaks and think like voters, or those that are likely to form the majority, regardless of whether the that someone is selling your poison or not.

Do you mean, if I put it in a crude illustration, “oh he speaks well, even if he ask me to eat poison, it is ok” type?

Idealistic as it may be, I feel what (or who) we need is a great leader figure (a ‘hero’ if you will…) who is charismatic enough to connect with the ’swing voters’ whom i believe make up a huge percentage of the voting population. Definitely not the CSJ type, as you put it. I recognise his contributions to the cause but no, he is not the one.

No shame to being idealistic. We need ideals otherwise we won’t know what we are trying to aim for. But often in the real world, the problem is HOW do we get from the here (i.e. the Status Quo) to where we want to be?

So now we have a problem, as you identify it, a lack of hero? How do we get this hero? Or for that matter, if no hero come forth, what do we do?

Next, chiming with the “swing” voters? What exactly does the “swing voters” want? How do you chime with the sometime you don’t know.

Also, yes it may be a convenient vehicle to lump people in a group (i.e. swing voters) but you CANNOT expect everyone in the group to think exactly alike. There maybe common threads throughout the group but it depends on which thread you are looking at. For example, I have lumped views in CatherineLim.sg, Littlespeck.com and Gerald’s Uncle as one group but that is from one perspective, in that they strongly believe in preserving the status quo, as I see it.

On the other hand, you can see that views in CatherineLim.sg and Littlespeck.com don’t necessarily see joining the opposition as character flaws as say Gerald’s Uncle as far as I can surmised in this blog. So even within this group there are different views.

If a significant constituent are the like’s or Gerald’s Uncle mindset type** than how do you chim with these people other than to be a PAP clone? These types of mindset exist, and you can’t just wish them away or dismiss them as voters.

On the point about CSJ type, it might sound strange to you. I have to make it clear that I largely agree with many of the CSJ idea. Personally, whilst I don’t expect others to agree with me, I believe many of his broad economic principles hold true. But his view is often misunderstood. So personally I would vote for him.

Note (**) Gerald, the reference here is meant for “want of term” not meant to be derogatory.

Lim, replying your other entry.

“I’m not so sure Singaporeans feel the need to form illegal assemblies to protest the rights of political parties or certain individuals to hold illegal assemblies. I’m not so sure Singaporeans feel the need to sell political newspapers on roadsides. In fact, Singaporeans get criticised nonetheless. WE get foreign perceptions that ALL Singaporeans are a bunch of useless a**holes for not supporting such events. I’m not so sure this kind of representation is what Singaporeans want.”

Interestingly, like you say, who is to decide except us, ourselves? Did you do a survey that shows that majority of Singaporeans oppose the above things? I can concede that I could be the minority here who, while not exactly agreeing much less is willing to participate in mass protest of any sort, would nonetheless fight for the right of those who wanted to, to do so. Did the so-called ‘illegal assembly’ and ’selling political newspapers on roadside’ harm anyone. And finally, if JBJ didn’t sell his newspaper by the roadside where do you think he should sell? Unless you are saying that it is wrong for them to express a political view different from the establishment?

Have you asked yourself what defines an illegal assembly? By the same definition, do you know that the grassroots members who gather together to cheer their visiting MP could also be considered an illegal assembly because a) they consist of more than five people, and b) it is for a political purpose? Did it occur to you that even though PAP is everywhere, only opposition have been charged with illegal assembly, or have their permit to organize, denied again, and again?

I’m not pro-anything. I just want a proper playing field. I just want our Government to act like proper, honorable people. If they have nothing to hide, why muzzle the opposing views all the time? Like the Chinese saying, 真金不怕溶爐火- Real gold is not afraid of the fire of the crucible.

“Telling Singaporeans they have second-class treatment is a huge difference from Singaporeans actually having second-class treatment.”

I cannot say for sure, unless I conduct a survey if more people feel they are second class citizen than not. I know that many people I know feel they are. I find it astounding that you can make that claim for everyone without actually having done an objective assessment.

“Singaporeans aren’t dumb. We know the difference. ”

How do you ‘know’ the difference when you don’t have enough information to start with? Do you ‘know’ what is being done with the reserves? Do you ‘know’ if the HDB is making a windfall from sales of HDB flats or their price are pegged to the market-value? Do you ‘know’ if our ‘leaders’ deserve their world-class pay?

I don’t know, because I don’t have access to that kind of information. I’d like to find out, though, because then I can make an informed decision. But, pray tell.. how do you ‘know’? Or is it like.. you know… faith?

And have a nice day too. :)

Imagine for a second the possibility of PAP govt deleting Article 14 of the Constitution (easily done with their majority seats in the parliament).
*shudder*

#46 Tan Ah Kow

“Not sure what you are trying to say here.

But at the risk of putting words in your mouth, if I did I am sorry, but going by what you are saying, you seemed to suggest that you rather have someone who speaks and think like voters, or those that are likely to form the majority, regardless of whether the that someone is selling your poison or not.

Do you mean, if I put it in a crude illustration, “oh he speaks well, even if he ask me to eat poison, it is ok” type?”

Don’t be sorry. I am new to commenting on politics, hence pardon my ignorance/inability to convey a proper ‘idea’. Well, if you want to put it that way, I suppose yes I was referring to the ’speaks well even if he asks me to eat poison i will do so’-type.

Well not exactly but what I meant was that I want someone with that sort of ABILITY. (and hopefully he uses this ability with the people at heart…) The ability to inspire with words and connect to others with speech. Someone who is able to CONVINCE (not agree with voters but to persuade them to understand and agree with his manifesto/policies/whatever…)

“So now we have a problem, as you identify it, a lack of hero? How do we get this hero? Or for that matter, if no hero come forth, what do we do?”

You got me here. Being in the SAF atm…the only thing I can think of is what we love to do in green. Wait and wait some more… Hah.

“Next, chiming with the “swing” voters? What exactly does the “swing voters” want? How do you chime with the sometime you don’t know.”

I wasn’t really thinking of those groups of people whom you mentioned as swing voters. Pardon me if I am wrong but I feel that most people who comment actively online on those sites should have a pretty distinct political leaning themselves. For example, I tend to classify people like Mr. Gerald’s uncle as leaning towards the PAP.

IMO, swing voters are those with no distinct leaning…perhaps even apathetic if you will. And my generation is supposedly filled with such people… I am 20 btw. Am I asking too much if I am hoping for someone who can connect or chime, as you put it, with the masses? After all, even in the US elections, when McCain and Obama go to different states they have to cater their rhetoric to a different kind of voter…the states in the US all have their own distinct culture and identity despite all being part of the USA. The presidential nominees have to chime with the different demographics while still pushing their campaign across.

“On the point about CSJ type, it might sound strange to you. I have to make it clear that I largely agree with many of the CSJ idea. Personally, whilst I don’t expect others to agree with me, I believe many of his broad economic principles hold true. But his view is often misunderstood. So personally I would vote for him.”

You, yes. Some on TOC, yes. But given the typical Singaporean demographic, sadly (?)…I think not. My opinion only. Singaporean society is still largely conservative.

Pardon me if my views are too simplistic.

Chorus , you said ‘You, yes. Some on TOC, yes. But given the typical Singaporean demographic, sadly (?)…I think not. My opinion only. Singaporean society is still largely conservative.”

Interestingly, a close friend of mine, who went to the same university as I did and studied with mostly more liberal leaning people, would vote PAP anytime. She will say that in spite of the lack of free speech and unfair treatment of dissent and opposition, they ‘led us to where we are today’.

I might sound simplistic here, but one distinction I see is there is the group of ‘liberals’ who dare to risk, who believe that having an open democracy will not lead to arnarchy and chaos, and those who fear losing the stability, the ‘conservatives’.

I also find it interesting too, that those who actively seek other sources of info other that the main stream press tend to have more anti PAP sentiments. Just the other day my sis was ranting against the PAP after chancing upon Chee’s books.

Well nothing more to add for now. lol

16) Lion’s Ashes on October 29th, 2008 2.27 pm All well said and the irony remains as it did from 1959 and will probably through 2059.

Everyone is an armchair critic (me too!!!) with half a million suggestions on how to cook the char kway teow.

>>> I agree that this is how many thinks. But they also need to understand that doing nothing is worse and collectively there will be a effect.

41) Tan Ah Kow on October 29th, 2008 11.50 pm
…..Basically, these Status Quo type have the mindset that (a) Politics is politics and (b) Economics is economics. The two issues must not mix. Of course, in real life the separation between the two is purely artificial but in the minds of the Status Quo types, that separation is as real as they make it out to be. …….

>>> personally, I believe that anything under the sun CAN BE a political issue under the right situation. Thus, everything can be political issue right? So, should everyone keep quiet or find the best way to communicate difference in opinion in a safe way? I believe keeping quiet of all issues is wrong. We need to voice up when needed, especially if its gonna directly or indirectly affect us.
Actually every issues affects many of us – transport / electricity hikes for example. Why majority never ever read articles from the blogs about social-political issues? Thus, I feel that its a pathetic situation that affects the rest that the apathetic lot distance themselves from reading and discussing social-political isses THAT AFFECT THEM ONE WAY OR THE OTHER , directly or indirectly.

44) bankrupt man on October 30th, 2008 12.15 am Seriously, I had once communicate with Mr. Yaw Shin Leong in his blog about 1-2 years back. I had mention to him b4, y dun WP come to AMK n do more ground work during non election period? He reply was…. nothing at all, I dun hear from him after this question being ask. Maybe, he’s worried dat i was once a PAP member n he tot dat i m a spy or just somebody trying 2 b funny.

I wld very much, like many others, love to see other parties to win AMK over. I strongly belif, we must haf some changes… otherwise, no way we can further survive after 2011…

>>> WP performance is also causing much greive in many people who supported them.
Last time, there were not many to choose from.

truely yours,
selamat wong the accountant

Zefly:

Interesting. I believe that such sentiments are more commonplace within the older generation – those who have been through financial hardship and hence, tend to be more resistant to change and more willing to treasure what we have now. And even as a young person, I see where they’re coming from and I recognise the huge role the PAP has played in transforming us into a first world nation (economically and technologically at least eh?) so efficiently. These are the people who would not choose CSJ even if they do not really fancy the PAP candidate they are voting for as CSJ encompasses all that is antithetical to what they value. He is loud, brash and the media makes him seem ’siao’ to a generation that values stability and humility.

The younger generation is, if you allow me to generalise, more flexible and open to change. Dare I say that clear supporters of the PAP are the minority? There are those who are opposition supporters/anything but PAP supporters as well…and there are the apathetic/undecided ones.

And I agree with your final point. After coming onto TOC I find myself finding more faults with the PAP than before. Heh.

Our current political climate shows only the pappy has all the best people. So call opp parties need to stage some of the well deserved candidates in next GE. These candidates must be ready to serve and ready to to help the residents before they even go around asking for votes. Look at Potong Pasir and you will know, opp parties should also plant their ministars wannabe at the pappy constituents and help those unfairly treated or under privileged to help them improve their livelihood and get votes from there.

If pappy is not helping, opp party should be helping. The slogan of “another voice in the parliament” is long out dated and lame. Opp parties need a new slogan….

[...] part Singaporeans vote, it must do be the best for the people rooted to the country. The fear of the opposition: “Can the opposition turn things around? By Gerald [...]

In response to Mr Tan’s comments on the US system (#10), I would say that it looks good on paper, has somewhat worked, but has also devolved over the 2 centuries into a two-party system not a whole lot better than our one-party Singapore.

The Democrats and Republicans have essentially shut out any other party from competing effectively in the election process. Contrary to popular belief, there are SIX “major” presidential candidates: Charles Baldwin (Independent), Bob Barr (Libertarians), John McCain (Republican), Cynthia McKinney (Green Party), Ralph Nader (Independent) and Barrack Obama (Democrat). I personally support Obama, but I chaff at the fact that the “other” four candidates are i) never mentioned in the news; ii) not represented in “official” presidential debates. The Democrats and Republicans are both unrepentant gerrymandering practitioners, the party in control gets to do it. They are unlikely to change this to make it fair for others.

Having said that, there ought to be a good study of the US system in Singapore’s context. The US is way too big for most independents to muster sufficient resources to challenge established parties, something I would like to see happen more in Singapore. The last known independent candidate was “the guy who challenged LKY” at Tanjong Pagar. I no longer remember his name nor his views on the issues of the day, whether for the nation nor for the constituency. Now, with GRCs and the need for MPs to actually run an estate, it is just so much harder for an independent candidate to stand (which, imho, just makes us much weaker as a representative democracy).

Hi to everybody

I get to understand the US political system better during the past year, when I watch CNBC and Bloomberg TV.

Here are the features that work well:

> The elected leaders in Congress are able to understand the issues and to debate them well. The final decision and law is a balance of the various views and represent the wishes of the majority.

> The President has an unlimited choice of candidates for people to serve as heads of the departments (i.e. ministries in Singapore) and the key agencies.

> There is greater accountability. Key players are summoned to testify in Congress.

> It creates a more educated and engaged electorate. People are more knowledgeable about the issues and are better able to participate in what is best for their society.

It is not a perfect system, but generally, it works well. It does make mistakes, but it has a better mechanism to recognise and correct the mistakes.

I used to like the Westminster system before (like Gerard Giam), but I now prefer the US system as I get to understand it better.

The US system separates the function of policy making (i..e. passing the law in legislature) and the execution of the national policies through the chief executive and his ministers (or secretaries of the departments).

Chorus,

CSJ is definitely not the crazy guy the media makes him out to be, however, by looking at the behavior of some of his supporters, I think he does exercise lack of judgement in selecting and inspiring people. Simply said, he isn’t Gandhi. At the same time, I think he isn’t doing it to become the next PM of SG or something. People may never vote SDP, but in the struggle for more political space and freedom, they have done quite a fair bit already. I wonder if the PAP would even allow protests at Speakers Corner and loosening up of poltical films if not for Chee.

MMSMPMMC,

I agree with you that the Pappy has SOME of the best people.. not all. I think Khaw Boon Wan in handling many of the health crisis, is a very able minister. There are one or two female MPs that spoke intelligently in Parliament and usually for the common folks. There are some others too, that made a good impression but I dun have enough info to say, wait kerna bombarded.. BUT as with any organization, PAP has its fair share of less than excellent people too. I think Lee Bee Wah display an amazing lack of EQ in the Table tennis fiasco. Maybe the PAP selected didn’t include an EQ test. It’s all gene-testing or something.. you know, based on eugenics… I had the chance to see Ho Peng Kee in action, and he didn’t leave a very strong impression. Then there are those people, like Philip Yeo who are not in PAP but would most likely do a very good job if given a portfolio.

So LKY’s claim that we have an ‘A-team’ really doesn’t truly apply.

Lastly, I think the forward-looking able ministers are all still hampered by the old hard-liners, like LKY, GCT and WKS. I think our political landscape would be much more tolerant if these guys would seriously step down, and you know, NOT get involved, as in, at all.

Under the US system, the legislature (i.e. Congress or Parliament) can comprise of elected leaders from various political parties). Their role is to reflect the wishes of the people in passing the laws of the country.

The country is runned by the President and his team of capable and dedicated people, who are willing to serve the country (rather than have a career as a politician). There is a wide choice of people (and not restricted to the elected people). The legislature and executive play different roles.

This system allows the legislature to reflect a wider range of views, without diminishing the pool of people to be selected to run the country with the Prime Minister or President.

58) Tan Kin Lian – The US system has its faults too. I don’t think they have the best candidates for the presidency, both Obama and McCain are, in my opinion, mediocres; thought Obama is more articulate. Another flaw in the US system is that during the 2000 election Al Gore has more votes but Bush became the president because of electorial votes. Worst, they have to live with Bush for eight years and the National Debt just grow and grow. Philippines which copy the US system does not seem to have any direction either.

Of course it has its merits, like freedom to select Ministers to head the different ministries.

It is not the fault of PAP if there is a walkover. Its just that the other parties are not inspiring enough to attract capable people to join them. Can you imagine if Chee Soon Juan or Low Thia Kiang became the Prime Minister of Singapore. Who are they going to have for Finanice Minister or the Defence or Foreign Affairs portfolios.

So far they have not come out with any plans for a better Singapore. They are more into petty personal grivences.

Though I do not like to give a blank cheque to the arrogrant PAP I am not into the opposition either. Perhaps its time to evolve or change the whole political landscape of Singapore to bring it into the next phrase.

The 2/3 rule for entrenching a law/policy comes from the idea that no single political party can occupy at least 2/3 of the parliament. But in Singapore´s case, the PAP occupies 97% of the parliament.

I like the Tan Kin’Lian´s idea of having a upper house and lower house in parliament while I am impartial to the idea that the cabinet must make up of elected MPs. In theory, the upper house and lower house can keep check on each other as long as each house is dominated by different political parties.

However, regardless of how many house there are in parliament, the representative system will still be screwed as long as there is one single political party dominating the entire system.

Opposition doesn´t have the manpower to field an election, and election is costly. Requiring a $10000 deposit to run for election and that one may loose the deposit should he win less than 12.5% of the votes is just barrier to entry for Opposition.

There are other barrier to entry too. For example, to run for MP, the candidate must have at least 10 year residency in Singapore prior to the election. In Singapore, we have many talented Singaporeans who go abroad for further studies or work opportunities and may be interested in local politics. However he cannot run for public office because of such draconian rule.

Worst of all, Singaporeans think that it is normal for a politician to be old. The concept of a career politician is foreign in Singapore, yet one can see it in many places. In the UK, young people who want to enter politics usually begin their career as a town councillors, fresh out of university. In Singapore´s case, MPs appoint themselves as councillors. Do you know that Bill Clinton was elected as Governor 2 years after finishing university?

If Singapore government truly intends to open up politics in Singapore, they should rid all these barriers. I don´t want to have a MP candidate who is first approved by someone else in power first. My only requirement for his candidacy for office is that I like his policies and that he will make time to represent my case in parliament. I want a pro-Singaporean parliamentarian and a pro-Singapore parliament.

For democracy to deliver its goods to the nation, every political party must be credible. If you look at the case of the USA, the democrats is not perceived less capable than the Republicans. In the case of the UK, Labour is not perceived less capable than the Tories. But in the case of Indonesia, who wouldn´t doubt if any of the political parties is capable of running the country.

Democracy is only a plural platform for competition of political parties and political ideologies. There is nothing wrong in itself, but alone, it is insufficient to deliver the goods. There must be at least 2 political parties which has adequate manpower, competent ideas, enigmatic leaders, thought leadership and maintain active engagement with its constituents.

I sincerely hope that more pple will vote for opposition.
It may not be tat simple but to me it’s simple. Currently, there’s little pple against or questioning Policies or watever tat’s bought up during Parliments. Thus even if something is bad for ME, it still likely gets pass if it’s good for THEM. So now mainly there’s a need to booster the numbers of Opposition in the Parliment. If after they get it, and still do nothing and doesn’t argue against the wrong stuff and just ride the wave and earn their money. Then so be it, since it will be tat way if we dun vote for Opposition anyway. But if we vote for Opposition, there’s a CHANCE for change.

Frankly I am ok with the current Singapore’s political system and does not deny that the PAP has being doing a fantastic job in running the country. After reading so much turmoil in neighbouring countries and even advanced countries like Australia and USA, our country is currently doing well in terms of advancing the country in education, infrastracture and opportunities.
One biggest setback of the current system is that it is being too dominant and tend to push through “medicinal” policies to the people. The govt knows that the medicine is bad for the people but it is good ofr hte country. For example, GST implementation is bad for the people a goods and services increase but on the other hand the govt has more in it’s coffers to run social welfare programmes for the needy. It also does not need to tax workers and businesses to fill up it’s coffers.
In Australia, the country is in chaos. Each state has their own Premier and office bearers refelcting the Westminster style of governance. Just recently, the NSW Premier quitted and the whole team either was sacked by the new Premier or resigned on their own accord. The new Premier I heard was formerly a very technical low-end person but later got his degree in arts and worked his way up politically. You can have very lay unqualified people entering politics as no body wants to dirty their hands here in politics.
They also have a shadow government that is the opposition has it’s own PM, education minster, environment minister and so on and they did nothing but blocked every thing the govt is trying to do without giving any alternatives. So far, the current PM has his hands tied whenever he tried to get things moving for the country as he does not really have a good majoirty in Parliament. I can see that alot of the policies are all for the “good” of the people so that the wishes of the voters are acceded. Some of these good policies may backfire on them in future. Sometimes, the country needs bad medicine so that they can move on well into the future. As many know that Australia is a welfare society and this did not help them much as many rely totally on welfare to survive. Single mothers simply stay home and continue to have more kids as each kid entitles them to a tidy sum each month.
I find that our system works but do need some restructuring. Like many, I am surprised that for around 65%+ votes they got during the election, the PAP has at least 95% representation in PArliament. This is not a true reflection of democratic voting style. At least 30% of the opposition memebrs should be in PArliament reflecting the true voting pattern of the people.

63) Gilbert Goh Keow Wah on October 30th, 2008 10.36 am
I may agree with you but definately the present system is totally one sided with the ruling party forsaking the welfare and concern of the citizens, or I should put it like “who give a shit abt these citizens, they are just digits to us” kind of attitude.

… does not deny that the PAP has being doing a fantastic job in running the country. – Gilbert Goh (#63)

I must rectify this statement. They were doing a fantastic job. Ever since LKY stepped down as PM, the capability of the cabinet to deliver has remained questionable. It appears more like PAP is stuck with these guys as ministers versus there are a lot of credible talents in PAP to run the country.

The govt knows that the medicine is bad for the people but it is good ofr hte country. For example, GST implementation is bad for the people a goods and services increase but on the other hand the govt has more in it’s coffers to run social welfare programmes for the needy. It also does not need to tax workers and businesses to fill up it’s coffers. – Gilbert Goh (#63)

GST is an discriminatory tax. It hurts poor people a lot more than rich people. Moreover, there is a huge administrative barrier to access the social welfare program. In effect, poor people are hit more. The GST hike was accompanied with a drop in corporate taxes. I really wonder if the increased tax revenue from GST is for the poor or for offsetting the drop in corporate tax revenue.

They also have a shadow government that is the opposition has it’s own PM, education minster, environment minister and so on and they did nothing but blocked every thing the govt is trying to do without giving any alternatives. – Gilbert Goh (#63)

Clearly, Australia´s ruling party is drafting bad policies that marginalises the constituents represented by the shadow cabinet. This also forces the ruling party to accept policy proposal from the shadow cabinet, thus ensuring as much constituents are being looked out for.

I can see that alot of the policies are all for the “good” of the people so that the wishes of the voters are acceded. Some of these good policies may backfire on them in future. Sometimes, the country needs bad medicine so that they can move on well into the future. – Gilbert Goh (#63)

The thing about bad policy is this: nobody really knows if the policies are bad, until the consequences come. Policy making is strategic decision making amidst A LOT OF uncertainty. Nobody can claim to know better than the Australian parliamentarians and vice versa. The same can be said about PAP in Singapore.

Hi Ako Loh (#50)

Under the US system, the members of Congress are elected separately from the President.

If Low Thia Khiang and Chee Soon Juan are elected into Parliament, they can represent the views of an important segment of the people of Singapore. LTK is already doing this task.

The President is elected separately by the people. Someone said that Senator Obama is a mediocre candidate for President. I hold a different view. He is immensely qualified in many ways. I believe that 100 million Americans or more, will probably agree with that view.

66) Tan Kin Lian on October 30th, 2008 10.54 am
The President is elected separately by the people.

This is exactly so, the president is someone chosen by its people and not by the those ppl in parliaments which is totally wrong. A president is also like a GM to check on those ppl in parliament who are like operations managers in a MNC so how can the ppl in parliaments (almost all PAP party) choose the president for the people? must as well put their boss, LKY there so how to check on the boss? sounds logical?

Tan Lin Lian, you wrote ‘Can you imagine if Chee Soon Juan or Low Thia Kiang became the Prime Minister of Singapore. Who are they going to have for Finanice Minister or the Defence or Foreign Affairs portfolios.’

While it is quite hard to imagine CSJ and LTK as PM, let’s not forget that the selection of ministers need not necessarily have to come from the party itself. I believe say, in a ‘freak election’ and Worker’s Party were to win, and LTK suddenly finds himself having to fill all these posts, and quite possibly the only person other than him remotely capable is Sylvia Lim, don’t you thinking he will reach across party lines to appoint the right people? I know reality would be more complicated than what I put forth here… all I’m saying is, there is always more than one way to skin a cat. We just need to exercise some independent thinking other than what’s prescribed by the ruling party.

And really, on LKY’s point that Singapore would be ruined in five years if the opposition won… shouldn’t we fault him for his failure to create a self-sustaining system that works irregardless of who is in charge? Why, after 40-over years of nation-building, is our economy still so fragile and dependent on how cheap we can afford our services? I vaguely remember all the growth of the manufacturing sector in the 60s-70s is so we won’t have to solely depend on our geography as a port-of-call.

I just happen to have more faith in the people of Singapore to keep us afloat together, irregardless of who is in power.

59) Ako Loh

<<>>

My sentiments exactly.

Unfortunately, I have no clear cut answer to what the next phase might be.
I have talked about having a People’s Voice outside of parliamentary representations, but how effective this voice will be, well; your guess is as good as mine.

However, I feel it is possible.

Take the Philippines for inspiration. People Power!
No, I’m not talking about the show of people’s power in the street. These are very hard to sustain and can be very destructive. I am thinking about another kind of people’s power; in a civilised and non-destructive way.

The Internet.

If we can get majority of the citizens interested enough to discuss issues, share ideas and even exert pressure on the govt of the day when necessary to change their positions on issues that directly affect our welfare and interests etc; how effective do you think this will be?

We have a power in our hands that most are not aware of. The single vote we possess. When these votes are gathered together in one place, it becomes an important consideration for the rulers of the day to take heed of our collective voice.

Imagine what this voice can do.

Can you imagine if Chee Soon Juan or Low Thia Kiang became the Prime Minister of Singapore. Who are they going to have for Finanice Minister or the Defence or Foreign Affairs portfolios. – Ako Loh (#59)

What a self-defeating statement. In order to be PM, one must be leader of the majority in parliament. If CSJ or LTK were to be PM, they would already have a pool of MPs to choose from.

I prefer the US system than that of British one mentioned by Mr Tan. Let us think why did George washington refused to follow exactly how the British government was running. Throughout world history, the transfer of political power has been marked by struggle, deception, and bloodshed.

After two terms Washington thought it was important that he step aside.
George Washington’s commitment to the rule of law, however, often at the expense of his own personal power and advantage, set the example by which political rule in America would be decided by ballets, not bullets. Anyone think we need an emperor, a king, a queen or other special positions like MM and SM?

George Washington believed that a peaceful transition of power to a newly elected president was necessary before his death. He feared that if he died in office and the vice-president ascended to the presidency, it would appear too much like an heir ascending to the throne after the death of a king. When Washington stepped aside at the end of his second term, George III said that Washington’s retirement from the presidency along with his earlier resignation of Commander in Chief, “placed him in a light the most distinguished of any man living,” and that his relinquishing power made him “the greatest character of the age”.

Are we having a system that’s so honour like the US? The real power holder here in Singapore(prime minister) is decided by a party but not by direct votes of the citizens, and not forgetting the party is influenced by the party leader’s interests.

Are we having a system that’s so honour like the US? The real power holder here in Singapore(prime minister) is decided by a party but not by direct votes of the citizens, and not forgetting the party is influenced by the party leader’s interests.

Thats why the system is always a 1sided one as long as the servants will not dare oppose their master, any different compare to monarchy system and still can call our country a democracy. Its more like a family run business thingy.

Are we having a system that’s so honour like the US? The real power holder here in Singapore(prime minister) is decided by a party but not by direct votes of the citizens, and not forgetting the party is influenced by the party leader’s interests. – tiredsingaporean (#72)

Hence we should not a parliamentary system whereby each political party is the fundamental unit. The MP should be the fundamental unit, so they are free to change political parties. There will be no need for the Chief Whip. In this way, the MP can act solely for his constituency without worrying too much about internal party politics.

Well as guess that the older generation Singaporean feels that the PAP has done a good job. Bringing people from squatters to HDB flats. That’s no doubt about it.

That was before. But now HDB is no longer as affordable as back then. So is public transport. All rental has gone skywards, contributing to the increase in cost of living. Rental is a major component in cost of goods sold.

Are current generation of Singaporean living a better life than the yearly 60s batch of Singaporean? Superficial, the current generation looks better off. But than there is a trade-off. Almost every Singaporean now is in debt. Owing the bank in housing loan, car loan, credit card bills, hire purchase of etc stuff.

Constantly in fear of getting sue too.

So are we better off than our fore fathers?

“The Fear of Opposition” …a truly, well said from Gerald…YES, fear of the opposition coming in power to rot things! Frankly the Oppositions here, apart from JBJ, falls far too short of expectations! Chiam is over the hill, Hougang’s WP Low is hardly seen nor heard, struggling with proper upkeep of a clean/well-managed Hougang, CSJ has got a mouth and mind which very tools are danger to himself not mentioning his directions or who he represents and the lady around for sake of an opposition – all these people truly bring fear to any sensible citizens what they might do, just, even the thought of it, just come to helm of the govt bringd FEAR!!!
There is NO credible opposition here in Singapore! The WP MP is just a proxy / voice / figure in the Parliament for sake of an opposition. He is least interested in growing his team or introducing credible candidates …who could blame him…he’s too busy safeguarding his haul of Hougang. Just for info, residents there are suffering from the deplore state of the HDB blocks there!!!
CSJ is a fox who cried sour grapes!!!

while many here compares US democracy with local democracy, I think that is too future talk. I think the immediate problem to resolve is how to cure APATHY.
Why is it that majority do not want to discuss about issues that affect them ?

I think we should also focus on having access to information like :

1. Who is responsible and accountable for investment successes in general?

2. Who is responsible and accountable for investment fiascos and loses in general?

3. Why so many hikes at this timing?

4. What is the REALity, loyal oppositions?

Thats why the system is always a 1sided one as long as the servants will not dare oppose their master, any different compare to monarchy system and still can call our country a democracy. Its more like a family run business thingy. – tiredsingaporean

That’s why the selection of power holder should be decide by the citizens’ votes instead decided by a party that is influenced by the party leader’s interests. Imagine if 84 MPS are the candidates of prime minister and is decided by citizens votes, do you think LHL will be present prime minister?

“The govt knows that the medicine is bad for the people but it is good ofr hte country. For example, GST implementation is bad for the people a goods and services increase but on the other hand the govt has more in it’s coffers to run social welfare programmes for the needy. It also does not need to tax workers and businesses to fill up it’s coffers. – Gilbert Goh (#63)

GST is an discriminatory tax. It hurts poor people a lot more than rich people. Moreover, there is a huge administrative barrier to access the social welfare program. In effect, poor people are hit more. The GST hike was accompanied with a drop in corporate taxes. I really wonder if the increased tax revenue from GST is for the poor or for offsetting the drop in corporate tax revenue.”

Donaldson, you have explained it very well in your reply. Ultimately, how it is really redistributed back to the poor is very important.

I hope that it is does not become a case (for illustrative purposes) that one takes 10 units and redistributes 7 units back to the poor and keep 3 units for managing it. The exact proportion is purely academic.

It could be a case that the taking process (GST) will shift those in the borderline from independent to dependent category. GST 7% of sgd1,000/- is sgd70/- which is a lot for the lower income groups.

“Time is running out, and the people’s hopes are slowly getting dashed. Can the opposition turn things around and dispel people’s fear of their success?”

Sadly I have to say, it will be biz as usual.

WP is more complacent than PAP. It thinks that people will vote for WP because they dislike PAP and because it is the most well-organised opposition party.

Not talking much in Parly is one thing. But what abt doing things that show people outside Hougang WP not gone AWOL in between elections? What have WP been doing in Aljunied (near miss) and Bedok? Nothing I hear from WP dissidents.

As to SDP, more interested in getting arrested or sued.

Sad.

Can only hope after the passing of LKY, PAP splits up.

To #45.

“Do you feel the restaurant isn’t overcharging? ….Or would the rational thing to do, is to find out for yourself, and get yourself out of the comfort zone to see who is right and wrong?” – Zefly

If I think there are rats, I go to the pest control dept and the restaurant licensing dept. I won’t to camp outside the restaurant. There are ways to make the issues known.
————————————————-
“No they don’t decide. What they do is they raise the issue and leave it up to us to decide. Now what the restaurant is doing, is say that only the restaurant, and the restaurant alone decides what is fair.” – Zefly

But they do in reality attempt to decide for the rest. Its not a question of people asking if something has gone wrong. They point the finger and say that its wrong. That’s what happened to CSJ on the Burma funds incident. He claimed it was wrong. When asked to prove it, the argument somehow becomes twisted to being that the court is unfair? I’d leave the ordinary reader to feel what they feel.
————————————————-
“Laws can be unjust…. The other question is – do you know how transparent our judiciary is? Do you accept that it is transparent because the restaurant say so? How can you prove that it is? I’m not saying that it isn’t, but I’m saying I won’t accept that it is just because the powers that be say so.” – Zefly

Refer to #42 the Thomas Jefferson quote I made in response to Meritocracy in the Amnesty thread. That’s the system. Otherwise the alternative is chaos.

The determinant of what is an unjust law is not for the few but for the many to decide. Elections allow voters to decide their representatives and the making of laws.
————————————————-
“JBJ wrote a book about his ordeals during the defamation suit….. I can’t decide for you if you will feel the judiciary is fair or not after reading it, but most importantly, with two sides of the story, then you can decide. The problem is until the age of internet, we scarcely have access to that kind of information other than the restaurant’s newsletter.” – Zefly

And yet today, there is the Internet and no excuse to say one does not have the opportunity to say. That people do not chose to read and find out and are apathetic is the choice of the people. But there are acceptable ways and not acceptable ways. The people will decide via elections of representatives to determine if they regard something as acceptable or not.
————————————————-
“Personally, while i prefer a less aggressive and controversial means of engaging the government…… On my side, I found out about Article 14 of the Constitution. Don’t know if you know what it is. It means that the people of SIngapore HAVE THE RIGHTS to assemble peacefully and without arms.”

Thank you. For my beef is in the use of the method not in the person. If you have read article 14, you’d notice the provisos. Singaporeans have rights but subject to provisos. Read #18 of the Amnesty thread on the proviso issues if you would like to know my thoughts on the subject.
————————————————-
“My question to you is – Constituition says one thing. Law says another thing. Which one is more important? Is the Law that defines what is illegal assembly is arbituary and unreasonable, should it be obeyed? SHouldn’t it be questioned? Didn’t it strike you that while WP cannot organize a cycling event in East Coast, PAP can hold cycling events anytime anywhere they want? Did you question the double standards?” – Zefly

The constitution is the law. To segregate both is artificial. Neither is it in conflict.

To question the law, its legality and its effects is every citizen’s right and indeed obligation. To take the law into one’s own hands and break the law on the basis of individual belief that it is wrong goes beyond that.

Actually, I questioned the rationale for the WP cycling event on the basis that shouldn’t charity be allowed from any organisation, political or otherwise. To argue that politicians shouldn’t donate or organise donations would be ironic. But I don’t go around saying the WP therefore has the right to break the law. Its a HUGE difference between questioning and law-breaking.

If citizens believe that is a law that should be amended and is worth voting for, then vote for someone who shares that belief and is willing to amend that. If no one who stands for election has that belief, encourage someone who does to stand.

Lim,

I may not exactly agree with you on some of your points, but I have to say that this discussion have been a pleasure because the arguments are sound and lucid. That’s the beauty of discourse. Sadly, such debate is glaringly missing from where it should matter most – the political scene. ‘Oh you know, the people are not ready for it, let’s just talk bread and butter…’

I guess with regards to breaking the law, it can’t be a simple matter of black and white. You’re right to say that if everyone goes around breaking the law because it contradicts their beliefs, we will have chaos.

I sense that you are not entirely against the concept of civil disobedience. India won’t be free if Gandhi hadn’t said screw you to the British laws. (Indians weren’t even allowed to make their own salt) So in what case would you consider it permissible, or morally justifiable? And why doesn’t Chee fall into that category?

Lastly, I have to state that I am divided in my opinion of Chee, but I am at the same time disgusted with the ways which the PAP had punished the kind of opposition that they do not like. The defamation suits have to stop… or at least, the trial ought really be fairly covered in the papers. Character assasination is not the kind of behavior i can tolerate from our million-dollar ministers.

“Interestingly, like you say, who is to decide except us, ourselves? Did you do a survey that shows that majority of Singaporeans oppose the above things? …. Unless you are saying that it is wrong for them to express a political view different from the establishment?” – Zefly

I’m pretty sure my saying “I’m not so sure” is enough to demonstrate I don’t claim to represent the majority. I don’t claim all laws in Singapore or globally are just and fair either. There are few accepted methods towards changing laws and one of them is to elect representatives that represent views.

It is a fundamental construct in an electoral democracy that the minority will have to follow the majority’s view even if the majority had chosen wrongly. To allow the minority to choose laws which they want to follow is an exercise toward anarchy.

There is however, a huge difference between expressing a differing political view and to accuse the judiciary of being a kangaroo court, to claim misuse of funds. In the latter, isn’t the burden of proof a pre-requisite.
——————————————
“Have you asked yourself what defines an illegal assembly?…. By the same definition,….grassroots members who gather together ….considered an illegal assembly because a) they consist of more than five people, and b) it is for a political purpose? Did it occur to you that even though PAP is everywhere, only opposition have been charged with illegal assembly, or have their permit to organize, denied again, and again?” – Zefly

Reality is that not all opposition members are charged with illegal assembly. Those that do are not merely standing around doing nothing or is anyone here claiming that they were doing nothing? But my point is not to argue if the law is just or unjust. It is what people do about it.

Smokers think it is bloody unfair to restrict smoker’s rights. Yet, does that mean smokers are justified to break the law? They probably have a better case than the above but why no one here advocates breaking the law in their case?

My point is to say that if one is not happy with the law, pls see above for accepted method of changing it. To do so, let me provide a tip, one needs the majority vote and to convince the majority to vote, one needs to convince them of the utility of such a measure.
——————————————
“I’m not pro-anything. I just want a proper playing field. I just want our Government to act like proper, honorable people. If they have nothing to hide, why muzzle the opposing views all the time? Like the Chinese saying, 真金不怕溶爐火- Real gold is not afraid of the fire of the crucible.” – Zefly

I like that too but idealism and realism don’t go together. Obama has huge media support with very little critical coverage. He has HUGE finances whilst McCain is forced to make do with public financing. Its as uneven a playing field as it gets. McCain isn’t going to break the law or advocate breaking it.

So if its not a fair playing field in Singapore, what you gonna do about it?
——————————————
“I cannot say for sure, unless I conduct a survey if more people feel they are second class citizen than not. I know that many people I know feel they are. I find it astounding that you can make that claim for everyone without actually having done an objective assessment.” – Zefly

Have I really made a claim? All I said was there’s a huge difference between the 2. I didn’t say which is the reality but you obviously missed the point. The point is for anything to succeed, the support from the masses is critical. If you still can’t recognise that, too bad.
——————————————
“How do you ‘know’ the difference when you don’t have enough information to start with?…..Do you ‘know’ if our ‘leaders’ deserve their world-class pay?” – Zefly

“I don’t know, because I don’t have access to that kind of information. I’d like to find out, though, because then I can make an informed decision. But, pray tell.. how do you ‘know’? Or is it like.. you know… faith?” – Zefly

So will any human being ever know everything? Of course not. People make judgments and choices on the basis of information provided in their everyday life. Questions should be asked but to say things are wrong, one better be prepared to back it up.

Calling or treating the voter as stupid is a first-class way to lose that vote though.
——————————————
“And have a nice day too. :)”

Same to you.

77) meritocracy on October 30th, 2008 12.33 pm Thats why the system is always a 1sided one as long as the servants will not dare oppose their master, any different compare to monarchy system and still can call our country a democracy. Its more like a family run business thingy. – tiredsingaporean

That’s why the selection of power holder should be decide by the citizens’ votes instead decided by a party that is influenced by the party leader’s interests. Imagine if 84 MPS are the candidates of prime minister and is decided by citizens votes, do you think LHL will be present prime minister?

that is more the reason why we need to increase the no. of alternative parties into the parliaments this coming GE if the same system is going to continue. They can keep the system going in their favor but the power to change still lies in the hands of the people of SG.

“So will any human being ever know everything? Of course not. People make judgments and choices on the basis of information provided in their everyday life. Questions should be asked but to say things are wrong, one better be prepared to back it up.”

Well, you are right. That is why we have work / pressure for more so that non-disclosure (or lack of information) does not work to our disadvantage, if it is really working to our disadvantage.

If everthing is above board, why should one group have the previleges of knowing more than you without the need to disclose, especially if it is a matter of public interest.

The British came here, never gave me democracy, except when they were about to leave. But I cannot run my system based on their rules. I have to amend it to fit my people’s position. In multiracial societies, you don’t vote in accordance with your economic interests and social interests, you vote in accordance with race and religion. Supposing I’d run their system here, Malays would vote for Muslims, Indians would vote for Indians, Chinese would vote for Chinese. I would have a constant clash in my Parliament which cannot be resolved because the Chinese majority would always overrule them. So I found a formula that changes that. –LKY interviewed by Der Spiegel August 14 2005

With the quotation by LKY, power of the citizens have been taken away. Yes we know that malays would vote for Muslims, Indian would vote for indians, Chinese would vote for chinese. All above which is better than the formula of father choosing the son when party is influenced by party leader’s interests(LKY).

“I may not exactly agree with you on some of your points, but I have to say that this discussion have been a pleasure because the arguments are sound and lucid. That’s the beauty of discourse. Sadly, such debate is glaringly missing from where it should matter most – the political scene. ‘Oh you know, the people are not ready for it, let’s just talk bread and butter…’” – Zefly

Thank you for your time as well. I don’t expect anyone to agree with what I said nor similarly do I agree with everything said but I do appreciate people taking time to type.
——————————————–
“I sense that you are not entirely against the concept of civil disobedience. India won’t be free if Gandhi hadn’t said screw you to the British laws. (Indians weren’t even allowed to make their own salt) So in what case would you consider it permissible, or morally justifiable? And why doesn’t Chee fall into that category?” – Zefly

Thanks, I will be putting up my response on this shortly.

Thanks for the recent comments. This is all very interesting discussion.
I also learn alot here about politics which is only very recently.
As with most typical Singaporeans, I am politically apathetic and care less about politics. If I have a decent job and a happy family I am happy. When the GE comes, it is very natural that I voted for the one that gives me so much peace and stability in the country system. That was about 15 years ago.
Perhaps due to frequent overseas travels and reading up on political literature, I am more aware of politics and how it can affect the lives if people. I was also unemployed for almost two years during the 9/11 and Sars period and that began my journey of discontent with the system and of course the govt.
I began to see a widening gulf between the poor and rich, the educated and the uneducated, the elite and the non-elite, the condo and the HDB, the scholars and the non-scholars. Those who belong to the poorer sector of the population tend to feel alienated from the wealth of the nation. I am sure those who are die-hard PAP supporters are more from the middle to higher income as they have enjoyed the fruits if the system.
Nevertheless, as I compared to people in Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines and CAmbodia, Australia are they happier than me? Do they live better than me? I don’t think so. We have stability, food, power, clean water and jobs so that our lives can move on decently.
So why are we so discontented? I kept asking myself.
Is the govt so bad? Is our system so bias? Will we be happier if we have ten more opposition membersin the Parliament who may speak more on our behalf and check the govt? I dont really know.
Looking at the experiences of our neigbhours, I am sceptical whether a fundamental change in the governance system will satisfy the population. Thailand kept on changing their PM. Only recently, Malaysia announced that their current PM will step down. Will the people be happier this way?
What I know is that there won’t be any perfect system of governance. If Obama wins, he may only have less than 55% of the votes. 45% of the population may vote against him – a far less support than PAP gather during GE. Yet he is considered very popular among the US voters.
There will always be people for the govt and those that prefer otherwise. Until the otherwise has a large swing of majority votes, I am afraid that our current govt will be in power at least for the next two to three elections until something drastic happened.
This financial crisis is a good test of how our govt can pull us out of the dark hole. So far, they have successful experiences in doing so with past crises such as 1997, 2001 and 2002. I am pretty confident they can do the job again now.

Regardless of party (parties), we need gracious and caring leaders and leaders with conscience for the people. This I believe is severely lacking now (I speak for myself and the group of friends who shares my sentiment).

For check and balance, there must be independent group(s) that is detached from any party grip. I agreed with Kin Lian on the US systems, where you have the President, Senate and Congress countering any abuse of power. The judiciary although (CJs) are appointed but still it is very independent and seen as a deterrent force. Adding on, the rule of the law needs upgrading. Bring in the impeachment legislation to safe guard the interest of the country for the citizenry. Bring in the 3 term limit to ensure the newer and aspiring leaders to evolve with fresh ideas that will sprout new growth to make our country stronger with better citizenry bonding.

Leaders who are voted and sworn into office had a purpose to safeguard not only the interest of the country, but also the well being of its citizenry. Like some had commented earlier in other post, the leaders since GCT had indeed failed the yardstick test by a long mile as compared to their predecessors (not to discredit or exclude the senior citizenry who are disciplined and hardworking that help build this nation to what it is today). There are no concrete track records to show for (so to speak) for the other parties as well and certainly there are more works ahead of them if they are to increase their voting power for a balanced voice in parliament and in hope to change for a more balanced representation of citizenry concerns.

It is quite apparent in the past few years that something has gotten from bad to worse and we are indeed hoping sensibly (these days it is hard to maintain that calm composure when emotions run high) and trying hard to be as perspective in our looking for the change for better. Of course there will be some who aren’t that level headed and who can blame them? You can only say they need to vent out their displeasure to balance their thoughts particularly if you are the ones experiencing the hardest hit.

Moving forward, looking for change within the Singapore perspective in reality, we could only possibly do that under two extreme conditions, one being a sudden change of mindset of the ruling party to becoming more caring and less calculative and less digit oriented (top down all over including citizenry ~ what is the probability of this happening? I do not know), or there is a substantial balanced of power and again the probability of this happening is anyone’s guess until 2011 which is not that far away.

Coining the term used [alternative party] by Kin Lian. If the alternative party (parties) is (are) serious about wanting to serve the people, the ground work had to be done not when during election event ”election time”, it is a continuous effort for as long as they have vested political interest and place the people interest as their priority to achieve the goal of a balanced power.

As a senior citizen and certainly classified myself as one of the swing voter(s). Here are two of the many questions that I will ask and assess the resolution plan before casting if given a chance to vote.

1) How is the new government(s) going to address and ensure that the NATIVE citizenry basic necessities (Housing, Utilities, Water, Medical, Insurance, Food…etc) are priced at an affordable level (including the have nots).

2) For the aged group who had contributed to the Singapore we are in now since the NEW Independent Singapore, How is the new government planning to ensure that this group of senior citizenry is not left out in the cold.

I have not even touched on foreign policies (after-all, we may be small city state but we are very much a sovereign country and we are on our own). There are obviously a host of other questions that are not listed. I think it is worth the while for the people who had any intent to run for office to keep in constant touch with the ground and understand the issues from the ground perspective of the citizenry with an objective and caring mind. Respect is not a given, it is earned.

Give our less fortunate fellow citizens the sense of warmth, bring back the 50’s, 60’s and 70’s community camaraderie.

88) Observer (SG-HK)

Thanks for a wonderful piece, especially from the second portion onwards.
Tears were welling up in my eyes while reading it and i have to control them coz I have office colleagues around me.

Your ending really tells the whole story. Indeed, we have lost the ‘community camaraderie’ of the 50’s, 60’s and 70’s. The spirit of the old guards, who truly looked after the people of Singapore with their hearts, minds and souls.

Things began to rapidly spiral downwards from the 80’s onward and if we do not do anything now, it can only get worse – for you, for me, for our families and our children.

There is another possibilty for a change of govt which you did not mention. If the shoving by this govt doesn’t stop, the people will be pushed to a corner where the only course of (RE)action left is to take a chance and kick them out. We are already so down, how much lower can we get? Take a chance. Who knows?

Sure, we can go debating whether an untried Opposition can do the job of taking care of Singapore but then again we might so fed up we just don;t care and vote them in anyway. It looks like it is heading in this direction if you ask me.

I agree with the writer that past success is no guarantee for continued, future success.

The issue is not of the government being in power too long. The real issue is that the government has been in power too long without adequate checks and balances. Power needs to be managed and checked in a meaningful, not token manner.

89) gemami

There is a second part (or a section) of the story that I omitted as I do not want to be accused of empty vessels (as I am now living in HK but I do hope someone like Kin Lian or TOC will take it up and I am most willing to contribute).

Thanks for your encouragement so I decided to append the entire last section of the writing here to complete the piece.

Meanwhile, I like to suggest that like minded citizenry should pull our resources together to work out a plan to aide or assist the most needed fellow mates. We could setup a “TOC Citizenry Charter – NGO” to stock basic necessities items and lobby for contribution(s) from caring citizenry and proactively reached out to needy fellow citizens. Give our less fortunate fellow citizens the sense of warmth, bring back the 50’s, 60’s and 70’s community camaraderie. Certain actions can be done at citizenry level albeit some may comment that “it is the government job” and there are charitable organizations such as Red Cross…etc that already been doing this. If the government is willing to assist, that will be most welcome, if not, that’s fine too. If other charitable organization(s) would like to join force to come to aide the less fortunate fellow mates, that too is also welcome. If the majority are still maintaining the “care for myself” and “its the government job” mindset, then everything will stand still and similarly whatever had been said here about being caring and compassionate towards our less fortunate needy fellow citizens are nothing but empty words. Every small effort of community camaraderie counts. Who knows, this little effort may have ripple effects and great influence. Good cause is often worth a try.

91) Observer
Yes, why not?

TOC has to build on all these suggestions if not it will be a big waste.
I’m sure there are many of us out here waiting to give our support.

“87) Gilbert Goh Keow Wah on October 30th, 2008 3.33 pm
If Obama wins, he may only have less than 55% of the votes. 45% of the population may vote against him – a far less support than PAP gather during GE. Yet he is considered very popular among the US voters.”

Well, you have explained it very well also.

It is not how high a percentage a party can secure and then show off. It is the sense of fairness in the whole election system / process as perceived by the people.

I have notice a lot of debate about whether we should have a Westminister’s or Presidential style of political constructs. Both of these are what I refer to as representative political constructs.

The big question do people really want a representative political constructs?

Maybe what they really want is a benign dictatorship. So in which case, what they really want is the status quo.

Hi everyone,

Thanks for all the words of support for TOC – in this and other threads. I think it is more than just we who are in TOC who deserves the credit. Everyone who is speaking out now – even in the comments section – should be applauded. The articles on this blog is only part of TOC. The other – more important part, in my opinion – are the comments which readers take time to post.

I have been told once by someone who is involved with a govt think tank that he was grateful for the sensible comments he saw here during one of the debates on internet regulation. (“They were by far the most sensible ones I have seen” were his words.)

As for TOC taking on other roles, I think we should not lose sight of what we are – just a blog. (Someone even called us an opposition party!). And we have to keep to what we do best – speaking out and being a platform for others to speak out.

Many suggestions have been put to us – both here and through emails throughout these last two years. We are indeed very humbled by our readers’ faith in us. But it would take a huge amount of energy, time, manpower and resources (not to mention funding) if we were to do all that have been suggested.

So, we can only do those which are within our means.

But TOC is first and foremost a blog – one which is concerned about issues and which hopes to be able to provide criticism, suggestions and – yes – even rants occasionally. :)

But having said all that, TOC will always be a work-in-progress. It really depends on who comes on board TOC and shape it and bring it forward.

Right now, we are in need of certain people with certain skills – for example, an IT/web expert, graphics designer, and so on. If you wanna give us a hand, please do email us at: theonlinecitizen@gmail.com .

Please do continue to visit with us and also help us spread the word to your friends, families, colleagues and even strangers.. :)

Thanks, everyone.

Regards,
Andrew Loh

Thank you all for the views which are enlightening to read.

However after what had happened since 1965, there will never be an alternative government for the next 20 years or even more.
The best chance of credible opposition came about in the 1970s – but that bunch of professionals for good reasons could not rise to the occasion and most of them are in various non political positions now serving the Government as well.

The present ground swell will impact the next general and elected president (if there is a competition) election. At the end of the day the Government will try to be friendier in its policies to citizens, that is all.

Ah Kow

To be honest, who doesn’t want a model government that cares for its people and makes enlightened decisions, without the messiness and (frequently, in Asia) corruption that usually accompanies any of the ‘Western’ style democracy?

Give me an enlightened benign dictatorship any day man! I don’t have to think!

Unfortunately, a system like that depends very much on a ’strongman’. If the strongman passes on, you will not have the ‘enlightened’ and ‘benign’ anymore. Just the dictatorship. And we all know that people in power will enjoy being in power and refuse to step down. And unfortunately, the nation, because it’s used to having everything decided by this strongman, will not have the right antibodies in the form of a strong opposition, or politically aware individuals to deal with the downward spiral.

That’s why a full fleged democracy, for all its failings, is still the best form of government. True you will get your Bushes and your Chen Shui Bians, but they can only be in power for so long, and mess things up for so long before the electorate wakes up and kicks them, or their chosen successors out.

“94) Tan Ah Kow on October 30th, 2008 5.19 pm

Maybe what they really want is a benign dictatorship.”

Benign dictatorship ? These words are so oxymoron. Do you call someone who uses a stick more to beat everyone who disagrees and as a result gets into power benign.

Like to make two assertion here; one in response to Zefly(Post#57) and that is I opine that amongst all the PAP Cohorts, Lee Kuan Yew, Goh Chok Tong are heads and shoulders above the Rest. They are indeed talents to me anytime, unfortunately, there are only two and both are old. Both are very serious, imposing, stiff and unaffable but super effective in pushing through their agenda. If only they are(were) more caring and loving toward their citizens, Singapore would have been a very nice country.

When one looks at them at gatherings and on television, it is obvious that people around LKY and GCT behaved like as though they(people) were meeting the emperor. They appeared grave and extremely timid, very solemn so to say. It seemed that people can’t be relaxed when LKY and GCT were around.

It will be a problem for Singapore when LKY and GCT are no more in the Cabinet, for they have no peer to replace them. Unless, there are replacements, their(PAP) concerns for leadership handover is indeed a very serious concern.

As regard opposition parties and their calibres in Singapore, the present situation is such that there are none large enough to even compete in 50% of the Constituencies. Even combining all the Opposition Candidates to contest all the available seats, none will be able to form a government.

If Singaporeans are hopeful for a change of government, there is a dire need for professionals who are willing to contribute to the political ideals to step forward to work for the people and themselves(for an ideal and not a profession).

patriot

Zefly (97),

I am in full agreement with you statement. But if we try to extrapolate from this sentiment and apply to the situation AS-IS now to Singapore and Gerald’s commentary, I have more questions:

(a) Benign dictatorship

Whilst you and I may understand the rationale for representative political constructs, the bigger question, do the wider constituent of Singapore appreciate this?

If majority trend in Singapore is to go for a benign dictatorship then the diagnosis/prognosis presented by Gerald’s — “What the opposition fails to see” — is purely redundant.

Quite clearly, there is no point for alternative views and by that logic no point for opposition other than to say for disgruntle to let off steam. If the opposition has to chime with the electorate to win power under current system, then it will have to simply be in tune with the status quo, which then begs the question what is opposition for?

(b) Representative constructs

Assume that there is agreement:

- the need for a representative political construct;

- on the mechanics of the representative one, let say for argument sake, there is an agreement that the Presidential style is one to go for.

Now return to Gerald’s point about what opposition should be doing. The question is how?

Do we do it from inside the PAP?

But that itself begs a number of questions. The PAP itself is not really a political party in the sense that it’s leadership are elected from the party. The party itself no longer vote for its leadership but are parachuted in from outside the party. Now you have the situation where the leadership itself selects who it wants to be in the leadership. It is not a contest between factions nor is the party, like in the US a coalition of a wide sweep of political views. So how do you start to change the party?

If change is to come from inside the PAP, than opposition parties becomes redundant.

If the opposition is to make the change, do we do it the “step-by-step” electoral way?

You win one GRC, then two, then three and then win a majority. Of course, you have to work under current rules and “fear” ridden climate. Assuming the rules don’t change when you threaten. But it is one thing to win parliament, what about other state institutions, such as the judiciary, military and other law enforcement agencies, what about non-state GLC’s?

To be voted you need to win hearts and minds? But whose hearts and minds? If you have electorate with the kind of mindset like Gerald’s Uncle, than how do you begin to start? On the other hand, what about people who do not think like Gerald’s Uncle?

It is often said that opposition party don’t win elections but for incumbent to loose. In that case, it seemed change can only come when things under the PAP starts to crumble. It is a kind of tough love for the electorate approach.

What the opposition needs to do is not bother to win elections or hearts and mind but let the people suffer when the PAP mismanaged. But in the meantime just spend time formulate alternative policy (even if it is a radical one) or make sure PAP don’t hide its failing through its compliant media. Is this strategy workable?

There are so many people down here with good ideas. It wouldn’t take a genius to find or test platforms to provide alternatives.

If one can pass the TOC smell test, I’m sure one can convince the electorate of one’s platform.

I want to bring out the political situation in Australia again.
Since the new Rudd govt came into power, many Aussies are unhappy. He is trying to push through unpopular but necessary policies such as revamping the educational system. The new system can even give the govt power to sack teachers and principals. Looking at the current education system here, a real shaking up seems necessary. Nevertheless, the strong Teacher’s Union protested and even put up TV advertisement to protest against such changes! I got a shock when I saw those advts on TV criticising the govt stance. There is a check system here but I think things can go out of hand.
In fact, those who voted for the new govt regretted as inflation hits sky high and people were having a very bad time paying 8% mortgage interest rate loan and cost of services went up. Some even clamoured for the past Howard govt to return to lead them again during the next election.
Generally, pensioners felt left out as inflation has eaten into their pension fund. They wanted more money in their pension fund. Infrastructure is also lacking here as there is not money left for new railway lines and stations. THe welfare state has suffered from providng to much money to pensioners, single parents, unemployed and the aged.
The political event there taught me a lesson or two chief of which is we can’t please all the voters. There will be some who will feel left out of the system and some who will benefit from it. The trick is to “please” the majority so that the govt will get elected again into power. I dount they can please every voter here. There will be some percentage that will always be unhappy about the govt.
It is true that the current govt in Singapore has being lacking in the softer touch of governance. They have literally force medicine down our throat burning some in the process. I can’t see how the people can rise up like the Thais, Indonesians, Malaysians or Filipinos and do something about the situation.
Unless one can gather a large group of few hundreds to a thousand at HLP to protest against certain governmental issue, I think there is nothing much we can do except at the polls in 2011. I am sure by then, nothing much will change and the same party will be swept into power again. There is not much better option here with an inept opposition movement.
History has shown that countries with huge mass movement of people demonstrating in the streets often will bring forth changes in governance. From the French Revolution to the recent Thai people-power movement, these are known events that have brought forth the toppling of government. Are we ready for that? I dont think so as we will be too scared to do that firstly and secondly the authorities won’t allow that to happen. Such revolutions will likely also bring forth bloodshed as often they will turn violent.

“100) Tan Ah Kow on October 30th, 2008 7.05 pm

Whilst you and I may understand the rationale for representative political constructs, the bigger question, do the wider constituent of Singapore appreciate this?

If majority trend in Singapore is to go for a benign dictatorship then the diagnosis/prognosis presented by Gerald’s”

It is imperative that the wider constituent of Singapore appreciate it and a ’system’ must exist for this appreciation to take place. Do we actively encourage this or even mildly encourage this ? Ownership of national matters should be widespread rather than concentrated in a few hands.

If the majority happens to decide for a ‘benign dictatorship’ in a fair system, so be it as it is the people’s wish. However, it must not be a case where a ‘benign dictatorship’ & its partners in arms clobber out a system to self-perpetuate itself to the exclusion of the majority. A person with a stick (or a gun) can easily control ten people or more into subservience (e.g prison).

OBSERVER (SG-HK) (#88) said

Here are two of the many questions that I will ask and assess the resolution plan before casting if given a chance to vote.

I shall be writing another article to address this point. We have to prepare for a change of Government, if this becomes necessary one day. We cannot depend on one party, one style, all the time. We need to be resilient and be able to accommodate an alternative, if this can serve the people better. Let the people choose.

Gilbert,

think the question is more of whether there will be huge mass of people demonstrating on the streets to bring forth governance change. for a democracy to succeed, clearly there must be enough people that want it to happen. hence, all humans strive for democracy isn’t that true considering that some of the anti government protests in Thailand are arguing for a change in electoral system, in other words what they are fighting for isn’t a form of government that is more democratic but rather something that suit their interests.

While your argument is right on revolutions bring bloodshed, this alone does not account for the failed forms of governance that resulted in these uprisings in the first place. Authorities too have had a part to play in many of these instances of bloodshed.

As for the issue in Singapore, I think it will be a long time that we will see mass demonstrations, firstly due to the repressive sanctions in place that discourage such events from happening and secondly that, there are a sizeable majority of Singaporeans that do not want to see any chance in the near future.

Regarding the point of electoral system, i think with a fair amount of assumption that with the concentration of power in a small group of people, even with different forms of governments it would be fair to say that it really, really doesn’t matter.

“The trick is to “please” the majority so that the govt will get elected again into power. I dount they can please every voter here.”

Surely at your level as someone who has travelled and seen much, you could rather have easily decided to place the inverted commas on the word MAJORITY .

In Singapore, the Legislative, executive and judiciary are under one party control. This is truly an unbalanced form of governance where checks and balance are simply not up to mark. There is no longer any incentive to check each branch of power since they shared the same party leadership. To put simply, will the left hand hit the right hand vice versa?

A US system will be more balanced with each branch having its own unique powers given under the constitution, and will have certain influence over each other. No one party can wield full control over all three branches and most of them are elected by the people except appointments for cabinet and US supreme judges(lifetime) put forth by President must be approved by the senate. Even bills proposed had to be approved by Lower House and only can be signed into LAW by the President who can veto or can be override by 2/3 majority of the House. There is alot of cooperation and discussion in a US two party system and pbi-partisan is always required to get things done so that nothing is compromised. People will benefit the most!

In my own view, our Singapore system is so perverted and under heavy if not full control of a single party. Top down manner and non-discussion attitude and i know whats best for you kind of approach really stinks! How long must sinkies suffer in order to understand that there are many systems which we can adopt and modify for our own use and heck care this current well oiled machine as mentioned by MM. Is it really the model forward? I will no longer support a One Party system with 95% control of parliament, appoint “Elected” President with walkover and PAP friendly Justice. What a JOKE! Who allowed these to happen? Gullible Singaporeans who believe the more good years and golden period and more money to line your pockets! Time to wake up!

FG

thanks gerald for the article. it has broaden my views and understand some of our citizens concerns of the current political system.

gemami (#12):

“We cannot blame the generation of opposition leaders like JBJ. Their generation do not have tools like what we have now, for example, the internet. They have to go to the street corners to sell themselves and what they stand for.”

true. news spread faster and easier on internet. but news do not necessary reach all singapore citizens. the ordinary uncles who drink kopi at kopi tiam, aunties who go to market, are they aware of all these news? the chinese educated, is there a platform like onlinecitizen for them to express their views? there’s still a need to go in the streets to empower these people, to hear their views.

Alternative Opposition Supporter (#14):

agreed. we shouldn’t oppose policies made by the govt for the sake of opposing. (there’s another article that further discuss this point). instead, we want alternative voices in the government, voices that rely the views of the ordinary citizen in the street, not plainly the elites.

singlish (#74):

“Well as guess that the older generation Singaporean feels that the PAP has done a good job. Bringing people from squatters to HDB flats.”

in fact, it wasn’t PAP that came up with the ideas of relocating our people into HDB. it was Albert Winsemius (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Winsemius) who came up with the ideas. he has also proposed many sound economical policies that advanced singapore economy.

Gilbert (#87):

“Nevertheless, as I compared to people in Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines and CAmbodia, Australia are they happier than me?”

i would like to ask gilbert, have you visited these countries? i haven’t. but i have stayed in laos for 3 weeks. the villagers were contented with what they had. they live a carefree lifestyle, and happy with what they have. happiness is subjective.

our govt is managing singapore, not thailand or malaysia that you have mentioned. not to forget, our current govt is now managing an economy that already has sound fundamental (if you would agree with me) built by our forefathers. other than ensuring economic progress in the country, i am more concerned with what the govt can do more to care more about our citizens, to answer the concerns of our citizens.

observer (#88):

thanks for the contributions. i am sure these are some of the concerns of our people too.

“1) How is the new government(s) going to address and ensure that the NATIVE citizenry basic necessities (Housing, Utilities, Water, Medical, Insurance, Food…etc) are priced at an affordable level (including the have nots).”

no one knows what the govt will do in future to help our citizens cope the raising cost of basic necessities. but currently, the authorities seems to be pro-companies and allow exhorbitant hikes in our utilities.

gilbert (#102):

“History has shown that countries with huge mass movement of people demonstrating in the streets often will bring forth changes in governance. From the French Revolution to the recent Thai people-power movement, these are known events that have brought forth the toppling of government. Are we ready for that? I dont think so as we will be too scared to do that firstly and secondly the authorities won’t allow that to happen. Such revolutions will likely also bring forth bloodshed as often they will turn violent.”

i hope such day don’t arrive. singapore is able to attract investments because of its socio-political stability.
i believe in peaceful resolution.

“As for the issue in Singapore, I think it will be a long time that we will see mass demonstrations, firstly due to the repressive sanctions in place that discourage such events from happening and secondly that, there are a sizeable majority of Singaporeans that do not want to see any chance in the near future.”

Your two statements are at odds. If there are repressive sanctions in place, how would we know that there are sizeable majority of Singaporeans who do not want to see any chance in the near future. The very platform which allows such visibility to be known is delibrately made to be scare or non-existent.

Every political party have their own problems. They have different strengths and weakness. Integrity in individual and should not be viewed as a party.

In my opinion which can be wrong, I do not think that the current leadership has the same passion, charisma and integrity compared to those of the first generation. The very team who fought from ground zero.

110) The People’s on October 30th, 2008 9.45 pm
In my opinion which can be wrong, I do not think that the current leadership has the same passion, charisma and integrity compared to those of the first generation. The very team who fought from ground zero.

There is a famous chinese saying goes, However great and successful 1 person can bring in would not be able to sustained more than 3 generations.
i.e.
1st generation = The old guards representing that 1 hardworking person = success 10 years
2nd generation = The old guards+new guards representing that 1 group = sustaining 10 years
3rd generation = The new guards+brand new ones representing failing time 10 years times up

funny but true

blade #108

I do believe in peaceful resolution and I too believe that sane minded and civic minded citizenry do not advocate change under chaotic revolution. It is neither healthy for the country, the economy and most importantly the entire population of Singapore.

Looking at the current economic outlook, recession is unavoidable (I hope I am dead wrong on this) and will stretch throughout 2009 and early 2010. I sure hope by then the global economy will return to a sane state. During these tough time, all will be hit but the hardest hit will be the have nots (that is certainly a grave concern). Is the government doing anything to help this group of citizenry, I think so and hope so.

Awhile back I have made an open plea in this blog twice to the ministers (I hope they are reading) and suggesting that in the event of a global recession, to have an interim solution without breaching their believes of turning Singapore into a welfare state.

My suggestion had been to temporary allow early withdrawal of citizenry CPF funds to a maximum amount of SGD25K for the next 3 years for the estimated 2 million plus working citizenry to help us weather through this recession and the relentless price hike of the basic necessities (PUB, House Rental, S&C, Property Tax…etc).

i am not a finance trained person but I did make a rough estimation over a three year period and assuming the government went with the suggestions, it adds up to approximately SGD694/month per person over a 36 months period (generally enough cover if not ease the cash flow). To avoid any abuse (i.e. withdrawal made are not use to cover those cost item mentioned), they could directly deduct from our CPF accounts (similar to the GIRO payment). This I felt is feasible and did not breach their principle policy of not turning Singapore into a welfare state (becaue we are indeed making early withdrawal of our own money).

The total withdrawal of CPF over this 3 year period for the 2 miliion will add to some SGD50billion but the numbers wll be lower if it applies on a household (appointed account) basis. This is roughly 17% of our National Reserves (including the CPF funds). If they can bailout (in their terms would be invested) foreign banks, I think it is not too much to ask of them to spare a thought or two on this noble idea. I may have over simplifying the issue (on the bureaucratic process of approving), or they may think this proposition is overly extremed to adopt that is not worht a mention. But isn’t it true that sometime adverse circumstances requires adverse resolution?

For those less fortunate and truly needy (i.e those that not even having any CPF or lesser CPF fund), the government can help by topping it up. I am sure citizenry not belonging to this class will not mind even if this top up sum is to be funded (with proportionally spread) by the more fortunate citizenry. May be I am too naive to have this thought?. I sure hope someone will help bring this up to the constituency MP to explore the possibility.

105) laserpointer on October 30th, 2008 9.17 pm noted:

As for the issue in Singapore, I think it will be a long time that we will see mass demonstrations, …..

If we expand the point of mass demonstration to say political change, it will be presumptions to assume that things can’t change quickly, even in so called “stable” political environment. Given the opaqueness of the system, we can’t be sure what is really happening beneath the cover, so to speak. It could be a situation not dissimilar to a long thought dormant volcano erupting.

….there are a sizeable majority of Singaporeans that do not want to see any chance in the near future. — laserpointer

Again if the stable situation in Singapore were to change suddenly than who is to say the group of people wouldn’t change their mind.

Ok some is going to say the PAP is not going away soon, so no change need to be expected.

Bear this in mind, Lehman Brothers was thought to be a blue chip institution. Tripe A rated, blah, blah, blah. Look at what happened to it virtually overnight?

Now when the activists ( personally, I would like to assign some credit to the SDP for this but others may disagree, which is not the topic here) fought for relaxation of demonstration, and the PAP decide to do so in Hong Lim park, many wondered such a relaxation will be exploited.

In a short space of time, we see what tantamount to a demonstration (by aggrieved people whom I am sure would not dream of demonstrating), or to be Politically Correct, l let’s call it a mass assembly of the “High Note” people who had so much faith in blue chip institution!

So you see unexpected event can happen overnight.

How Singaporeans can view the Present Leaders differently from the So-called ‘First Generation’ Leadership is beyond my comprehension.

Is the Present Leadership not working under the watchful eyes of the almighty MM Lee Kuan Yew? Some Citizens proclaimed to be the ‘Founding Father’.

Are people suggesting that the Present Leaders are independent of the Minister Mentor?

Change the Government from within by joining PAP and without by joining Oppositions? Will change be realized within the next 25 years?

Benign Dictatorship sounds a lot more hopeful.

Allow me to digress; I am a pessimistic Singaporean long ago when I felt that the Leadership was bent on embarking on the road to materialism, it shows the inclination quite early(or so it appeared to me intuitively). I became more pessimistic after the Last Election and tried to decipher the being of the Singapore Nationhood.

Using the Chinese Language to divine base on the common use of the English Language and its’ effects on the fast evolving Local Culture, it led me to the conclusion that we are now ‘bu dong bu si’ = ‘bu si dong si’ which resulted in no being(nationhood) . Translated into English ‘bu dong bu si’ means ‘neither here nor there’ which equals to ‘nowhere’ meaning nationhood did not, does not and will not exist. BUT, when the MINISTER MENTOR ocassionally mentioned merger with Malaysia, my spirit becomes alive again.

Yes, there is a possible alternative in the Political Development and I wish it to materialize before I die!

I am serious with myself but You can laugh at my nonsense.

patriot

observer (#112):

i can see that you have a concrete plan for this recession. just to clarify, we are currently in technical recession, defined as two quarters of negative growth. though no large retrenchment yet, the situation could be worse in the next few quarters.

i am sure the govt is looking at ways to boost our economy, to tide us through the recession, but i am not sure the proposal that you’ve mentioned will work out.

we are not sure of the exact sum of reserve singapore has and the portfolio of our investments of our reserve fund. if the bulk is invested in equities (which i believe so, since our gic investment has been giving good returns), with the current battered stock prices, we would be huge paper loss. not to forget the reserve set aside for the bank deposit guarantee.

the proposal also does little to help the lower income and the lower-medium income. for home owner, most would need to top up their cpf just to repay their housing loan. they would not have excess cash in the cpf to draw upon.

but i would not say the proposal is totally unworkable. maybe some criteria can be set to allow citizens who are facing difficult times to draw on this cpf. but more study has to be done to see on how much reserve need to be set aside for this purpose and how many people will benefit from this proposal.

the threat of global recession is very real. let us unite and brainstorm for more ideas to tide us through this difficult times. those who are more well-to-do and employers, lend a helping hand to those who are going through this difficult times.

Mr Tan, just wanted to highlight Philippines has the same model as the US. as such a system worked for Philippines? – lim (#15)

Whatever the form of representative democracy chosen, there has to be a good distribution of credible politicians and competent leaders among the various political parties. Our own parliamentary system would work fine as long as PAP has less than 2/3 of the seats.

Yet if the opposition wants our votes, they need a menu that can attract us to visit, more importantly order and later perhaps, continue to visit. Gombak and Nee Soon Central branches managed the first but not the last. Why do people continue for PP and Hougang? – lim (#18)

The issue here is that the a single opposition party or unified opposition coalition must offer an alternative menu that is all encompassing to the PAP, and that they must be contesting in GRCs and SRCs too. Yet at the same time, the Opposition must be contesting at least 60% of the GRCs and SRCs, so there is a chance that Opposition can form a parliamentary majority. Only then, the likelihood of the Opposition menu to materialise would be credible enough for people to vote. We also need the Opposition to demonstrate thought leadership.

I do not like the Signapore system of GRCs and walkovers. – Tan Kin Lian (#22)

If PAP won a GRC by walkover, there is no certainty that PAP would have won 100% of the GRC votes if the GRC were to be actually contested.

Having seen so many neighbouring countries suffer politically, they have learnt that democracy may not be good for the state and probably not for their own political survival. For example, we see how countries like Malaysia, Indonesia, Thailand and Philippines suffered for their democratic politics – Gilbert (#26)

For democracy to work, there has to be a good distribution of competent leaders, credible politicians among the various political parties. At the same time, the electorate must be sophisticated enough to understand what they are voting for and what issues they ought to be concerned. Sometimes Singaporeans are too apathetic to realise what is important until their wallet has been burned. By then, it is already too late. This is where civil society plays an important role – to raise the standard of sophistication among the electorate.

Look at the US. Whether or not the next US President will be a democrat or republican, nobody sees it as a sign of political stability because people are confident regardless who wins the Presidency, the USA will still do fine. In the case of Phillipines or Thailand, nobody trusts the government regardless which politcal party becomes the ruling party. The issue lies with leadership, credibility and competence.

In the UK, the Opposition is called “Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition”, while the ruling party is called “Her Majesty’s Government”. Perhaps we can consider following their nomenclature (minus the Her Majesty part, of course). – Gerald Giam (#38)

We have an elected/walkover President in Singapore. Since the President is addressed as “His Excellency”, we could call the Opposition “His Excellency’s Loyal Opposition” and call the ruling party “His Excellency’s Government”.

I’m not so sure Singaporeans feel the need to form illegal assemblies to protest the rights of political parties or certain individuals to hold illegal assemblies. I’m not so sure Singaporeans feel the need to sell political newspapers on roadsides. In fact, Singaporeans get criticised nonetheless. – lim (#36)

Do you know a frog can be boiled alive if the water is heated slowly enough? But if you put a frog in boiling water, it won’t jump out. It will die.

Idealistic as it may be, I feel what (or who) we need is a great leader figure (a ‘hero’ if you will…) who is charismatic enough to connect with the ’swing voters’ whom i believe make up a huge percentage of the voting population. Definitely not the CSJ type, as you put it. I recognise his contributions to the cause but no, he is not the one. – chorus (#43)

Mainstream media in Singapore is pretty biased, especially when you have former ISD agents heading the political desk. Perhaps you should meet the man himself and talk to him before you agree with mainstream media that CSJ is indeed incompetent. Whatever CSJ is doing, it does not benefit him or SDP economically. Unlike the PAP who needs high renumeration to prevent them from turning corrupt.

Blade, you bringing up the recession topic just made me remember a talk I had with my reservist-mate not so long ago. Now, the dude is like pro-pragmatic, and not a bleeding hearts liberal like me. To him, feeding the people is important to hell with free speech etc etc. I mentioned about the economy. I said our economic model isn’t going to work in the long run. It’s been said that our only resource is our people… and the thing is, even people are finite resources! I believe in the bid to be ultra competitive and attractive, our people are being stressed too much already. Like someone in the thread said – are we better off today than our parents were?

Then my friend told me, we have no choice, gahmen no choice, China and India are on the rise and they will be so cheap that you hire one Singaporean you can hire ten Indians. I do not dispute that because it’s true. It’s happening.

I know this sounds naive, but we.. and our leaders have to think outside the box now. Not just merely being the middle-man of the world or something. What’s the difference between what we do now, and decades ago when our primary income is from us being a port-of-call? We have to go from middle-men to creators and pioneers of ‘products’ that the rest of the world wants.

Zefly (#117),

Your friend doesn’t sound pro-pragmatic. He sounds bitter.

blade,

I agree a lot of refinements are indeed needed to make this WILD & NAIVE propisiton work.

Actually, when I first toy with this wild idea as a concerned citizen, I wanted to factor in the “hope & dream” of a nation coordinated effort; IF and only IF those government or government link institutions (HDB, TC, PUB) will hold off the price hike (in particular PUB ~ you know what i mean), and HDB (rentals and loans)and TC (SC) waived charges for a few months (and offer a rebate to those who have completed their housing loan), a kind of multiple coordination effort (IF they are really thinking for the citizenry who in MM’s word in response to VB, “the hardworking and disciplined built all of this (today’s Singapore)”, it will certainly help ease cash strapped citizenry. But when I put in these thoughts, I can almost sense their eyebrows raised and short of outtering “Are you NUTS!”.

As for our national reserves estimates, I am taking the market researched face value info on SWF (Singapore is number 3 with some USD300+ billion), and assuming we incurred paper lost 40% of its value through this Global Financial Tsunami (thanks to US with those twisted sub-prime and derivative, CDSs investment products and under regulation on housing loan…etc) I am guessing and the government and ministries are the ones holding the keys and have all the information and expertise to drill through (IF only IF they are conscience enough to do).

Anyway, I sure hope it is just a technical recession (but honestly and I am not a pessimist, it is here to stay and stay it will for a long while). I certainly feel the heat here in Hong Kong and the Hong Kong Government is doing all it can (hopefully they come up with some good solutions) to maintain and boost market confidence (with a little help from China).

Regardless of whether it is just a technical recession or it will evolve into a real long recession rivaling if not surpassing the 1930s US recession, I sure hope the most needy SIngapore citizenry and lower income or less fortunate group are spared of this odeal with the “HELP” of this government. Far fetch? I still hope they have their conscience and I believe there are some MPs concerned and care enough to do something.

I am totally in agreement with you, let’s unite “wherever you may be” and throw up some ideas however wild it may be. It certainly beats sidelining. Really appreciate TOC for providing this platform for an open discourse.

Donaldson Tan on October 30th, 2008 11.49 pm noted:

Look at the US. Whether or not the next US President will be a democrat or republican, nobody sees it as a sign of political stability because people are confident regardless who wins the Presidency, the USA will still do fine. In the case of Phillipines or Thailand, nobody trusts the government regardless which politcal party becomes the ruling party. The issue lies with leadership, credibility and competence.

Just to expand on your point about US political system and the choice of US President.

Firstly, in the US the two major political parties are not monolithic parties to speak of. The parties are in fact coalition of fairly like-minded groupings, which you can at best broadly speaking classify as either left or right wing. But in each party there are different factions. When it comes to voting in congress or the senate, you often find cross party voting. Party members don’t necessarily vote on party lines depending on the issue of the day.

Secondly, to stand for election as a US president you not only need to win support from your party but also outside the party. You see anyone standing for election as US president you need to go through a series of primaries (elected to have the right under a party banner). Some primaries in some states are confined to party members and in some state, it is also open non-party member. So in effect, you could have Republicans deciding who they want to stand as a democratic opponent and vice versa. For example, you could have a situation where Colin Powell (Republican) endorsing Barak Obama (Democrat).

Thirdly, to stand for election, you need funding. Such funding don’t just come from the party but also outside the party. So here you need to campaign for that as well. That means you must also win the hearts and minds of voters but also the wallets and cash of donors!

Hi guys thanks for all the interesting comments here. Again, I learn alot just from reading this blog and really must thank TOC for providing this opportunity.
Frankly, we are in for tough times and it maybe a true test of how our govt will respond to the ground. Should it approached the current situation as before i.e you have to fend for yourself with limited assistance or I will help you to the best of my limits?

I remember during 9/11 and the Sars period, many people were laid off and people suffered for a good twyo years before thigns got better. I was one of the victims of that fall out. There were cries of prematured withdrawal of the CPF monies and the govt refused giving very good reasons. Before that, there was also a early election which the govt won handsomely as people all want stability and familiarity during down time. This is next the time to mess around with another government taking over.

I actually turned bitter during that period as I did not see much assistance being rendered not only to myself but many of my friends. I also asked myself should i as a citizen rely on the govt to help me out during tough times? This ambivalence prevailed during this period of unemployment and my support for the ruling party also was shakened up.

Welfare benefits at CDC (Community Development Council) were only extended to HDB 4-roomers and below. You also have to go and see an officer who will investigate your case and this may take 4-6 weeks before you get some form of assistance. Normally, it is between $200-$400 for a duration of 3 months depending on the size of your family. If you want an extension, you have to reapply. You may think that all this is a joke and not many people will apply for such welfare benefits but you are wrong. Long queues formed in most CDCs and times were very difficult. I see many friends downgrading their homes and became taxi drivers when they were senior managers in big corporations.

Will the same thing happened in this crisis? IT looks likely and our govt may approach the situation with a “bochap” attitude as they have always advocate for self reliance despite the odds. However, what can we do? Demonstrate in HLP? Sign another on-line petition of ten thousand Singaporeans and submit it to the PM? We can try but I doubt this may move the govt stance. They are too entrenched in their mentality to do much down the line for the jobless. They will ask you to go to CDC for welfare if you qualified.

The young executives will suffer less as if they are laid off, they can depend on their parents. Breadwinners with young children will suffer more. I hope that this huge flow of discontentment during tough time will actually swing the votes to the opposition and they should seize this historical moment to stand out. However, I can see that they are very quiet and am disappointed that they have fail to seize the advantage here to speak up openly for Singaporeans on a regular basis.

@Dear laserpointer and Tan Ah Kow

I was refering to the point that someone pointed out earlier regarding mass revolutions. My point on mass demonstration was refering to that, that is mass mobilization of a large number of people towards a goal of attaining a certain societal change, so I don’t suppose in the near future there will be a sudden uprising of people that demonstrate against having a GRC system? That’s my point.

Like what Tan Ah Kow has pointed out, i see it more of historical events that allows for the mobilization of the masses. As for my point regarding mass demonstrations and sanctions, yes yes it’s hard to gauge whether people want it…. but my point is that 40 over years of rule you cannot underestimate the efficacy of the state machinery. I’m sure most singaporeans are unhappy with the PAP one way or another, but to say that they would want to vote against the party or demand that overnight there be a change in government, it’s a bit hard to say. Dissatisfaction does not naturally translate to political action.

Regarding the point on US electoral system, perhaps it has not been mentioned that the vast number of MNCs holds tremendous lobbying power in the pursuit of their own interests, i could point out examples of nixion, the tobacco, arms and healthcare industry. Even though there’s a possibility of change, but the robustness of these coporations to influence american politics cannot be dismissed. Sufficed to say, maybe and just maybe obama and mcain’s hands are tied as to what they can do.

Har… even my Dad thinks and says likewise about the PAP. I wonder how much have been ingrafted into their minds when they were growing up.

“4-legs good, 2-legs bad.”

I think our generation are a more priviledge bunch to be exposed to other alternative thoughts and reading. For my father and your uncle’s time, it was a survival mentality. But we have to move on… staying with what we have is just like stagnant water attracting mosquitoes, which bodes ill only and will be a downfall of may political partys and dynasties.

Putting that aside, I am always in favour of a 2-party system. To have shadow ministers from opposite party so that the people will have a choice who is the better person running the ministry and ultimately to form the government.

For Singapore, much information are withheld. It is difficult to pry and obtain information to be released to the public, ie CPF, GIC, Town Councils, budget and finance info, etc. It will be an uphill task for any opposition to fight toe-to-toe with any given MP backed by funds, human resources, fingertip information. You name it, you have it.

To lose to an alternative party in Singapore is akin to a slap in the face because the odds of losing is so small. For anyone to be an NMP is an astounding success in my opinion given the layers of walls to climb up/break through. So I applaud Sylvia Lim and Steve Chia because it is no mean feat.

My ideal government would be PAP still in power but not a majority holding. They have to fight tooth and nail to get a policy implemented, against an alternative policy that an opposition has come up with in a 2-party parliament.

And ministries should NOT be politically biased but must serve the people – be it to provide information to both incumbent and opposition party. But that is wishful thinking in Singapore.

I strong believe in letting the viewers and voters decide which party will bring out better policies.

Regards,
Kaffein

#123 Kaffien

“I think our generation are a more priviledge bunch to be exposed to other alternative thoughts and reading. For my father and your uncle’s time, it was a survival mentality. But we have to move on… staying with what we have is just like stagnant water attracting mosquitoes, which bodes ill only and will be a downfall of may political partys and dynasties.”

I think you hit the nub of why Singaporean voters continue to give the PAP resounding electoral success every time round. Most Singaporeans wade through life with alot of fear and uncertainty. They are unwilling to think out of the box and continue to have their worldview shaped by the PAP, and the PAP only. The government has successfully fostered this “survival mindset” on Singaporeans, that Singapore would not survive without the PAP having a vice-like grip on power.

But things will change for sure. Younger voters are definitely more open to alternative visions for Singapore.

Hi thanks again for al lthe interesting comments and observations. I feel that I have grown and learn alot here.

I am sure the young of today will definitely take more risk for change than the previous generation (post-65ers). I belonged to this group of post-65ers who fear for survival and has no hesitation to vote for the ruling party anytime.

Nevertheless, time has changed. As we head into our 40s and 50s, we fear again for our job and worse having no money to retire. Soe may continue to vote for the ruling party but I guess those who are dissatisfied with how things are coming to may vote otherwise.

I remembered during the latest GE which was just about 2 years ago, I attended most of the WP rallies and felt boasted and encouraged. The turn out was overwhelming and sometimes you have to go early as if not the stadium gate may shut on you.

Looking at the cadidates of the WP, it was an impressive lot. However, we all knew what happened. THe WP only returned one sole candidate in Mr Low KT back to Parliament and Sylvia as NMP. What happenedd? I asked. I was disappointed. The rallies and public outcry showed that there could be a wild swing against the ruling party. A GRC was supposed to fall to WP but it was not to be but the margin was close to less than 5%.

Most of my constuency’s WP candidates have left for abroad to work which is unfortunate as they could have build on the result of the recent GE. They have 40+% votes and that is no mean feat. They have to work harder to get an extra 5% to achieve victory for the next election.

I am unsure what will happen to the next GE in 2011. Now, overseas voters can vote and I am sure that could be a big swing factor against the ruling party. Those who venture abroad tend not to be in favour of supporting the ruling party for various reasons. Some went abroad for economic reason,s some for their children education whereas others simply fled in disdain at how the country was ran.

Will our young voters vote otherwise? I don’t know. The post-65ers may now hold the swing votes that can decide whether the ruling party may win in a GRC or not.

“Most of my constuency’s WP candidates have left for abroad to work which is unfortunate as they could have build on the result of the recent GE. They have 40+% votes and that is no mean feat. They have to work harder to get an extra 5% to achieve victory for the next election.”

As WP work the ground, they can send their families to you – grandparents and children and all, you help take care of them while they work the ground, ok? Then they can go knock on doors and visit voters 24 hrs a day without a job.

We also need more volunteers for the same thing when the SDP / TBT-18 goes to jail for us Sinkaporeans. I see a lot of potential volunteers here.

Hi Fellow Singaporeans;

I read socio-political blogs for the last two over years and experienced first hand the tentative efforts put in by netizens for a more politically correct(caring and loving leadership) society. Before the Net, I used my eyes and ears which I still do.

There is a difference using my organs to see and listern and reading the Net. There is a lot more detailed discussions, debates, arguments and ideas and ideals in the Net, whereas verbal exchanges tend to be short, candid and more resigned to the existing conditions maybe even sincere. And there seems to be a perpetual fear that someone, somewhere is listening into the discussions, resulting in much restrained debates.

The live discussions are more candid, spontaneous and the greatest difference from the Net Discussions is that there are much less ideas(of ideals) on improving the present state of affairs. Maybe because I am more in the companies of the older, less progressive folks who are more careful of their words and also apprehensive of authority. The discussions are usually casual chats as well.

Now, let’s look at the Net Chats, criticisms, accusations, views and ideas are aplenty. Some more real than others, some require verifications, some ideas are too ideal to be practical and feasible. Some are suggested without considerations to constraints, either natural, regulated or purportedly created to moderate, restrict or prohibit resistance and opposition.

I like to say here that there are many bloggers seemingly sharing similar political and social ideals, but I am baffled that they do not have interactions. If they did, they are likely to be arguments, confrontations and personal accusations. I LIKEN THIS ASPECT TO THAT OF THE OPPOSITION POLITICIANS NOT ABLE TO WORK TOGETHER. Of course, as a whole, I find Singaporeans very individualistic and individually idealistic.

May I ask here, how many here are willing to pool your ideas, make an effort to meet, fraternize and get together to work out something???

patriot

Patriot, Yeah, let’s call it

The United Brotherhood And SIsterhood For the Liberation Of Singapore From the Evil Forces Of Evilness And Other Non-Good Things, Human Beings, Ideas and Beliefs So That The Citizens, Permanent Residents Immigrants, Legal and Illegal As Well As Sex Workers On Tour Passes Can Work, Play, Screw and Pray In Equality and Without Fear Amen.

Anyone who can come up with a shorter name is welcomed to. :)

To Patriot:

If I heard this correctly, this is just a blog for people to discuss political or social issues. I am unsure whether we want to meet up and do something i.e. act on what we share. I believe there is a real big gulf between sharing your ideas away in the comofrt of your air-con room and really coming out together and do smething about what we share.

Nevertheless, many political or social groups meet up as strangers and they gelled up fantastically. For example, that is how interest groups come about. They care for a single issue e.g. environment, animals and care enough to come together and act on their belief.

As we are talking about lolitics here, I am unsure how comfortable peole here are to really come out anad act on their concerns. Do they then start a party? Go to HLP and demonstrate? Sign petition or what?

It is good to hear from the others. BTW this is a good idea.

AS I am abroad in Sydney long term I cant really join you guys but be sure that my heart is with you guys.

Singapore should thanks Dr Albert Winsemius. Without his advises, don’t think PAP know how to start.

If you look carefully, Singapore is still functioning along Dr Albert Winsemius advices. Out of Dr Albert Winsemius prescription, PAP usually failed. Still remember the PAP promote DOT com dream, with alot of Singaporean actually going into DOT com which eventually collapsed. Then it was silence from the PAP after silicon V dream broken, Current, mini BOMB….

I think most Singaporean over-rate PAP. Maybe your uncle is right that he should leave Singaporean. Opposition or not, they are Singaporean. There is simply no logic for them to go against the odd for so many years and eventually intentionally send their own nation into sinking. However, I sense that PAP is more prone to be responsible for the collapse of this small DOT. Just like I sense that George Bush is going to bring trouble to the world when he was elected.

Kindly don’t talk cock about opposition bringing Singapore down. On neutral side, they might not be capable but don’t think they are stupid. As for CSJ, I believe this is his tactics of getting attention and awareness from Singapore. You might not like it and find him stupid, but that is your “thinking”. Don’t worry, continue your 60% vote to PAP. But do remember if one day like the NKF, PAP give this nation a unexpected. You drill deep into your head the fact that you are one of them to push this country to it’s edge.

122) laserpointer on October 31st, 2008 6.52 am , noted:

Regarding the point on US electoral system, perhaps it has not been mentioned that the vast number of MNCs holds tremendous lobbying power in the pursuit of their own interests, i could point out examples of nixion, the tobacco, arms and healthcare industry. Even though there’s a possibility of change, but the robustness of these coporations to influence american politics cannot be dismissed. Sufficed to say, maybe and just maybe obama and mcain’s hands are tied as to what they can do.

Ah I expected this old chestnut to follow my comment about American politics.

Before we start ascribing on which system is not influenced by this and that group, let us be clear that there is no political system on earth that is influenced by one group or another. There is no way in the “real world” that you can get a totally perfect free from bias political system.

The optimal system you can get is one where influences balance out. Hence, the idea of a democratic system that emphasise separation and balance of power. Also multiple eye-balls watching over each other (i.e. the concept of “freedom of speech”).

In the US, for example, not all corporations vote the same way. Even in our neighbour up north, the reason oppositions can thrive up there is because they have lots of SME that are prepared to support oppositions cause so they can be some (not necessarily equal) counterweight to their GLCs. Can the same be said about Singapore’s SME?

Look at the mighty PAP, for all it bluster about foreigners influence on local politics, why does it have foreigners sitting on the board of NWC?

(130) Dr Albert Winsemius on October 31st, 2008 4.42 pm

When people looked back at the PAP, and especially LKY, they seemed to look with a rose tinted glasses.

LKY for example has always been painted as the saviour of Singapore and for making Singapore what it is today.

People seemed to forget that it was he who wanted merger with Malaya to form Malaysia against the advised of some of his colleague. Now, if Singapore had not been kick of Malaysia, where would LKY be?

So really LKY success has to rest with then Malaysian administration for kicking us out, wouldn’t you say? Not really LKY’s foresight.

Put it this way. If LKY really know how to make Singapore what it is today. He will not even talk about merger with Malaysia. As a matter of facts, I think LKY think Singapore can achieve nothing without the backing of malaysia! Btw, he was not even the one that bring Singapore out of the British rule! For goodness …. He is tapping on other credits as it seems!

LKY (Singapore) was kick out of Singapore because the Malaysia Government know what he is up to and see him as a liability in long run (They were wise after all).

“Before we start ascribing on which system is not influenced by this and that group, let us be clear that there is no political system on earth that is influenced by one group or another. There is no way in the “real world” that you can get a totally perfect free from bias political system.

The optimal system you can get is one where influences balance out. Hence, the idea of a democratic system that emphasise separation and balance of power. Also multiple eye-balls watching over each other (i.e. the concept of “freedom of speech”). ”

Very good & clear explanation. In short, the benefits of managing national resources should be distributed and as widespread as possible and should not only be concentrated in a few hands. Enough people must be able to grasp the importance of such balance and they owe it to themselves to make an influence for such a system to materialize.

The above is fundamental as humans have a general tendency to work for a slightly more / or a lot more for their own / group interest rather than for others / other groups.

@Mr Tan Ah Kow

If i recall correct, our parliamentary system follows the british system. I’m not entirely sure as how similar the systems are… and if i recall correct too, that there used to be a time when our press was relatively free, operating under the same parliamentary system which is modelled after the british, ISA and such.

yet, after a while, things started changing. power and resources tend to be concentrated in an elite few. The same with malaysia i supposed.

What i’m driving at is, there are a few countries that based their rule of governance on the westminister model (hope the spelling is right), some are more democratic than others. If i recall correctly too, that there are separation of the legislative and the adminstrative models of government in england.

My point is, whatever systems there is, there’s bound to be some perversion of power and concentration of power in a few. This is where we should really look at, instead of arguing on the basis of an electoral model. My argument is, if there is a change of model of government tmr, how sure would you be that the “ex PAP” members would not be able to reclaim power through the new system?

The next thing is, the interest for democracy doesn’t apply universally to every groups, including the middle class that we speak of. I would presume too, that models of adminstration are not as universally applicable as they would seem too.

136) laserpointer on October 31st, 2008 6.44 pm:

If i recall correct, our parliamentary system follows the british system. I’m not entirely sure as how similar the systems are… and if i recall correct too, that there used to be a time when our press was relatively free, operating under the same parliamentary system which is modelled after the british, ISA and such.

You could say that our legislative system (i.e. the part that is responsible for making laws) was derived from the UK Parliamentary system. So in terms of FORM (i.e. procedures), there are many characteristics that seemed to be similar but in SUBSTANCE, the situation is totally different.

In terms of our executive branch including the civil services (i.e. the part that is responsible for carrying out or enforcing laws), again the form is similar (titles, etc). In terms of the working of the Cabinet, the substance is very different.

In the UK, the PM wears two hats — i.e. political and non-political. In political aspect, he has political advisor to help him and civil servants to deal with non-political things. Of course, what is political and non-political is really a judgement that has to be made by the Civil Servant. The Civil Servant is supposed to be neutral to all parties, hence sometime the civil servant offer advise to Shadow Cabinet (i.e. Opposition party with shadow title) or anyone with might be of a different party to the PM but who holds the title of Privy Counsellor (who are technically advisors to the queen).

The US system does not have a concept of non-political civil servant as such. But they have a system where people of any party wanting cabinet post must be vetted by Congress.

In the Singapore system, it is hard to really tell what is political or not, since it is so opaque. One thing for sure, there is no concept of civil servant reporting to any shadow Cabinet or a privy council for the PM of the day to share secret information with the leader of the opposition. So by all account aspect is clearly different between the Singapore and UK systems.

As for the judiciary, the divergence is even more stark but that is for another discussion. But suffice to say, the Singapore system has kept the form, which I presume allow the PAP to used this execus “but they is also how thy do it in the UK”.

What i’m driving at is, there are a few countries that based their rule of governance on the westminister model (hope the spelling is right), some are more democratic than others. If i recall correctly too, that there are separation of the legislative and the adminstrative models of government in england.

The Westminister’s model system actually does not have explicit separation of powers as you find in the US or its parent system (i.e. the French). For a start this is no written constitution in the UK like in the US to ensurine the rights or a person or the state. Much of the “separation of power” comes from unwritten rules and conventions.

For example, in theory, the Queen as the head of state has the power to pick and choose which party to Government the country regardless of the votes. In other words, the Queen can pick a political party with the least vote to be in Government and not the majority one. That is a legal power she has but in practice and by convention she won’t. After all whilst she may have the legal power to do things, if people (the real power) don’t like it she can exercise the power she wants but no one is going to enforce it. There is only one instance where the power of the queen was used to sack a majority government and that was in Australia. Ok now, why should the Queen have this power?

The answer is historical but in a way, it also acts as a check on the elected government to behave because if it does things that is so grossly bad, the Queen could theoretically be pressured by her subject to sack the government. So you see, there is a kind of balance of power implicitly in place.

In the UK legislature, as oppose to the Scottish, Northern Ireland and Wales, the power to make law is theoretically limitless. The UK legislature can, in theory, pass a law that say spitting is a hanging offence and the UK (Note: there is technically more than one judicial systems in the UK but I am using that in a short hand sense) judiciary cannot say such as such a the law is illegal, “Constitutionally” speaking, as in the US Supreme Court for example. But increasingly, the constitutionality of a piece of legislation can now be challanged in court. That does not mean the UK Parliament is obligued to change but the courts could make such enforcement of the law illegal and unenforcable. In a sense, this is further codified when the UK accepted the European Human Rights convention. Of course, the judiciary, so to speak can through its representation in the house of lords force the legislature back to the house of common for revision but it can’t change the law as such.

One aspects of the Judiciary that the UK (or England more precisely) that is similar to Singapore is the appointment of judges. In theory, such appointments are picked by the sitting PM, unlike the US, with no independent oversight. It is also opaque like Singapore’s but once chosen the judge hold appointment for life. In practice, if you see the composition of the highest judicial appointment you will see a mix bunch drawn from human rights advocates and state prosecutors. In Singapore it is virtually from the state prosecution service.

The key point here is that whether you have the US and UK systems, for a separation of power to work, it is not just about legality, it boils down really to all the stakeholders (i.e. the political parties and the citizen of the land) of the system to make it work.

My point is, whatever systems there is, there’s bound to be some perversion of power and concentration of power in a few. This is where we should really look at, instead of arguing on the basis of an electoral model. My argument is, if there is a change of model of government tmr, how sure would you be that the “ex PAP” members would not be able to reclaim power through the new system?

The perversion of power is a reality which has to be dealt with. You cannot just wish it away. You cannot build a system by assuming there is no perversion of power.

When you say, “This is where we should …..”. Here is any reality check question: who is the we?

When the US system was conceived it was a group of men who set down to map out their system, and throughout the years get refined, some time through painful revolutions and human sacrifices. Likewise with the UK system.

Now when you hear people say we should have such and such a system, it is worth asking who are the we?

Also remember to ask how would “the we” get from the system as-is now to the ideals?

Frankly, I believe what kind of political system we have is not that significant. It is the leadership behind that is crucial. Are they honest people who serve the needs of the people or their own? Do they take time to listen to the ground and have a team of capable leaders to serve the populace? Will they be humble enough to admit that they are wrong in making certain decisions?

We can have the best system – either the US or British but the people within the administration and in leadership must be truthful to themselves and the people. So far, we have a sound system but we need some adjustment. Do the British system has GRC? I dont think so. Our ruling party has too much power on their hands and slowly but surely it has given them an aura of invincibility. This sense of super-power may have dented their ability to listen and react to the ground. I can count less than five MPs within the government that really go to the ground and walk the talk. The rest merel conducts mandatory meet the people sessions and that’s it.

The only serious drawback of our political system is that there is not much opportunity for change if the population dislikes the current government. All other so-called democratic countries have this option of open voting so that people can have a say who they want to rule their country. The US has it so does the British. We have this democratic option but did not really know how to use it due to various factors mentioned so often by writers here.

I realise that there is really nothing much we can do. The opposition parties are there for the chooisng during GE. Votes are casted and every five years we have a chance to overthrow any government in our country but for the past 43 years this have not happen. Something is seriously wrong and I can’t really figure out what is the voting pattern of our country.

138) Gilbert Goh Keow Wah on October 31st, 2008 8.42 pm

Frankly, I believe what kind of political system we have is not that significant. It is the leadership behind that is crucial. Are they honest people who serve the needs of the people or their own? Do they take time to listen to the ground and have a team of capable leaders to serve the populace? Will they be humble enough to admit that they are wrong in making certain decisions?

Having a political system that depended the occurrence of an “honest” leader to drive the system is, well, a denial a reality, if not an espousal of a benign dictatorship.

First of all, one has to realise that in the real world whether we like it or not, a society is not composed of one mind but different minds. It is simply not possible for a single or even a handful of leaders to satisfy every single wishes of each and every person.

Secondly, attributes such as honesty and humility may be wonderful attributes but how do you know if someone is honest or not. In any case, a person who is not honest could turn out to be a great leader in time of crisis. For example, JFK famous for cheating on his wife (so not quiet honest) but managed to skilfully avoid a nuclear war.

Thirdly, in real life, particularly if you are making decision that affects a society, there is no such thing as a right or wrong decision. A decision may affect one group favourably but disadvantage another.

Unfortunately, a system like that depends very much on a ’strongman’. If the strongman passes on, you will not have the ‘enlightened’ and ‘benign’ anymore. Just the dictatorship. And we all know that people in power will enjoy being in power and refuse to step down. And unfortunately, the nation, because it’s used to having everything decided by this strongman, will not have the right antibodies in the form of a strong opposition, or politically aware individuals to deal with the downward spiral. – Zefly (#97)

Benign dictatorship is a time bomb no doubt, best explained by Zefly.

If the opposition has to chime with the electorate to win power under current system, then it will have to simply be in tune with the status quo, which then begs the question what is opposition for? – Tan Ah Kow (#100)

But we are now at the tipping point of the balance. The strongman’s days are limited and there is no emerging strongman within PAP ranks today. Whatever LKY is doing nowadays appears to be fortifying the foundation for his son to take over the reigns once he is dead. I doubt if LKY is actually confident that his LHL has the capability of being the new PAP strongman.

For Singapore, much information are withheld. It is difficult to pry and obtain information to be released to the public, ie CPF, GIC, Town Councils, budget and finance info, etc. It will be an uphill task for any opposition to fight toe-to-toe with any given MP backed by funds, human resources, fingertip information. You name it, you have it. – Kaffein (#123)

Which opposition party in Singapore isn’t fighting for implementation of a Freedom of Information act? The statistics released by various ministries and government agencies is very limited and not useful for deciphering long-term trend. It is like as if citizens should not be empowered to contribute to strategic decision-making. If so, then the presence of a Feedback Unit is just for show. Freedom of Information is essential for every concerned citizen, not just opposition politicians.

If they did, they are likely to be arguments, confrontations and personal accusations. I LIKEN THIS ASPECT TO THAT OF THE OPPOSITION POLITICIANS NOT ABLE TO WORK TOGETHER. Of course, as a whole, I find Singaporeans very individualistic and individually idealistic. – Patriot (#127)

Haha. You should have been there when I was preaching civil rights to student leaders at the Singapore High Commission in London. As soon as I started talking about it, the environment instantly became chilling cold. It is like as if civil rights do not apply to student union bodies.

If I heard this correctly, this is just a blog for people to discuss political or social issues. I am unsure whether we want to meet up and do something i.e. act on what we share. I believe there is a real big gulf between sharing your ideas away in the comofrt of your air-con room and really coming out together and do smething about what we share. – Gilbert Goh (#129)

I actually run such a student club at university in UK. We meet weekly to discuss international public policies, organise campaigns and engage distinguished business and political leaders. We also run side-line projects to provide independent research and analysis (read ‘feedback’) to public consulting calls by the UN, the UNA, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (UK’s equivalent of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs) and the UK Department for International Development (DFID).

The perversion of power is a reality which has to be dealt with. You cannot just wish it away. You cannot build a system by assuming there is no perversion of power. – Tan Ah Koh (#137)

The integrity of the system depends on the integrity of the persons participating in the system. One can exalt the merits of the US system, yet the failure of the US system becomes apparents in its implementation in the Philipines, The UK system worked fine in the UK, but it didn’t work out well for us in Singapore. I don’t think it is an issue of what system is better, but who are participating and how they are participating in the political system.

Everybody just 1 2 win and will do many things only during GE but nobody do groundwork during Non GE period. Seriously… I think i will waste my vote during the coming GE. Cos, I m oso getting more n more disappointed wif WP liao…

(140) Donaldson Tan on October 31st, 2008 9.14 pm

But we are now at the tipping point of the balance. The strongman’s days are limited and there is no emerging strongman within PAP ranks today. Whatever LKY is doing nowadays appears to be fortifying the foundation for his son to take over the reigns once he is dead. I doubt if LKY is actually confident that his LHL has the capability of being the new PAP strongman.

Fully agree with this sentiment.

But I was mere musing as to whether, let’s say the people, who has the means to tip the balance away from the strongman’s model share yours and my sentiment?

Or for that matter, even if they do believe the days of the strongman is over, do these people have an clue what the next version would be?

When you hear people decrying a lack of leadership with the current generation of leaders, are they thinking about the need to move away from a strongman model or just hoping for another LKY (or LKY-nice)?

Are they, to use computer analogy: moving from Vista to OSX or Moving from XP to Windows 7 because Vista is so crap?

The integrity of the system depends on the integrity of the persons participating in the system. One can exalt the merits of the US system, yet the failure of the US system becomes apparents in its implementation in the Philipines, The UK system worked fine in the UK, but it didn’t work out well for us in Singapore. I don’t think it is an issue of what system is better, but who are participating and how they are participating in the political system.

Fully argee with this senitment. I am glade you point out the “integrity of the persons participating in the system” not just the leadership of the system.

Having said that, it is worth noting my point was really about how when you design any systems, you need, to use computer speaks some kind of exception handling systems — i.e. a kind of CTRL-ALT-DELETE

In the US system, it seemed, not necessarily by design and possibly by evolution, to have a built in assumption that people who hold levers of power may not necessarily be honest but one occassion they could be expected to do the honest thing. However, given this reality, the system is designed so that not all power is given to the President. It you want more power to do something ask me first. A bit like VISTA’s UAC.

In the UK system, it seemed to be based on the presumption that all those who come to or has the power are honest to start with. So you can have all the power to start with but in case you turn bad, this is this reset button to stop you. A bit like WindowsXP that gives you all the power of an administrator by default but if the system misbehave we do a CTRL-ALT-DELETE. For example, the Queen has quite enormous theoretical power but if she turns bad, Parliament can abolish the monarchy.

In the Singapore system, it seemed to be one where even the CTRL-ALT-DELET button has been removed. I suppose the assummption is the PAP can always be counted to be honest! So to me when I hear many people who “swing” for the Status Quo really don’t want a system with a CTRL-ALT-DELETE! That will be like asking Windows diehard to use OS X or worst LINUX os.

@tan ah kow

thanks for the clarification. as for who are the “we” i was talking about, it’s in the generic understanding of “us” the citizens, of course a huge assumption here that everyone is wants something that is equal to everyone.

don’t quite get your last question, would be good if you could explain what you’re trying to bring across.

and yes, like what donaldson said, integrity and capability of the people who are running the government and providing the checks and balances are important. it’s worthwhile noting too how the system of government in singapore and philippines came about, what were the conditions that allow a certain degree of authoritarianism.

oh and when you mention the forming of the US constitution, my view is it is a reaction to a certain form of government that was unsatisfactory at that point of time. I still come back to my point, if we were to argue on which forms of electoral systems is better, is anyone here proposing that we should have that form of government?

The PAP govt has it’s strong points too – honest , capable and forward looking. Compared to many countries, it is head and shoulders above many in terms of capability and honesty. Khaw, Tharma, George are all capable people who can bring us to the next leap. It’s system has being appreciated by many foreign countries as not only does it gets things done successfully but also they managed to get it done without much uprising from the people. Try implementing ERP in Australia, the govt may be gone by the next election.
I remember while working in China, the mayor of Wuhan actually visited Singapore to fine-tune it’s own governance with the intention to even bring it’s own officers to learn from Singapore especially it’s housing policy.
So with a world class successful government, why are it’s people so disenchanted and disillusioned? This is something that I cant’ really understand why.
However, the ruling party also has serious flaws – over-confidence, not really listening and involving it’s people in implementation of rules and worse of all safeguarding their own political survival. Eventually, this will bring about it’s downfall in years to come. The young will not be like the post-65ers who vote more for stability and less for idealism. Nevertheless, even now, the vote swing may have already happen among the post-65ers with such high cost of living and retirement difficulities.

Gilbert Goh # 144

There is nothing absolute in this world, PAP may have some find leaders now, but that does not translate to good and clean government in future. In the 50s, Philippines was the most developed society in SE Asia, what has become of it now?

Where is the transparency and accountability? Even with Singapore’s no. 1 terriortist escaping into the nowhere, the Sg government can just slightly brush it off; now they even talk of having additional taxes for electricity to curb usage?

The mechanism now is quite complex to undo (as Tan Ah Kow said, the CTRL-ATL- DEL Button is gone) . Without a 2/3 parliamently majority, nothing can be altered. Its not likely that you can change the GRC system to start with. Lets just hope that it will not develop into a bandwagon for overloaded passengers to ride on.

The political landscape can only evolve when:

1. things get really bad, unemployment and social problems mounts,
2. well meaning educated Singaporeans see the need to bring Singapore into a
higher level of being a developed nation
3. the opposition can come up with a very inspiring figure and gather the
support of many prominent and accomplised Singaporeans and win
places in parliament
4. some members of the PAP see the need to evolve and carve out an entity

All things being equal, the PAP is as good as it gets right now, but we could certainly do with a lot more transparency and freedom to question.

I am sure they are listenting and intent on remaining in power, so its up to them whether they want to be people friendly and change its mindset.

HI Gilbert (#144),

“So with a world class successful government, why are it’s people so disenchanted and disillusioned? This is something that I cant’ really understand why.”

Your last paragraph summarizes the answers that you were looking for. Like some had put forth, it’s the mindset of “us”. It is also a question of how much change do we hope to have? More so, how on earth are we going to make the leaders listen to the ground people as well as how we hope the apathetics step out of their comfort zone and come forward as one voice.

If I may I will categorize the voting citizenry into the following classifications:

1) The haves and are generally happy with the current government and majority if not all of its policies. .
2) The middle class or middle income (where I think majority of the swing votes are here)
3) The have nots and lower-income
4) The Uncompassionate and Unconcerned ELITES

I will make an asummption that the loosely defined group comprises of 20% (1) 50% (2), 20%(3) and 10% (4)of the voting population.

I believe without a single doubt that majority if not all of group 3 will vote for anyone who can really help them improve their life and wealth being. Priorities and Concerns are mainly focus on their bread and butter issues (necessitities) rather than social/political issues. That is being realistic and it is a reasonable thing to do particularly if they have young toddlers to bring up and schooling teeagers.

If improvement for the better are to occur, the “don’t rock the boat”, “what’s in it for me”, “why you people like to complain”, “don’t ask question like this” mindset of group (1) and (2) needs change to a more compassionate perspective. I sure wish they step out of their coccons and get more exposure in life to see things in a different perspective. As for the last group, we can only hope their conscience will return to haunt them someday before any change will occur.

The one group I did not mention is the up and coming young ones. If parents, relatives and friends do not instill the right values and if they are not exposed to the different aspects of things in life thinking that their world only evolves within Singapore, then the we are forever in a recycle mode. Treat them as your friends as well as your kids.

Regardless of which system Singapore adopt (current or change in future), it is just a system. The importance is the people and rules governing them which many had said it eloquently and with ample examples. True too that, change cannot be expected over-night, but if no one is willing to take the first steps and work towards the desire change that many would hope to see then it will never materialize or technically correct to say, change will be at a snail pace and at the mercy of the ruling party however and whenever they see and deemed fit (in their terms) not the people’s term.

One thing will never change, Human Beings are very complexed animals and Human mindset is a moving target unless we turned “vergetables” and if the latter is true, there is nothing to debate and there will be no issues to begin with.

I was thinking and having discussions with some friends in the last few days. Also, what Patriot said about getting organized struck a chord.

Looking at things objectively, we see the main opposition parties as somewhat ineffective in bringing about change. Chee’s actions, while resonating with a few, is still largely ignored. Many people still see him as a trouble-maker. Or even if they see that he is fighting for this thing called ‘human rights’, they see that he’s more like doing it for an ideal than for them. Their perception of him is somewhat different from how they see JBJ. Most people respect JBJ. According to a friend of mine, not many have forgiven Chee for booting Chiam out. So the ‘mandate’ of main opposition leader doesn’t rest with Chee.

Chiam is getting old. Last I heard he is grooming a successor. But I think whatever it is, Chiam’s priorities is really to take care of his ward.

I thought WP showed promise. Back then, Slyvia Lim is the kind of people we need as a credible opposition. But then, there is her… and no one else that made an impression. And it truly is frustrating, to know that some of the WP-ers can stand up for election, then once it is over, go back to work OVERSEAS. Like… what? And let’s be frank. While PAP has it’s fair share of unremarkable people parachuted in from the backdoor (hands up who remembers more than 3 new MPs since the last election), it also boosts of capable people like George Yeo, Teo Chee Hian, Tharman and Khaw Boon Wan. Does any of the opposition have people like that? People that have the credentials to run big organisations well? Is LTK like a ‘Liu Bang’ the first emperor of the Han Dynasty, who though a peasant at birth, and rather unschooled and unintelligent, nonetheless has the talent to find capable people?

Let’s face it, the opposition needs people of the ’success level’ of Sim Wong Foos. Not small-time business owners, but people who had experience in running large organisations.

What I’m saying is, when i look around here, I see many people with very good ideas. And I also believe there are many people here like me who probably won’t be able to get a single vote even if we join the opposition because we are at most corporate slaves, small entrepreneurs and creative freelancers by day and armchair critics by night. But I think we can pool the ideas together and bring it to people who can make a difference. You know, like hook up with WP, and give alternate feedback. It’s like, I see some people here who’s crticisms of the opposition is spot-on. Why not help them become more effective?

116) Donaldson Tan – No need the “His Excellency” part too. The ruling party can continue to be known as “The Government”, and the second largest party in Parliament, “The Loyal Opposition”.

[...] article was first published on The Online Citizen. [...]

The PAP govt has it’s strong points too – honest , capable and forward looking. – Gilbert Goh (#144)

The PAP government is not transparent in its dealings with us. How can you equate their opaque dealings as honesty?honest.

So with a world class successful government, why are it’s people so disenchanted and disillusioned? This is something that I cant’ really understand why. – Gilbert Goh (#144)

If its people are still disenchanted and disillusioned, then it is not doing a good job. A performance of a government is not measured by comparing the effectiveness of one government to another, but whether its citizens are satisfied with its governments. No matter what comparison you do in your head, or what the government tell you, it will just not make any sense. If any, the ideas of comparison only adds to your confusion.

Khaw, Tharma, George are all capable people who can bring us to the next leap. Gilbert Goh (#144)

This is not enough. PAP´s success in governing our island state for the past 40+ years lies in the fact that we had a strongman pushing hard to make things happen. You may think they are capable, but there is nobody in PAP who can replace LKY as the new PAP strongman. Without an emerging strongman, voting for these people would be no different from voting for the current opposition in Singapore.

Perhaps the most regrettable part to LKY´s legacy in Singapore is that he had removed the reboot feature from our parliamentary system.

I guess what we need here in our country is a revolution i.e. a group strong enough to show to the people that we mean business.
The public will not follow the leading of the oppostion party as people like CSJ may have create an unpopular following with regard to open display of disillusionment. We are also not used to protest openly as there is again the fear factor of being arrested which is the actual case here for many WP and other parties’ memebrs who try to do that.
The situation may change if each open public protest is well attended i.e. more than few hundreds and conducted with the legan framework – at HLP. People may then wake up and join in if nothing unotward has happened to peaceful protestors.
However, will changes take place despite such legal gatherings of open protest? I don’t know.
I think so long the ruling party has majority seats in Parliament, they will continue to call the shots unless their own people clamour for change.
LSL already has carried out alot of changes – far more than LKY and GCT has done during their time. However, as seen from many comments here, it is still not enough.
We want a whole lot more – changes in constitution and even adopting the US style of governance which will not happen here. That system may serve them better but may not be favourable for us.
The introduction of NMPs also did not help much as the one in power call the shots and press the button. There is a lot of talk and smoke during Parliament meetings but still the top few guys will decide. If not, how can things be decided? Have a referendum every time there is a split vote in Parliament and this will not even happen as MPs tend to vote along party lines.

I think we can start with Speakers Corner, no choice, not the best, but, you know…

Maybe like hold a speech like “Why we need more transparency In Singapore”. Frame it in such a way that it’s not in an accusing tone. But more like a well-thought out reasoned argument. Not so much as ‘the people have the right to know’, but how the effects of lack of transparency creates disengagement etc etc, ultimately not good for singapore. Make sure there is no rabble rousing. If any dude starts screaming ‘down with pap’ and stuff, sternly tell them this is not the place. Get as many people to attend as possible.

Do everything legally and ‘respectfully’. If police says this, then just follow. But just keep doing. Just keeping making Speakers Corner a bi-monthly event for ’serious apolotical discussions about politics’ You know, like what we do here, but out in public. (except for the talk about revolution) The idea is to confront without appearing confrontational. The idea is to draw attention to another way of engaging people politically. Once in a while invite politicians from both camps to come. Doesn’t matter if they do or not actually. The only way to be taken seriously is to stop the sneering and jeering. Steer clear of CSJ type of confrontations and accusations. I respect the man, but one CSJ is enough. He appeals to some. But not all. The other niche needs to be filled, and it has to be filled with people who can argue calmly, rationally, intelligently without appearing like a frothing pit-bull.

Thanks, Gilbert Goh;

I am much comforted to learn that your heart is with us though You are abroad.

You have said a truth in your post(#129), that most bloggers and commenters may not be comfortable getting together to ‘walk the talks’. This is the single big problem that SINGAPORE faces, not Singaporean, read again not Singaporeans.
If my understangs are correct, most blogges and commenters are highly qualified and successful except for those studying. Some students are in tune wth our social-political developments and I suspect they are not very impressed with the System, quite on the contrary.

Bloggers and commenters are by and large non-political themselves and they are the intellectuals that fortunately or unfortunately born with consciences in them. They involuntarily sympathize with the underdogs and there are natural urges(voluntary or not, they themselves know) to express their feelings of empathies and sympathies. It is not so much as to get to the forefronts and confront the Authority head on and this results in self restrictions and restraints. It means, this far is all I will go and no further. Many may even think ‘I have done my part’ which I accept they do.

Allow me to insert the group that are older in age, lower in qualifications(certified), belonging to the lower strata, working in menial jobs such as taxi drivers, security personnels, retail person etc. I belong to this group of very lay people. I asked myself what can I do and honestly, writing to feedback the Authority was what I did for the past few decades. Not much changes, in fact things got worse, I think. Out of frustrations, I used my mouth. When my children went abroad to study, I learnt to use the computer and here I am. HOW FAR AND HOW MUCH CAN WE DO OR CONTRIBUTE?

Many of us here are reasonable folks albeit we do have emotional outbursts from time to time. HOWEVER, in here(blogs), there are also moles and masquerading intruders that invariably are here to upset the cohesiveness of the Netizens. These intrusions undeniably have the effects of arousing suspicions and fears whether ones’ views are acceptable to most and or are valid in facts and fairness. This could have the effects of creating self doubts and worse, they got us to suspect each others, but I hope this will not deter netizens to form activist groups.

The only way Netizens can play an effective and consequential role, in the absences of an effective opposition and a benign or benevolent leadership in this society, is to go and push further into the Discourse by becoming active away from your armchairs and screens. I mean You are already active in your airconned rooms,why not extend the discourse outside it? Meet up with the liked-minded, brainstorm for solutions, if not for anything just to fulfill your chivalrous nature. After all, the monikers and anons do not prevent You from identifications.

I do wish and hope that young netizens like Zefly, singaporespirits and others could be led by other working professional netizens to paticipate in person with the TOC People. I have seen Mr Leong Sze Hian and Mr Tan Kin Lian actively in actions here and in the field and believe with more walking the talks liked them, there can be A POTENT FORCE for the betterment of Singaporeans.

patriot

Patriot,

Well said! Actually I have given some thought about how to change things here. As i am in the creative industry, I even thought of doing a Michael Moore-like documentary, but perhaps not so one-sided. You’re right to say that the most important thing is to just keep the Discourse going, and make people aware that the Discourse is NOT just for politicians, but for everyone. There is no such thing as politics is only for the politicians, and you have to join poltics to be qualified. Politics affect EVERYBODY so Everybody counts.

I’ll be upfront and say what holds me back from poltical activity really is self-doubt. I have uni-qualifications, and runs a flegling business good enough to feed myself and my parents, and maybe able to have a relatively comfy life, that’s all. I always, whether rightly or wrongly, see that anyone who wants to run for office have to have a much bigger success in life than what i have now. You know, if i were a US citizen, I’d be the sort that would sign up to call people to vote Democrat, but not be the forerunner myself. If I can look at an opposition party member like James Gomez and ask ‘would i even trust him to run a town council’, then i have ask myself likewise if people would trust me with the enormity of the task.

That’s why I say, the lttle we can help is take it beyond the net-sphere. Just get people more engaged in the Discourse.

To Patriot:

Hi thanks for your compliment. I recently got converted to be more politically active but still a long way to join any political party yet.
As mentioned, we always termed ourselves politically active by joining a political party. This is, I think, also the mindset of the ruling party. If you want to engage in politics, find a party and join or else shut up.
I find this so untrue and wrong. One can be politically engaged by speaking out in public especially if there is any political forum going on or attend the HLP gatherings if there is any.
So, what consititute one to be politically active? A frutiful discussion over coffee at the HDB coffee shop on political issues also enables one to be active in politics. Helping out the PAP or other oppistion parties’ walk-abouts may also allow one to be active politically. Writing in such blog is also one way.
Singaporeans lack such fruitful discussion on politics. Overseas, people talk alot about politics and especially in unis – discussions and even open demonstrations is allowed for one to be engaged politically.
Will the current situation improves? I think so as slowly I see that people realised politics affect the lives of the general public. What is hampering them from venturing to find out more is the feeling that will there be changes if I get involved? Will my efforts be rewared with some form of change in the governance? Unless one can overcome such inertia, politics in Singapoe may be leftto the politicians.

” Will my efforts be rewared with some form of change in the governance? Unless one can overcome such inertia, politics in Singapoe may be leftto the politicians.”

We shouldn’t leave politics to politicians as they tend have their own agenda to promote. What important is the citizen’s interest. Voice out, shout out and showing dissent are very important no matter how small it may seen as changes might not be made voluntarily by government but may coerce and forced by international organization agreement. Certain international organization have power to santion and a enforce a certain course of action. In fact, the westerners are monitoring these site daily, as my most of westerner friends do. Do not underestimate the power of foreign help. The foreigners can only understand what happening if many people voice out, positively or negatively. These foreigners can only help if the people help themselves first, even if it means to voice out behind anonymity in the blogosphere. So do your part and don’t belittle your comment how matter how insignificant it may seen to you.

It is disappointed the your uncle have said such a comment on Singapore political system. I simple thing that he is too simple minded. I have serve my time in the PAP grassroot and also help up in opposition in both their social work and mps before regularly. I simple want to help up resident who are in need of help in all way and contribute to our community. To my observation and supprise, I do seen many even resident in the PAP constituency have contribute their part in helping and even contributing in their social activities.

With their limited funding and resource, they have done as will a what the public aspect from the PAP government.

Let come back to why people fear to join opposition party. I do gather feedback personnally from young and old within my personnal network and my business network. This question is not new to public, but it is still sensitive to Singaporean.
I do conclude the public have group all opposition as one (excluding the 2 opposition MP) even when they have different political and national Philosophy. All this thanks to the media propaganda and attitube toward opposition political party, and public fear of PAP governement historical background against opposition camp. These are factors of why many have come to help in the opposition camp back do not want to join in to contribute.

I can only say that even the PAP government willing to accept political openess, it is useless when Singaporean wh are not ready for it.

” PAP government willing to accept political openess”
Let’s the PAP accept political openness first, and let it be the one to open up because it is the party that control the political environment in first place, didn’t it ?

“useless when Singaporean wh are not ready for it.’
How do we know Singaporean not ready for it ?

Remember Hong Lim Park ? Many do not see a need for it, quoting that they have better thing to do at home, but when Lehman thingy exposed and investors panicked over unrecoverable loss, Hong Lim Park becomes a place of meeting and protest. And who really can predict that Hong Lim Park one day has become a place with a thousand protestants against financial product mis-selling and misrepresentation ?

Singaporeans might just be ready, they just need trigger point and charismatic leader like Tan Kin Lian. With increasing cost of living and blunders and policies by government which translate to cost passing back to the citizens, Singaporeans are just be prepared for unprecedented protest.

To Daniel

Ya I tend to agree with you that the timing now is about right as we have the recession coming in now plus the minibond fiasco.However, I am unsure whether such gathering will be there if it concerns other issues other than their hard earned money. This will then be a good test case for Singaporeans to see how daring and open they are to protest openly with cameramen taking pictures and the camera crew filming them.
In everything, there is a timing and actually the recent opening up of political openness viz-a-viz HLP is a blessing to all protestors.
What is puzzling is perhaps the fact that we only protest openly when the govt allows it. Can you see the contradiction here? The level of political openness is actually dictated by the govt and I find this abit bewildering. We actually don’t have much political freedom here.
TKL and group have done a good job in speaheading this movement to tend to the investors’ need. I think this could be the beginning of a new dawn hopefully.

I think there are still many things we can raise at the Speakers Corner that has less to do with ‘human rights’ and more to do with addressing the frustration the people feel over the rising costs of everything, and the lack of adequate explanation.

Eg a) HDB prices – of course we don’t expect them to be same prices twenty years ago, but the fact is that people are SPENDING MORE every month on housing than before.

b) CPF withdrawal. I know many people are not happy with the current scheme. Two issues here, one is the withdrawal age and amount etc, and second is, where exactly is the money? Is it, like kept safely in the bank, or it is being used as investments without our permission?

And so on and so forth. I believe Singaporeans are not so unreasonable that we only want the government to make ‘popular’ decisions. We want to know as much as possible how the government arrive at these unpopular decisions as the only way to go.

My pet issue really is, did we walk into this globalization thing knowing way ahead that it’s going to cause a greater divide between the rich and the poor? And how are we better off now than before?

To: Zefly

Hi thanks for your insightful piece on the topics that can be raised in HLP.

Frankly, I think that these issues are already make known to the authorities. We merely highlight this to the government again. As spoken before, alot depend on whether they will do something about it. What we are merely doing is reinforcing such issues to them again by way of open protests. Our iintention to protest is of course to openly pressure the government to do something about our grievances. However, are this really SIngaporeans’ grievances or a few of our own?

DO you think that if we called a protest people will attend? Frankly I doubt it. We may get fifty people to a hundred max but i doubt we can draw the kind of crowd affected by the minibond fiasco. People turned up becuase it concerns them and they are hurt in the pocket. Though people are concerned about the living costs and other issues, I doubt that they will take their grievances to the street (HLP) as it is so new and unfamiliar territory.

And even if they do take to the street, will the authorities act on the protests and do something about it? Probably if the crowd size is alarming 500 to a thousand on a regular basis. Crowd size of more than 2,000 to 3,000 will be a fantastic show of defiance and force. Thailand’s protestors easily number 5,000 and above fed by businessmen who want changes in policies sometimes to their own benefit. Indoensians protestors are known to be paid daily rate to take to the street in protest.

IS this the only and best way to show our grievances? I don’t know. It is unchartered territory but definitely we need unorthodox ways now to do something about what is happening in our country.

Zefly,
I’m curious. Aren’t HDB prices and CPF withdrawal pertaining INDIRECTLY to human right ? rRemember we have the right to question the government on how these areas but the government brush these issues aside as non-issue and move on. If we have strong human right, will the government even dare to ignore citizen’s concern. Remember who is asking these questions on the citizen’s behalf ?

(143) laserpointer on November 1st, 2008 2.06 am:

don’t quite get your last question, would be good if you could explain what you’re trying to bring across.

Well basically what I was trying to say is that when people say the would like to see change, they tend to say “we” should go for this model or that model.

But often there is little discussion as to how “we” get from the system that we’ve now to where we want it to be (assuming we can get agreement to where we want it to be!).

If you related to investment strategy, when we talk about which political models to adopt, we often judge a financial instruments in terms of returns on investment or degree of risk. But that is only judging one end. The other how are we going to fund the instrument. Have we considered that when we our own Individual circumstances and how it relates to risk?

For example, when people talk about financial instruments they tend to classify in a simplistic way, saving low risk and stocks high risk. You see risk is not the same in all circumstances, its very much individual. For example, if you are putting excess money, that you can afford to loose into stocks rather than savings can you say that stocks is riskier? After all, you could suffer the risk of putting into savings by having inflation eat away what you earn.

Likewise, if you wanted to change a political model, do you want to do it the piecemeal way: change from within the PAP (see my earlier comments) or change it from outside (see my earlier comments) or maybe something else. Maybe some might say from inside the PAP is less risky but what if the pace of reform is so slow and political events as Donaldson Tan has indicated, it is could be near a tipping point, and things are already heading for disaster. Will any grain you make from reforming the PAP be already swamped by other agents of changed, e.g. a collapsing economy but unable to remove a PAP leadership that is still in denial?

A bit like you inflation eating away whatever you get from your saving account. Or do you go for broke by risking it in stocks?

Applying it to political change question. Maybe we should go for revolution? Or maybe we should just wait for the PAP to screw-up big time, and then change? In other words, how should be make the change, assuming that ‘we’ want it, to happen?

I am not saying I have the I answer. Just musing?

#127, Patriot:
>May I ask here, how many here are willing to pool your ideas, make an effort to meet, fraternize and get together to work out something???<

When I frist read your question, my immediate respond was: “Sure, why not? It’s a fantastic idea. However, I told myself to stop and think
over it for a while before giving my reply. And these are some of my thoughts:
1. Which is better?
a. to come together to work out someting, or,
b. to continue to share ideas on this blogsite.
2. What are the pros and cons of group gatherings?
3. What are the pros and cons of blog-sharing?
4. How effective can group meetings be?
5 How effective can blog-sharing be?
6. Would people contribute better face to face or anonymously through a discussion platform such as TOC?
7. Would there be a difference to what we hope to achieve?

I am sure those of you who have been following my comments would know by now that I have always felt that platforms like TOC has a lot
more to offer than just being ‘a blog’. We are in the midst of something new which we haven’t have the faintest idea how effective it can be.
Neither do we know the extent by which we can make this into an effective tool that can act as a check and balance to the govt of the day.

Now, coming back to my fsets of questions – group gathering or online discussion?
Without going into details, I feel that online discussion is more effective than group gatherings: We all know that group gatherings can be
misconstrued by the govt whether on purpose or by intent. By this, I mean that, whether we like it or not, the reality is that we will be
exposing ourselves to whatever the govt might deemed we are. Remember the ‘Marxist’ arrest? I do not believe that was a Marxist group.
It was more like a group of activitists trying to bring about change to Singapore.
We won’t be doing ourselves any favour if we become targets for the govt.

There are a whole lot of other reasons whay group gathering is not such a good idea especially at this time where the political climate is one that
depended on the ‘whim and fancy’ of this govt.

Why then is online discussion better? For the moment at least, freedom of expression is one of the main factor that makes online discussion
a more useful tool in the exchange of ideas and sharing of information. Speed is another important factor that works in it favour. Comments
are presented in real time and each discourse can be concluded in the shortest possible time if there is a sort of control – a party that
sets the agenda and direct the course of the discussion to achieve a set of goals. The outreach is far more effective and can reach a larger
audience quicker.

When we can do this, we can then become an online political party without being a political party. The voice of the people is represented
by the people themselves. We just need someone to organise the ideas and comments into something worth listening to – alternative solutions.

We then need to have a mouthpiece, a spokesperson, who can bring about the issues that have been discussed and agreed, to the attention
of the govt or any institutional bodies concerned or even to the general public.

I can go on about the details but more or less this is what my hope is for online discussion.

TOC cannot be just a blog anymore. It has, whether intentionally or otherwise, developed into something more than just a blog. It is growing into
becoming the voice of Singapore. It now has the responsibility towards Singaporeans to step further ahead in championing the cause of
Singaporeans. You are begining to see that ST has been quoting TOC whenever they have to explain the actions of the govt. This is a huge
step forward and we must capitalise on this.

Patriot, as for meeting up for sharing, we can still do this but it has to be something informal. It cannot be a meeting with a set agenda to take
on the govt. This not yet the time for this.

Gemami Philip

come together??? i’d sure love that, but think people, talking between ourselves isnt going to solve anything. sure, it’d be great to get things off your chest and all, but now it all comes down to how we will be in the next GE.

@Tan ah Kow

ahh…. got it.

as for the change part, my belief is that right now barring a major event happening, yes a major major one, it will be pretty long before we see a change or any sort that resembles a radical change. I take your point regarding that we will never know the true extent of satisfaction with the government, but for change to happen i believe it’s the historical conditions that will precede the change.

as for the “we” part, like what i said earlier, might be a little complicated considering that everyone doesn’t have uniform interests and equal level of influence.

I tend to think too, that while the government has done a lot of wrong, they have rather been successful, take it as “pacifying” or “able to meet the demands” of the majority, so much so that if we just equate those people that support them in terms of electoral votes (granted, the point on walkovers) as just being “brainwashed” would really be a simplistic way of understanding how the government has been so “successful”.

and yes, just thinking out loud +)

Dear gemami;

allow me to try my best to address your concerns for Netizens to communicate in person. I will preface by saying that NETIZENS ARE NOT POLITICIANS. MOST ARE CONCERNED WITH SOCIO-POLITICAL POLICY IMPLEMENTATIONS, ANYTHING MORE, OTHER NETIZENS HAVE THE PREROGATIVE NOT TO PARTICIPATE.

ANYONE WITH PERSONAL AGENDA HAS THE FREEDOM TO PURSUE THEM AT THEIR OWN DISCRETIONS.

Which is a better idea? Blogging and commenting anonymously behind others or share the discourse in person? Obviously the Latter, as You have correctly put it, good even great ideas are found in the Net. Those ideas will remain as ideas, grand and spicy, but abstract and empty unless acted upon and put into practices.

Netizens meetings does not mean formal gatherings, one or even groups can seek like-minded folks for a picnic, over tea/coffee/beer to exchange opinions and ideas. When there is an important issue that requires more participation just like the minibond fiasco, Site like TOC can be approach for help to organise and permission seeked for gathering, presently only in HLP. I am not for revolution or large scale gatherings, whether for demonstration or otherwise. A core Group that will be able to advance the agenda will suffice. It is only important to have the message and wish properly and effectively relayed to the Authority. If need for mass participation arises, further arrangement shall then follow.

Fear of the Authority infiltrating or monitoring gatherings, this fear is unwarranted unless the netizens involved are up to mischieves. Bear in mind, the face to face meets that I mentioned are for netizens to fraternize, not to take up arms, not to hatch plots to overthrow the Regime and not to fight one another. As I have said, your monikers and anons do not save You from being monitored or identified.
What I am saying here is, no netizen should do anything against the Laws.

Netizens gatherings will also sieve the sinceres from the non-committed but are in the Net, plain ideas qualify as contributions too as some have rightly expressed in this thread. Call them sleeping partners if You like. Meeting one anothers do not mean blogging and commenting no more, no, it is to familiarize one anothers beyond the writings, it is to enhance the relationships. In jest, I have to admit that there are people who like each others’ writings but may not like each others’ faces and demeanours.

To put ideas into fruitions must be the wishes of all sincere people and I sincerely hope some intellectuals will take the initiatives to lead. ‘Zi shang tan ping’ will be great waste, translate into English, it means strategies on papers are useless. So, unless strategies are translated into actions, how great an idea is interpreted, it remains empty talk.

Do wish that You read Zeflys’ suggestions as well, they deserve looking into.

Thanks Zefly for furthering the Subject in discussion.

patriot

Daniel,

“I’m curious. Aren’t HDB prices and CPF withdrawal pertaining INDIRECTLY to human right ?”

Yes of course they are. But I am reminded time and again by Lim, and some of the general public who are not as outspoken or concerned with the ‘abstract’ issues of ‘human rights’. You mention human rights now and they think of Chee Soon Juan. I talk to my dad about CPF, he gets mad at the PAP. But I tell him about human rights in Singapore, he tells me about how it is some secret conspiracy of the West. So, it is really just to talk the language that people are comfortable with.

Balancing what germani and patriot said, I think it might be good idea to move this discussion elsewhere other than this comments page as it has ballooned to be quite hard to keep up. I’m not really sure who is running TOC here, but I’m sure he’s reading this lol… so maybe, just like how you put up a notice today about the Speakers COrner appointment, you can set up a facebook group or what and post the notice here. At least, you know, even if we are to carry on discussions for the time being online, we know each other as human beings and not just annonymous aliases. (and yes, all you doubters, I AM A SECRET INFILTRATOR!!! ngiak ngiak ngiak! Thous shalt be exposed as Marxists!)

Just read some of the articles exposing how the justifications for electricity prices and bus frequencies are flawed. Have to keep giving pressure to the providers to come clean about their calculations.

Wow this is getting interesting and I also see alot of push and pull here.

Some want to meet up and talk more about politics whereas others are fearful that we maybe seen as conspirators up to no good by the authorities. I guess this is Singaporean politics – the fear factor is still very strong here. However,my kudos to those who are gung ho to take things to another level despite the risks and odds. I am also aware that this site may be monitored so those who put their namesand air their thoughts openly ought to be appreciated.

Great things always happen to great people who dare to plod on. My opinion is to let this blog of thoughts develop further on. Some may not be comfortable meeting up whereas others who are more exposed when they are overseas are more ready. SOme like me who are overseas may only support through blogging away or sharing my thoughts in ST forum pages. I don’t see how I can influence or pressure the govt in any form here unless it gives the “mandate”. At worse, we may be seen as passionate people clearing our frustrations daily like the many thousands of netizens here and in other sites.

Our youth is very politically apathetic which is a concern as spoken by some here and even if we see our country going down the hill we may be ignorant of it until it is too late. Nevertheless, I don’t see this happening soon with capable people at the helm now. What we probably want is to have more avenue to air our frustrations and bring this up to the authorities. I think we all know that so far those measure have already being exhausted – petition, illegal assembly by some WP candidates, St forums, open discussions organised by PAP and HLP.

HLP provides the most recipe for success as firstly it is legal and secondly you can gather a crowd. If the media is on our side, it can be seen as a success. The organisation needs to be superb and TKL has proved that a simple speaker system and lots of heart for the common people have advanced us forward alot democratically in terms of freedom of speech and human rights.

Internationally, we also have people like Francis Seow and CSJ who will work over time to bring up our political agenda. As someone hs spoken here, thissite may be monitored by international human rights bodies and I take heart that what we are doing here hopefully may change things for the better in teh future. If not, i am trigger happy firing away my shots whenever I am unhappy.

I’m not sure how many of you have visited Yawning Bread.com but that’s the kind of people we need now. Someone who actually has the patience and brains to analyze data put out by the ‘authorities’ with surgical precision and say ‘hey, your argument/justification’ is flawed.

I’m talking about all the price hikes, the wisdom of the GST etc. Government says, we like to talk about bread and butter issues, right, let’s talk about it now.

The mainstream news media has indeed tried to play ‘both sides of the story’. But if you notice, the last say is usually with the authorities. And then the debate sort of ends there, and then they move to talk about something else.

I feel the way to do it is to keep hammering away the same points over and over again. Like how the herb garden incident is being ‘exposed’. The mainstream media, for all its alleged compliance, also wants to be seen as an objective party, so if enough buzz is generated online about an issue, they will want to pursue it.

Like the Agnes Lin issue. A journalist friend told me that the internet buzz has led to the ST wanting to interview to clear up her side of the story Agnes again, but she apparently turned it down.

Lastly, we also have to earn the trust that we are not rabble-rousers and only want to ‘vent our anger’, but mature people who actually look into issues and keep the PAP ‘on their toes’ as LHL puts it himself.

167) patriot

Thanks for addressing the concerns mentioned and I do share most of your sentiments.

However, I also feel there is a need to clarify some points.

1. I agree that Netizens are not politicians even though the issues discussed are mostly political in nature. For this reason I suggested that we test the boundaries of unchartered territories of online discussion and turn the online platform into one that plays the role of a political party as much as it can. It has to become the voice of the people and it must be loud enough for the authorities to take heed.

2. Being anonymous is not a bad thing altogether. By respecting this we allow ideas to be put across by whoever chooses to participate (even pro-policy, pro-party or pro-govt etc). It does not matter if there are those who join in the discussion to ‘rock the boat’ – all are welcomed.

3. I also agree that there is a need to transform words into action and there is a need for bloggers to meet to discuss how to go about doing this. But, is there a real need to meet up face to face? I feel that organising such meet ups entails a fair bit of organising and would depend on whether each individual can make it to such meetings. Unless we make it such that we meet, say, every Saturday at HLP at 5pm or somehting along the same line. Then anyone can come join in without prejudice.

4. Another thing we can be sure of. Will there be people ‘dare’ enough to meet up even with such an arrangement? No problem with me but I cannot speak for others. I have actually spoken with some friends about this and the general concensus is, anonymosity is fine but showing their faces is not. This is why I said that the element of being ‘intentional targets’ is real. One label is all it takes. Call it fear or anything you like but it IS still real. All it takes is for the govt to go bonkers and think you are making too much trouble for them and destrying their peace and that’s IT.

5. Now, with all these factors at play, it is why I always feel that online discussion is faster and more effective when deciding on the course of actions that we can agree on. This is why I also feel, like you, that we need a team of active people who can bring words into action. This is why I support your call to meet. This is also why I feel that even as we meet, online discussion should take priority over group meetings. Because, even without meeting face to face, we can still link up (outside of TOC) on a different platform to discuss ideas and action plans.

Bottomline we have agreed on is, we need a face for all the words written here and this face or faces has an important role to play – transforming words to action and getting the authorities to listen to the voice of the people.

My take is: online speed is faster than face to face meetings.

I sincerely and honestly hope more bloggers can step forward to answer Patriot’s call. It is a brave call and I am sure we can work something out.

Gemami P.

gemami;

I thank You for your response, the points You raised are noted and I thank You more for calling other netizens to act upon my suggestion, not a call, maybe a mere challenging suggestion. As You have put it; the fear is real and I have said the same thing many times myself at various blogs.

The responses to my suggestion are pretty muted, should I say I quite anticipated the result, infering from the constant calls to walk the talks. But, I am not disapointed, instead I feel assured now, how far netizens are willing to play their parts.

We are citizens in a very pragmatic and realistic(practical) society, bread and butter are what concern most and paradoxically bread and butter are also the causes of our grouses, ramblings and rantings. Yes TOC and its’ members have appeared in television and printed medias, inevitably expose to the Authority and getting their attentions. They are helping the people and the government simultaneously by making these two parties homogenious in ideology amenable to each other. In other words, they are playing peacemaker and or pacifier. I do not see them embarking on dangerous acts.

The TOC people are not politicians, they are active citizens playing their constructive roles to the people, to the country. Rightfully, the leaders should appreciate and be thankful for their contributions. Similarly, netizens can complement TOC and or be active themselves independently.

My suggestion may have only been made in TOC, but, it is not confine to netizens only in TOC Site, it is for all that comes across it.

gemami, I like to say to You that my suggestion does not include clandestine unlawful activities and finally, I forwarded my suggestion as a question, reason being that, I was not very hopeful.

Yours truly: patriot

I don’t think that meeting up is harmful as it allows those who are more eager to do something to come together. If I am in SIngapore, I may join in the discussion but at last I am in Sydney.

Meeting up provides a face to who we are and also screen out those who are serious and those who just want to blog away. I believe a high percentage belongs to the latter group. Maybe you can find less than 10-20% who will come up and meet face to face for further discussions Once you have met up then it is easier to do things as the familiarity and sizing up can then take place. Those who come together with one common objective and passion often come up with fantastic result as they are single minded and united in the pursuit of a common goal.

For too long, we do not have a platform to raise our protests and now we have HLP. For too long, we hide ourselves in secret blogs for fear that we may be found out lamblasting the govt and now we have TOC. Perhaps, the time now to test the water carries much lesser risk than before. The ground now is much more sweeter than before to carry out political activities within the law.

Even when I read the Sunday Times today (2/11), the PM has said that there will be more political openness. Surely he can’t eat his own words if things are done openly and within the legal framework.

The net isn’t really anonymous you know? Even if you don’t put your name down, you can still be tracked. If you need proof, just look at Odex.

That said, if you’re going to post things online, you might as well say them in real life.

Gilbert,

Just suggesting a few steps how you can take things further. Like you mentioned, there will be people who will drop in comments to ‘let of steam’. Then there are others who may wanna take things further like act as a pressure group or something…

I feel that the serious people should come together as a non partisan group.

I feel that you may wanna start an online ‘group’ or something. I suggested Facebook on my previous post.

Next is to hook up with other more thoughtful and prominent people. Like Warren Ferdinaz (my spelling sucks lol), Philip Jeyaratnam, Alex Au (?) the guy who runs yawning bread… maybe even Mr Brown (whom I believe has a very passionate serious side), Colin Goh etc etc.

Then again, those who are more serious could have easily joined the Think Tank or something lol. Pardon my ignorance. Just throwing some ideas around. The thing is, while TOC is a great site, it also faces the same problems as any alternative news website, where the discussions do not lead to something, as people would have moved on to other news to comment about.

Do you notice that somehow opposition members tend to be invariably businessmen and that non hail from the public sector (well maybe ex public sector like Francis Seow).

If really the oppositions can take over the govt. it means that Pap is becoming lousy and people don’t support them any more, it means oppositions are better, so why worry if opposition become the govt ? they can dig out a lot of things then

178) Tew N S on November 2nd, 2008 10.13 pm If really the oppositions can take over the govt. it means that Pap is becoming lousy and people don’t support them any more, it means oppositions are better, so why worry if opposition become the govt ? they can dig out a lot of things then

What if an alternative party takes over the present one?
any alternative parties can run the country as efficient of course, even if they may not be as efficient from the start but sincere in looking after the citizens welfare, at least the people knows where their monies had gone to. With the present ruling party, everything concerning the peoples monies are secrets and cannot be disclose, God knows how many more billions of our taxpayers monies would just disappered into thin air in time to come, possible? of course, who knows besides those who holds the keys to the nation reserve.

tiredsingaporean, i agree with you on this issue wholeheartedly, but i would like to know about the conditions of the alternative party. is it that another board of PAP members will take over the current board/?? please tell me in detail, as it may be helpful in seeing whether an alternative party would be good for a small country like SG.

JBA, it does not matter where the alternative party coming from, whether its from the 2 already appted ones in parliaments, a newly formed independent party or an internal breakaway from the exisiting PAPees (which is also highly possible when that someone’s gone to meet JBJ) Believe me, singapore will still progress ahead. Change is inevitable to anyone in any country, from good to bad or reverse, so no one or party can solely claim the success of singapore belongs to them, infact it belongs to its people, the true blue citizens of singapore.

The only party that can come into power for the next 5 years term now is the one that can and must be able to do that one big drastic change to singapore i.e. reversing the present system to meet the peoples needs. The present system has already gone so off balance and is causing so much suffering to its citizens instead, infact they are built to benefit more to those rich foreigners throwing their monies here and ultimately where the $$$ goes to? There is a bible saying: even satan knows how to protect his children, so what is our present ones doing? I leave to your own imagination.

tiredsingaporean

One aspect of elections policy that impedes the alternative parties (formerly known as Opposition) footing into parliament is the GRC. I wonder if the opposition would consider breaking the mental barrier of a GRC system and galvanise an alliance of the most credible from amongst the different parties to contest a GRC, considering;

All PAP GRC teams are pivoted only by one or two powerhouses flanked by a couple political backbenchers and a couple more amatuers (eg. the first political BAND, Duh!). If the Álternative parties can visualise a GRC as a group of adjacent SMCs, an alliance can configured to have 5 or 6 of the best individuals from amongst the various alternative parties forming a team to contest one or two GRCs.

Should the alliance win a GRC, each Op MP will remain to be backed by her/his own party in the sub-boundary however, as a whole, the full alternative parties mechanism can be mobilised for better representation and management. This may create an opening to a quantitative increase in Alternative representation made up of the best from amongst the alternatives, the credibility of alternatives may be boosted over time.

Thanks to all who are so passionate and earnest in doing something for the country. I take my hats off to you. Patriot and Zefly I am sure will make good leaders in time to come.

Many Singaporeans I feel tend to be politically apathetic as the fear factor is still very real. People associated speaking out/politics with arrest and negativity.
Yes this link may go when TOC closes it and people like you and me may move on to other links and the passion though still burning may evaporate over time.

If TOC wishes, this link can go on a bit longer so that more views can be collected. Those who are keen can then open up a Facebook or TOC can even consider a permanent link on this issue as apparently it is a serious and prominent concern of all who visited TOC.

Patriot and Zefly who are keen to meet up or do something concrete can ask for others who are here to consider face to face discussion on what are the next step to be done. You may want to start with a small group of 4 or 5 first as it is easier to work with as when you start too big you may have different views and agenda from too many people. The core group can then slowly get in more people once the initial group has gelled up. As spoken, I am in Sydney but my heart is in Singapore. Many Singaporeans whom I have met overseas are equally patriotic and very loyal citizens but feel helpless and trapped in Singapore.

I find it admirable that I can find others here who are as passionate and energetic as me to do something for the country. It is not just to oppose whatever the govt throws at us but to come up with concrete suggestions and strong views to enable the govt to see that some of it’s policies need fine tuning. For all we know, they have receive such views already. An interest group seems feasible staffed by like minded people. Maybe there are many out there who are waiting for one another to start. This down time needs strong minded people to do something for the country. Keep it up guys!

Dear Patriot, Zefly & Gilbert,

Allow me to share my view further.

172) patriot: The TOC people are not politicians, they are active citizens playing their constructive roles to the people, to the country.

I agree and I did say quite clearly that I do not think we need to become politicians to take up issues with the govt.

Bread and butter issues would be a good start to bring about the attention of the public to this space. This space has to become larger than what it is now. We have to create a new model of bringing news to the people. The real news, not the ones presented in the mainstream media. See my reply to Zefly below and you will realise that the msm papers are heading in the same direction – probably after reading my suggestion here …ha…ha…ha….

172) patriot: I like to say to You that my suggestion does not include clandestine unlawful activities and finally, I forwarded my suggestion as a question, reason being that, I was not very hopeful.

I am fully aware that your suggestion is one that is peaceful in nature and definitely not unlawful with no clandestine intention to conquer and rule. This is furthest from my mind also. All we want is to bring about a more attentive govt, one that listens to the people and feel their pains and make decisions based on these.

Should the day come when we have this power, the power of the voice of the people; how do you think this govt will react? One of 2 ways, as I mentioned earlier – one; to come after you, or, two, become more attentive and give what the people want. This is not fear. This is being rational. We know this govt and we know how it will react. Will we then be ready to take up arms and fight? The people must be united in this battle. It is not a battle for one or two. This is why I feel we need to reach out to as many as possible in the shortest possible time.

176) Zefly: The thing is, while TOC is a great site, it also faces the same problems as any alternative news website, where the discussions do not lead to something, as people would have moved on to other news to comment about.

Do we give up then? We need to find where the niche is and work towards it to get people to be continually interested or for some sort of conclusion so as to draw up a case that can be presented to the authorities that be.

We need a group of leaders here and this is one reason why I supported the call by Patriot to all who can meet this challenge to meet up face to face for discussion. It is a good call but we must keep our focus on online discussion to reach out to the masses in real time. Together & with TOC, we can then go on to present our cases to the authorities in a civilised and proper manner.

Zefly : Next is to hook up with other more thoughtful and prominent people. Like Warren Ferdinaz (my spelling sucks lol), Philip Jeyaratnam, Alex Au (?) the guy who runs yawning bread… maybe even Mr Brown (whom I believe has a very passionate serious side), Colin Goh etc etc.

Exactly, like I have said all along, we must navigate un-chartered waters.
The Singapore press must have been reading TOC. You would have noticed on page 6 of this morning’s TODAY newspaper where PN Balaji wrote an article titled: ‘Journalism Revisited, Revised’. He spoke about the ‘impending’ death of printed news in 3 to 5 years time. He challenged that a new business model on news reporting be found. He suggested that since there is no successful model to copy from, the next best thing to do is to throw as many darts as possible. Going online and online news is the way to go and in doing so, we need to hook up with like-minded partners and consolidate.

It is exactly what I have been suggesting. We need to test the boundaries to what we can do and achieve, throw darts. Based on Balaji’s calculation, we have 3 to 5 years to fight it out with the mainstream media. We need to get started now.

His other suggestion is for the printed media to go ‘tabloid’ where news are presented as stories. Well, we can tweak this suggestion and present our online discussion in story forms. We need to try new ideas.

173) Gilbert Goh Keow Wah: I don’t think that meeting up is harmful……..

Yes, it is not harmful but you will have problem trying to get people to meet up. Maybe TOC can conduct a poll on this.

183) Gilbert Goh Keow Wah: Thanks to all who are so passionate and earnest in doing something for the country. I take my hats off to you. Patriot and Zefly I am sure will make good leaders in time to come.

Allow me to join my voice to yours, Gilbert. We need more people like you guys. I thank you from the bottom of my heart. And to you too Gilbert, for being with us even as you are so far away. This is one of the benefits of online discussion as opposed to group meetings. And we do need all these contributions from all quarters, near and far.

183) Gilbert Goh Keow Wah: Patriot and Zefly who are keen to meet up or do something concrete can ask for others who are here to consider face to face discussion on what are the next step to be done. You may want to start with a small group of 4 or 5 first …………

Yup! . . . but do bear in mind that face to face need not necessarily be side by side. We can use the technology available to us to come ‘face to face’ like net/teleconferencing. Hook up our webcams and talk. We need to do this because the MSM will surely use the technology available to them to the fullest. We must compete as best as we can.

I must once again thank Patriot for asking such a simple but hard to answer question. We do go about writing and writing our thoughts but do we ever stop for a moment to think if we can put our thoughts into action. This is where most of us will need to do a lot of soul searching to be true to ourselves; and our country – the country we care and love.

Gemami P.

Quote, “Ha ha, You should have been there when I was preaching civil rights to student leaders at the Singapore High Commission in London. As soon as I started talking about it, the environment instantly became chilling cold. It is liked as if civil rights do not apply to student union bodies” Donaldson Tan Post#140, unquote.

Dear Mr Donaldson Tan; I don’t fare well here too, however, the enthusiasms shown by Gilbert, Zefly and gemami did give some comforts.

And the Group of Polytechnic Students petitioning for lower transport fares, provide some consolations. (This petition is an independent event that has nothing to do with this Thread) I believed the Students are emboldened by recent events at HLP.

Dear Donaldson Tan;
Could You kindly give me your expert opinions and understandings with regards the reactions we received and may I also request that You do me a kind personal favour of telling me your personal understandings(from reading my posts here) of what I have commented here. No obligation, feel free to decline, criticise and whatever You deem fit. I thank You !

patriot

My imagination will go far and wide tiredsingaporean, and i completely understand how you feel, as i am one who shares the same burden with you. People here such as gemani, patriot and zefty are all fellow brothers who suffer the same fate as us. The elite of the country do not care for us, and the only ones who dared stand before them and fought back are either dead or jailed. I bear the same name as the great man who died, and i will join them upon completion of my education. I have a dream that one day, all singaporeans, regardless of race or religion need not suffer under these elitist scum. And the only ideology that can solve this problem is definitely populist. Perhaps an upcoming party can take this into consideration when they fight against them in the next GE.

all those who are interested, might i suggest that we actually do talk on msn instead of here? it might actually be more lively and active as people are put in live conversations. if you are willing, then it would be great.

Hi JBA,
The problem here is that all of us here may not even have a chance to vote in the next GE, God knows what can happen prior to the GE, right? they may just abolish the entire GE when the alternative parties get to much of the people support by quoting their usual lame excuses that the country is facing some sort of internal security threat, then what? whether you people agree or not, what can you people do? riots? c’mon everyone of us knows damn well how the ruling party plays their game and how they turned around and bite you guys back after we voted for them all these years. Only sad to say that our older folks has continuously being conned into buying their stories when they start giving out sweeties just before the GE, and almost immediately after securing for another term, they starts taking back many time more than they gave out, knowing that there is nothing you people can do to them, so the only hope now lies with the newer and younger generations to fight on for your own rights, for the rights of the citizens and the rights of a democratic nation. The strength is in the people now and hopefully with the force from all international bodies to do something just and right for the people of singapore.

188) tiredsingaporean

Absolutely correct that we might not get the chance to vote. However, we must still look on the bright side. We can still reach out to those who will be voting and help them make the right choice.

Previously, at every GE, there was only the msm that reported things according to the agenda of the PAP. Things have changed.

We must really, really (I cannot stress enough) make the effort to reach as wide an audience as we can online. We have to start right now, right here. We have from now till the next GE to bring up the profile of TOC. My hope is for TOC to be so newsworthy and reliable that Singaporeans can see it as a dependable source of news – news without the filters – as raw as it is.

It has to be a platform for Singaporeans to write their own news. Just imagine if Singaporeans are to tune in to TOC during election time. It will not only give the msm a run for their money but more importantly it can bring across the opposition’s cause and election messages effecively.

This is where I am pinning my hope on.

gemami and tiredsingaporean, i also know that riotting is not the way for us educated singaporeans, but im sure both of you’ll know bout thaksin and suharto and how the people broke free from their regime.
gemami, i totally agree with your plight and i have no disagreements in the idea of not having another GE, coz if im not wrong, my parents did mention to me about the government threatening the citizens of cheng san to vote for them, or face dire consequences in the GE of 1999 or 1998. But don’t you think, that if they are so willing to even cut our voting rights, they wouldnt restrict the way we post media or other infomation? furthermore, it is not the young gen that votes for the pap, they do noe abt current situations and vote wisely. It is the older gen that blindly votes for the pap. worse being is that sadly, the older gen is not really in touch with IT. how do you propose that we get the real truth out? through pamphlet passing in the streets?? chee tried that and ended up paying 500k fine for that. so in conclusion, i can only say that there is one way. Russia, indonesia and even malaysia had this, its time we had it. Do not by any chance name this method, for they will be frightened, and because of that, you can go sit down and drink kopi with gopalan nair behind bars

Yes Gem, I too will do my part for our nation like everyone else here. Infact, I’ve already spreading the awareness of TOC to many of my contacts and urging them to participate in this forum, hope TOC grows to be the biggest alternative to our mainstream media soon.

cheers!

A major warning for everyone, if this forum becomes too anti “Pillage And Plunder”,
they will start observing here, and start arresting those who are involved. This is the major fear factor for all those who dare oppose. And many people who are bloggers have been jailed for breaching the law. So people, watch your words and make them as vague as possible, while still getting the point through.

183) Gilbert Goh Keow Wah: Thanks to all who are so passionate and earnest in doing something for the country. I take my hats off to you. Patriot and Zefly I am sure will make good leaders in time to come.

ahahahaha… tell that to anyone who knows me and they will die laughing too.

188) People here such as gemani, patriot and zefty are all fellow brothers who suffer the same fate as us. The elite of the country do not care for us, and the only ones who dared stand before them and fought back are either dead or jailed.

JBA, let’s not get too worked up here. I don’t expect the ‘elites’ to care so much for me either that this place becomes a welfare state. Personally, I think the truth lies somewhere between the government’s statement that they really care for us, and the extreme opposition’s stand that they only care for themselves. The government likes to say that the current system of wealth distribution is the fairest, and rocking the boat will make us lose our competitive edge etc etc… without enough data and information there is no way of knowing. As for the PAP’s record of crushing dissent, every shining nation on the hill will have it’s dark moments. Not to say it’s forgivable or anything, but if you ask around, many will find that they are ready to overlook this for the ‘prosperity’ we have now. Screaming and shouting about isn’t gonna change anything. You don’t see Obama harping that George Bush stole the election in 2000. You wanna do something for the people? Be level-headed. And also give credit where it is due.

Lastly, me, being the net-sparstic, I dunno if the administrator has my email address. But if you do, whoever you are, think would be great to start a mailing list or something. My suggestion is to hook up with like-minded people and start some discussion or something. I know only talk-rooster-sing-song at the moment, but might lead to something. Pro-establishment people are warmly welcomed too. But what won’t be allowed is trolling and intolerance, and namecalling and stuff. The best way of being pro-singapore is, I believe, the Middle Way. (i have no freaking idea what i’m talking about lol)

Frankly speaking, TOC is a public discussion platform for any singaporeans to speak up their minds. Those who are here including myself do not belongs to nor represent any alternative party. If the ruling party feels that it is a threat to them, then so much so they have to start doing the right things for the people instead. We are not here to start a riot nor do we have the ability to start one, we are here to let the people knows what is happening in and around singapore, is that a crime? I am just participating as an individual wanting to know and let know what I believe as an individual citizen of singapore, and I do believe each and everyone of us citizens of sg do agree to what I am talking about.

well, im not worked up zefly, and i will give credit to the pap in the past. but now, it is far less than anything applaudable. there is a saying that if one sits in a chair for too long, his skin will be stuck on the seat and it will be tougher to remove him. same case scenario here don’t you agree? and as for the people who i was referring to who were dead or jailed, im referring to JBJ and Chee. Personally, although many people dislike chee, i feel that he is actually a great leader and a true example of bravery. Chee if im not mistaken is a neuro surgeon or something like that. This clearly shows that he was wealthy and was actually part of the elite. but he decided to break free and help us, and look what happened to him.
As for JBJ, calling him a superhero is an understatement. In his cases against the pap, if im not mistaken, “Emperor” actually banned the privy council and the queen council from coming to singapore for political cases. what do you deem of this.
Lastly, zelfy, are you willing also to meet up? i for one sure would. A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step. I feel that the beginning of the end will start with common people meeting up and discussing, followed by larger groups, then it will progress from there. Until this comes through, i suggest we might discuss on msn, where we can have an active convo, instead of forums where it is time consuming, and the articles may become ‘’stale” before the receiving party reads it.

well, im not worked up zefly, and i will give credit to the pap in the past. but now, it is far less than anything applaudable. there is a saying that if one sits in a chair for too long, his skin will be stuck on the seat and it will be tougher to remove him. same case scenario here don’t you agree? and as for the people who i was referring to who were dead or jailed, im referring to JBJ and Chee. Personally, although many people dislike chee, i feel that he is actually a great leader and a true example of bravery. Chee if im not mistaken is a neuro surgeon or something like that. This clearly shows that he was wealthy and was actually part of the elite. but he decided to break free and help us, and look what happened to him.
As for JBJ, calling him a superhero is an understatement. In his cases against the pap, if im not mistaken, “Emperor” actually banned the privy council and the queen council from coming to singapore for political cases. what do you deem of this.
Lastly, zelfy, are you willing also to meet up? i for one sure would. A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step. I feel that the beginning of the end will start with common people meeting up and discussing, followed by larger groups, then it will progress from there. Until this comes through, i suggest we might discuss on msn, where we can have an live convo, instead of forums where it is time consuming, and the articles may become ‘’stale” before the receiving party reads it.

Thanks Zefly(Post#193);

for the Post(#193) which I hope will result in a better understanding on the Question I posed on whether netizens will fraternize and pool their ideas and resolves in person(face to face), for more concrete actions rather than mere postings in the Net. In short, to put the ideas into actions and not just theorizing.

It seems that the Question has been misunderstood for a call for gathering of all netizens for collective actions supposedly on or for a political motive. I reread my comments here a few times and am certain that they have no such connotations.

I supposed I am guilty of ambiguity to some extent, but I did said that netizens seek liked minded netizens to fraternize, which means the individual netizen sorting the others, including groups, to connect with on his/her own. I did not suggest any venue nor any agenda for collective action, in fact this is furthest from my mind. What I did imply though, is for netizens to walk the talk.

Personally, I would meet up with others outside Cyberspace if approached and the other party(ies) appears to be of same frequency, though it has not happened. I don’t mind having a cup/glass with someone I can clique with in the Net or in the real world. I am a social animal.

I was on the verge of weaning off from the Net when my children returned to Singapore and I do not need the MSN anymore, but the Financial Meltdown and the opening up of HLP filled the Net with much interesting contents. I also begin to find more youths getting on to the scene and they gave me the impetus to stay as I feel their(youths) participations are very positive towards the Discourse. They boost my hope that apathy will be beaten, the sooner the better. In fact Commenter Observer(HG-SG) and I were been encouraged by some of these youngsters in their postings, You could read them in TOC.

I would say we are all trying to contribute to better our society, I do not see myself any different from the rest in Cyberspace, all of us are sharing informations, views and ideas INDIVIDUALLY in the Net, it would be better to combine the efforts and make them work like the way Mr Tan Kin Lian and Mr Leong Sze Hian exemplified.

patriot

I see that we have one more keen participant here in ZBA. Well done!

I believe those who are keen to meet up to carry this further are all in their 40s-50s – correct me if I am wrong. I am in my mid 40s. I am sure some are younger so kudos to you!

For too long, we have associated politics with demonstration, political partying and arrest. This got to stop as it is further from the truth.

Overseas, people gather to discuss political issues (often those that affect the lives of the common people) openly. Students in many unis in Australia have political groups and they meet regularly to talk about political issues that affect the country. Some even demonstrate in their unis peacefully for issues that they deem outrightly wrong. They are not politicians nor violent but simply openly demonstrate what they feel is wrong as a group.

They are many interest groups here too. Some are envrionmentalists, others family activists and some for animal lovers. You be surprised that there is a political group here in Australia called Happy Family and they stand for election!

What we can do here Patriot, Zefly, Gemami and ZBA is to start a peace loving interest group that stands for a certain ideology. We can advocate for issues that affect the lives of the common people – e.g. bread and butter, the poor and needy and unfair treatment of elderly, etc. We can find that currently there are a few active interest groups now in Singapore – Aware – they advocate for equal rights for women and Aninal Lovers group – they take care of issues that concern the welfare of animals. Many family interest groups operate in Singapore e.g. Fatherhood, Single Parents, etc.

An interest group needs registration and this can easily be done over online registration. It is considered a society so people who participate need to register their names and particulars making it very above board and legal. It is up to the authorities to approve the society thus giving credibility and legaility to the activities of the interest group. This will also allow one to see how much leeway and freedom the authorities will give to further expression and space. If my gut feeling is right, they are trying to give more room to such peaceful groups. Opening up of HLP is a big giant step for Singapore and I am glad that LHL provided that extra room for more freedom of expression. We are not political but more concern with bread and butter issues, etc. Politics mean you want to start a political group like WP and stand for election. We are not.

Naturally, interest groups make up of like minded people who will try to push their interests to authorities for attention and action. They will do alot of running around to gather feedback, invite the public to voice their opinion on issues either online or otherwise and even do up petitions for the govt to view. In a away, I see TOC as an interest group but online mode. It’s venture into the HLP may later see itself generate into an interest group for sure.

So far, if I am right, there is no interest group here that operates in this manner without any linkage to political parties. As I can see, none of us want to be associated with politics or register ourselves as a party so an interest group concern with the issues that affect the lives of the common people can be a legal feasible operative for us to gather and talk about such issues.

Any comments anyone?

Gilbert, i feel that is a great idea, but you must understand that today, although there are interest groups that are rich and influential ( bread and butter = red cross?) , they still cannot instill the influence and authority that a political party can. What can be done right now is actually to open TOC into a much broader scope, so much so that it becomes as famous as websites like friendster or facebook. This will help people to see the real truth in whats acutally going on, instead of getting fed with propaganda and lies from the current mainstream media. And for the meeting patriot, its basically a meeting to help clearify our ideas face to face and discuss on what can be done to get the real info to the common man of singapore.

198) Gilbert

There are quite a fair bit of constraints when you compare the general functions of interest groups as compared to, say, online blogging on socio-political issues.

The most telling will be its own self-inflicted restrictions because an interest group has to subscribe to a certain interest. It is made even worse if it is a legally registered group. Can it tackle issues outside of the registered ‘interest’ they subscribe to?

I do not know but the danger here is that should they deviate from its registered purpose, then it can become an easy target for the authorities especailly if the ‘deviation’ is of a politcal nature.

Hi Folks;

It will be discourteous of me if I do not bid goodbye.

Let me say good luck, good health and good writings and goodbye to all.

From: Yours Faithfully patriot.

Thanks for all your comments ZBA, Gemami and why is Patriot bidding us goodbye? IS something wrong? Please explain Patriot. If I have offended you in anyway I apologise.

ZBA – I think that you got me wrong here as Red Cross represented a welfare social organisation that really provide humanitarian assistance to home and abroad but they do not push forth their interests to the authorities. An interest group meets and discusses issues that concern a certain topic e.g. family or environment and would present them to the authorities or media for attention.

Gemami – I share your fears as if legally registered, an interest group can’t go beyond it’s boundaries of interest e.g. welfare or humanistic issues and they also have to abide by the code of ethics. Nevertheless, registration of an interest group brings about legality and officialdom. My only fear for a non-partisan free-to-view group is that what we do is “unoffocial” that is who that we represent, does the authorities recognise our voice and will we get into trouble if we do too much? The general feeling is that there are still certain OB markers out there and I don’t want to side track them if possible. We are thus testing unchartered waters here.

PAtriot – I don’t understand your statement so it may be good to clarify further. I hope that despire disagreeing we still don’t lost our heart-beat here i.e to do something for our country. I may be portrayed as pro-government here adovcating registration but i am just trying to check oursevles abit unless all we want to do is just to come together and chit-chat about political issues without obligation which is also fine. This could be the first step.

Dear Donaldson Tan, Could You kindly give me your expert opinions and understandings with regards the reactions we received and may I also request that You do me a kind personal favour of telling me your personal understandings(from reading my posts here) of what I have commented here. – Patriot (#185)

Huh? I am no expert. Just someone who got the balls to do what I deem right. There are many others at TOC who also have the balls to do what they deem right. Gerald Giam (remember the TOC Public Transport Week?) and Tan Kin Lian (remember the MAS/DBS/Lehman Saga?).

If anyone here like this discussion to become an offline activity, I don’t see any problem with it. Offline discussion in Singapore on such matters usually take place as Coffeeshop Talk or Taxi Driver Chat. Does being associated to the coffeeshop or the taxi make them less relevant? It actually doesn’t. In fact, the cofffeeshop and taxi are actually powerful platform to spread messages and ideas to people offline because almost everybody engages these 2 platforms for routine purposes.

It has to be a platform for Singaporeans to write their own news. Just imagine if Singaporeans are to tune in to TOC during election time. It will not only give the msm a run for their money but more importantly it can bring across the opposition’s cause and election messages effecively. – gemami (#189)

GE reporting and analysis is illegal during election. If the government intends to open up politically, it is essential for a plethora of independent and partisan voices engaging in political reporting and analysis of the General Election. It doesn’t help when we have a state-controlled press which is in tune with PAP’s conservative pragmatism. Ideology is one of the essential filter in using mainstream media for propaganda. However, this does not ban discussion and analysis of GE in coffeeshops. Given Singapore is so small, why should one resident of a GRC should not know what the MP candidate is saying at another GRC or SRC? Both the PAP and Opposition in Singapore are horrible at communicating policies and master plans to citizens.

Personally, although many people dislike chee, i feel that he is actually a great leader and a true example of bravery. Chee if im not mistaken is a neuro surgeon or something like that. This clearly shows that he was wealthy and was actually part of the elite. but he decided to break free and help us, and look what happened to him. – JBA (#196)

Dr Chee actually holds a neuropsychology. In fact, his masters and PhD were sponsored by his university. He is actually a scholar-turned-politician by any yardstick of measure in Singapore.

It seems that the Question has been misunderstood for a call for gathering of all netizens for collective actions supposedly on or for a political motive. I reread my comments here a few times and am certain that they have no such connotations. – Patriot (#197)

Why worry if the connotations are political or not. Politics is not a dirty word. To push for changes at the policy level, political participation is inevitable. The more suitable term here would be partisan. You can be political and not partisan. But if you are partisan, you are definitely political too. In the end, one has to take side in the regime of political parties if you were to really push hard for policy making. What we need in Singapore is a renewed sector of activists and lobbyists to champion causes in Singapore and not leave everything to PAP’s hands.

Gilbert, thats where the problem lies, the media is controlled, and the authorities, not much can be said about them. But maybe, just maybe, we can get through to them on ideas of family and environment as you said. Other things that actually affects our lives badly, like politics, or the current situation of the foreigners, they will never listen to us. How do you intend to solve on that? I can only think of one solution. One that many people in other countries turned to , to overcome their oppressors.

To: JBA

If we dont try we never know. TOC I think is already doing something along this line – getting people to come here and blog away their political thoughts and frustrations.

It is tough getting people to share their ideas and thoughts openly and I guess as our dear Patriot has experienced, there are not many that will even come out and meet or bravely bring our dissatisfaction to the authorities. This is the problem with Singapore and it has to change for changes to happen to us.

So long as Singapore prefers to silently let the govt does what they want, we will continue to be unhappy and unsatisfied. During down time, such frustation is magnified and that is why we have the minibond protest at HLP and the Poly protest about transport cost.

Ah yes GIlbert, were the protests successful? I was not keeping up with it. The reason why older generation people do not want to stand protest is because of fear. If Im not mistaken, there was a protest in 1998 about the rising cost of HDB flats, and four middle-aged plump people, 2 women and 2 men, in their mid-40s who held pickets and shouted we refuse to pay, or something like that. Do you know how the government responded? They sent in 60 police officers, and 32 “123X” riot police officers to “supress” the protesters. 92 police officers for 4 protesters? Don’t you feel that someone is abit too uptight. Well, on another note, I wholeheartedly agree with you that we may never know unless we try. But this is unlike other countries. Here, we actually know what will happen to us if we do such a thing. Im sure you don’t want to spend the next ten years seeing your kids grow up through a glass pane? As for me, I’ve still got my whole life ahead of me. Trust me when i say this, if it changes this country, i will not mind sacrificing my life. I love my country, its just that the elitist scum are making it a living hell for us.
The only solution is that all the people must unite. They can take 100 people, but can they take 100000 people? That day will come, my dear friends. It is the day when the vengeance of the common man is realised. It may be tomorrow, or the week later, or even the year later, but i assure you it will come. It will not be spurred by one man, but it will the cause of the culmulative actions that are now currently adding up. It has already begun, and its just a matter of time before it starts.

205) Gilbert Goh Keow Wah on November 5th, 2008 6.56 pm
So long as Singapore prefers to silently let the govt does what they want, we will continue to be unhappy and unsatisfied. During down time, such frustation is magnified and that is why we have the minibond protest at HLP and the Poly protest about transport cost.

I can sense that singaporeans are no longer keeping silent after strings of blunders with too many questions raised and not getting the answers from those held responsible, and to make matter worst, instead of addressing the issues from those responsible, they create more frustrations to the people. All I can say that there will be more blunders to come, more tensions and more people getting more aggressions.

So tiredsingaporean, do you feel that actually a R*** may occur here in singapore, and do you agree with my previous post, at least to a minimal extent?

I do not think so, but it all depends as we can feel that aggressions are already taking place and building up, whether the responsible people wants to start doing the right things and prefer to stay on with their arroganic nature makes alot of difference to what is going to take shape in the mind of the people and keeping silent by assuming the problems can be resolve by themselves is never a good option to take, especially when people become united into one big mass, and that could make history here.

It is tough getting people to share their ideas and thoughts openly and I guess as our dear Patriot has experienced, there are not many that will even come out and meet or bravely bring our dissatisfaction to the authorities. This is the problem with Singapore and it has to change for changes to happen to us. – Gilbert Goh (#205)

To solve these problems, we do not necessary have to take up the confrontational route. As long as people complained to the government, it shows that the people are still reliant on the government, giving the government and ruling party an upper hand in managing dissent right from the start. The goal is how to make the government redundant? How to make citizens less reliant on the government and the ruling party? This is where civil society comes in. We can exert pressure collectively and help each other to make changes because we hold a lot of market power when we, the people, become one collective body.

there was a protest in 1998 about the rising cost of HDB flats, and four middle-aged plump people, 2 women and 2 men, in their mid-40s who held pickets and shouted we refuse to pay, or something like that. Do you know how the government responded? They sent in 60 police officers, and 32 “123X” riot police officers to “supress” the protesters. 92 police officers for 4 protesters? Don’t you feel that someone is abit too uptight. – JBA (#206)

Scaremongering no doubt. HDB refused to tackle the root of the problem or admit that HDB are getting too expensive. But the thing is this. People do have choice. If it is too expensive, stop buying. Tell your friends and relatives to stop buying HDB flats. Rent if you need a place, but if you can’t afford to buy a HDB flat, never buy and add so much debt on yourself. Adding so much debt on yourself is already ridiculous.

Thanks JBA, TiredSingaporean and Donaldson for your comments here.

YA I realised that Singaporeans are frustrated but no where to turn to. Some, like me, wrote to the press hoping that they can get the authorities’ attention and things may change for the better. Many others blog away their frustration. We may have the highest number of bloggers who do this in our country!

I believe a new dawn has arrived on our shore with the minibond and Poly protest. Strangely, there is no official word from the authorities on these two protests yet. JBA, like ,e, belonged to the era of the yesteryears whereby we witnessed serious extreme clampdown on open protests against any governmental issue. the ISA is still very much alive in our country. Just recently, some WP members were arrested when they protested in the Tak Boleh Tahan saga outside Parliament. Their court cases are still ongoing.

So why are the minibond and Poly protests got away scot free whereas the opposition political party’s protesters got arrested? I believe that the former protests were done on a large scale and they are not politically associated. As the protests are carried out by the WP members related – an opposition party, the authorities may be stricter on their activities which are seen as partisan. I dont know, I am merely guessing here but it looks quite clear here. The association with any opposition party’s activities may be seen as threatening to the survival of the ruling party.

I think if we bring our protests logically and within reason, the authorities may maintain their quiet composure here. Nevertheless, if they go out of hand and there is violence or some injury, then I believe the authorities will come in and stop them.

If we don’t test the waters, they will always become unchartered but we do it within the law and peacefully. Singapore needs to change and that applies not only to the govt. We are too bochap and disinterested in how our country is governed and that may not be a good thing as the country belongs to everyone not just the ruling party. Politics is for everyone that holds the pink IC as it concerns our vision, aspiration and hope. It is also not doing anything that is anti-govt which may be wrong. It is providing an alternative voice to the govt and letting them know about our needs and frustrations. If the govt sees that we are serious, logical and rational in our activities, they will not do much to clamp down but instead may welcome this new dawn opening. TOC has done such a good job already and I applaud them even though I am overseas in Sydney now.

Hi i have mixed up the opposition political party name to the Tak Boleh Tahan case. They are from the SDP and not WP as mentioned. My apologies.

I believe a new dawn has arrived on our shore with the minibond and Poly protest. Strangely, there is no official word from the authorities on these two protests yet. – Gilbert Goh (#211)

So why are the minibond and Poly protests got away scot free whereas the opposition political party’s protesters got arrested? I believe that the former protests were done on a large scale and they are not politically associated. – Gilbert Goh (#211)

Protest has been legalised since 1 September 2008. But it is only allowed to take place at Speaker’s Corner.

The protests associated with the alternative political parties were conducted before 1 September 2008. I hardly agree their protests were illegal on grounds of their political allegiance. Nevertheless, all this shows that alternative political parties had the foresight to see an avenue for air public grievance and dissent is much needed to affect change in policy-making.

Perhaps, in time to come, more people will be more daring to stage a protest on more unreasonable and illogical policies of the government ( Singtel hike, Electricity hike) Anyways, is it true that Hong Kong’s government lowered its electricity cost for the people, while ours is increasing our bills like mad?

I am sadden that patriot has left us for unknown reasons. I will miss his contributions which I have always treasured. Hopefully, should he decide to peep in again one of these days, he would return and share his comments and ideas with us once again.

The trouble with this govt is its intolerance with opposing views. It becomes unbearable for them if the views comes from any of the opposition parties. This is further worsened if the opposing views make more sense than their own.

They have this silent belief that because they have the ‘best’ brains in the land then they must have all the correct answers.

I think it is along this line that we often see ‘dissidents’ who are politically registered always get arrested, sued and destroyed in the harshest manner.

Socio-political blogs and non-partisan groups speaking up for issues on behalf of the citizens get more freedom to express their views.

This is why it is important for us to make use of this platform to challenge the govt to act. This is one of the reason why I have always maintained that online platforms would be a better tool to achieve this end – to wake up and educate all Singaporeans.

I agree with Donaldson (by the way, appreciate your level-headed analysis of the situation) that coffeshop and taxi talk are just as important but the point I was trying to make was that online discussions might just be more effective and faster. Two components that is required to ’save’ Singapore from the uncaring PAP govt. in the shortest possible time.

Yes It is sad that Patriot left us and I don’t know why he did that.

Is it because of what we said or someone offended him? He is one of those that advocated for a face to face meeting which is good and I can see that he has a good heart.

I know bloggers also have emotions as we are all human. Sometimes how people responded to us is also important as some may felt hurt by certain rude remarks. Nobody knows everything here and we all learn from one another or else we end up like a blog for the elitists.

The way some bloggers write sometimes make me hesistant to put down my comments as most of you can write so well and come up with such good ideas. Half the time I have to check the dictionary for certain words that I don’t understand from some of your bloggings.

Nevertheless I learned much from you and will continue to pen away my heart-felt comments. If I have offend anyone do forgive me.

And if Patriot reads my comment here, I want to let you know that we cherish you and that your comments here are much appreciated. Do return to us!

215) JBA on November 6th, 2008 11.40 am Perhaps, in time to come, more people will be more daring to stage a protest on more unreasonable and illogical policies of the government ( Singtel hike, Electricity hike) Anyways, is it true that Hong Kong’s government lowered its electricity cost for the people, while ours is increasing our bills like mad?

I am wondering isn’t PROFITEERING is an illegal thing in singapore?

To JBA.

I think those in the post-65 age group will have problem with protesting against the govt policies openly. Some may even have problem going to the legal place at HLP to protest as the climate of fear is built inside us since young.

When you protest in Singapore means you will be dealth with by the law. So many people has this fear that will not go away as we are all law-abiding citizens with family members to think of.

The young I think has a better grasp of the situation here due to their exposure either abroad or through the internet. Moreover, fortunately our PM has opened up the political space for dissent but abeit legally only at HLP. Anywhere else is considered illegal assembly.

The test case of the Poly open protest at Bugis Junction this weekend is an interesting one and I think the authorities will let them go if there is not too much public complaint from bystanders.

People all over the world will have something to say against the govt and they can’t be pleasing anyone out there. Certain policy pleases that someone may irk others. So there will always be dissent and hopefully the govt is able to contain it well.

I am sure Singapore will open up and I see a new dawn rising on our land abeit slowly.

We can’t fill old wine into new skin and need to constantly renew oursevles even politically. The ruling party may have rule the land with a majority but there is at least 35% (1/2) of our population that is unhappy with the govt.

When Obama won the recent election with 55% votes, it is consider a landslide victory.

So we must give credit to our govt that there are still alot of people who like the ruling party – its philosophy and agenda. It has brought forth much prosperity to the country and is to be appreciated for its good track record.

Gilbert, i feel that there is a possibility that maybe the people who are “maybe” may not be as they say. Its like what you said, Fear. Fear that the gov. will find them if they condemn them. Correct me if im wrong in saying so.

It is a very sad thing to see alot of our fellow citizens being helplessly trapped into this tiny red dot we called singapore by our world class ruling party with their self approving $$$million salaries, who keeps repeatedly forcing on more and more unjustifiable taxes upon its own citizens even when we are already entering into a bad reccession period. I am wondering when will all these coming to a stop, how much more $$$billions is really enough for them to continue torturing its own people? when are they going to feel when enough means really enough for them and how long more are we folks going to endure all these suffering?
How do you expect us citizens of singapore to continue supporting you when you rather squander off billions of dollars of our taxpayers hard earned monies away instead of helping your own people during this reccession time. Many are already cutting down and tigtening our belts worrying if we are able to survive through each passing month with increasing no. of households struggling to pay up their basic utilities bills and yet you further thrashed them by imposing even higher price hikes, where you want us to go? what you want us to eat? we are not criminals, we are the people who voted you in to take care of our welfare and livelihood, do you have hearts or are you just people gone so absurdly obsessed with money and power that you want to rule the world? You may have your entire army and police force under your control but please don’t forget every single one of these enforcers also do have parents like us folks who are being made victims by your extreme profit driven policies, how do they feel and what will they be thinking on their mind? to protect the nation? or to protect the citizens.

Beautifully said. There is nothing more sweeter than that ( other than putting them all in the streets and see get the firing squad, that is. )

To: tiredsingapore and JBA

YA I can feel your frustration right from here. We can learn a lesson or two from the recent US election. The public was frustrated at the Bush govt which did not do much to make things better for the Americans especially economically. They were deep in debt and the financial crisis precipitated the swift downfall of the Republicans. The worse thing is they lost to a brand new black senate American. Talking about the worse case scenario!

Singapore is facing the same situation back home. If we don’t take our protests to the polls, the ruling party will not relent. Some of them may even mock at us saying that we are “all talk no action”.

The polls is the best form of protest as it hurts where the heart is. It is a solid form of democratic defiance indicating that we are unhappy about how things have being.

Our ruling party has won too many elections handsomely and has turned arrogant and cocky. They are unable to comprehend the aspirations and frustrations of the common people having live in big houses and drive big cars themselves. They have gone for corporate governance without really feeling how the ground is. I can see there will be alot of swing votes in te 2011 election with quite alot of youth voters.

The oppositon parties have being really very quiet during this period and it does not endear them to the public. Surprisingly, non-partisan groups like TOC has risen up and caught the attention of the public who is looking for ward to a group or leader not from the govt body to point them the way.

Maybe they have lost so many elections that they may have resign themselves to not doing much at all. Their silence in this current financial crisis is deafeningly quiet.

Except for Khaw and Tharma, I cant see the rest of our ministers coming out to touch base with the ground. MP Lee who met a few times with the Serangoon Garden workers’ quarter saga also should be appreciated for her efforts to do something for the people. Our MPs are hardly public figures and besides attending to PArliament sittings and weekly Meet-The-People sessions, they are pretty much behind the scenes.

If we don’t take our protests to the polls, I am afriad we will live be governed pretty much the same way as before. As no matter what happened, there will be that majority who will vote for the ruling party. A swing vote of at least 5-10% needs to happen before any GRC can fall. Once that happens, something revolutionary may have happen in our land – not unlike that of the recent US election.

223) Gilbert Goh Keow Wah

I can see clearly that you’ve written the ‘hope’ in your heart in these pages. Many of us share the same hope.

However, hope alone is not enough to bring about a change in the political scenery. Hope can give you the drive to fight on, it can give you the strength to struggle on, it gives you the energy to plod on and most of all it gives you the believe that things can change. This is a much as it can do.

We need to do more than just ‘hope’. We need to breathe life into this ‘hope’. We need action. We need a course of action. We need a plan. We need a game plan. We need everyone who share the same sentiments to contribute their ideas, their plans, their solutions and whatever.

It does not matter if you present them as a joke, as a rebuttal, as an academic as a layman, rich or poor, tall or short, young or old, Chinese, Malay, Indian, Eurasion, these all do not matter. What matters is we are Singaporeans and we have the capacity to think, to plan, to decide what’s best for us.

We need to decide and decide soon enough. We have no time to waste.

We need change – and- CHANGE WILL COME! …. if we turn hope to reality.

Gemami:

Thanks for your affirmation. I feel hopeful now with great sites like TOC and brave souls like yourself who will fight for democracy and freedom.

It takes alot of guts for people to reveal themselves here and this must be appreciated. We are not like US or Europe whereby you can criticize the govt anyhow. So credit must be given to those who continue their fight here.

At least, I found a place where I belonged:)

Thanks alot TOC and Gemami.

Yup, it takes raw guts to dare oppose the god-king and his oyal subjects!

this is quite a long thread and i must confess that i did not read into every one of them. just to comment on the remarks of what is or who is a politician or wannabe politician or who makes a good politician. a politician is, or may not be, a politician especially in our peculiar context. many are just invited to be politicians and join the bandwagon and acted as if they are true blue politicians. some even claimed or acted as if they have contributed to what this country is today. the people are indebted to them.

the other point about politician, or how politicians came about in other countries, is that they are just like entrepreneurs. they are the few little businessmen that have become successful while many faded into oblivion. they went through a long process before being accepted as leaders of their countries. as contrast to our present day politicians, many are instant trees/politicians, with instant success. one day a soldier or a doctor or a lawyer, the next day full fledged politicians, tested and done battle in the arena of a general election.

actually many of you here or anywhere else have the makings of a good politician, if your heart is in the right place. there must be genuine passion to want to do something for the people and nation. too much talent in making money is not a good attribute in a politician.

try a little caring and compassion. have a heart. these are simple ingredients of what is a good politician. of course there are professional politicians who thrive in being a politicians as a life long occupation.

now, did i digress from the interesting discussions you people are into?

227) redbean

We have heard of Singapore Inc where Singapore is run like a big corporation.

In politics, the equivalent of SG Inc is PAP Inc. As you’ve rightly observed, anyone who falls outside of this invite to join PAP Inc is not considered a ‘politician’. He is considered a pain in the butt.

For the same reason, all of us here; whom you have also correctly mentioned, would make good politicians but are considered pains in the butts because we too do not get invited to join the PAP White Inc.

Because of the exclusive membership, there are young academics who aspire for a life on the fast track to easy and assured riches who would do all they can to ensure that they are noticed and then get invited into this circle of exclusive membership.

Do you think these sort of people with these sort of ambitions would have the heart or the ability to speak for the people and represent them? Representing the people and speaking up for them will stall their personal advancement and might even end their dream of becoming ministers and thereafter to becoming chairman of big private corporations where the real money will flow in like water.

Look at the PAP MPs and you will notice that not one has prioritized the Singaporean’s interest over policies that make life difficult for the ordinary Singaporean.

To continue to be an exclusive member of this exclusive club and to continue to enjoy the obsene benefits that come with it, the member has to ensure that PAP Inc comes first before everything else. This is a sure road to riches.

It msut be the only place on earth where politics earns you more than you could as a businessman. Politics in Singapore is business. PAP Inc.

Well if you would want to know on how singapore is run, why don’t you go wiki about elitism and communism? And make sure to fill in the spots where instead of one tyrant, got many tyrants and two big tyrants. And for the communist part, people are suffering like in many other communist countries last time. ( USSR, Eastern Bloc Etc.)

Hi guys…

Interesting that this discussion has gone on for so long. There’re like 226 comments to this article now, most of which are excellently civil. Thanks to everyone for making it so…

Perhaps someone should compile all the comments into a little booklet and sell it at Speakers’ Corner or something – and give free copies to the opposition parties…:)

Carry on, please…

#230

No point. WP See no evil, talk on evil, hear no evil. Maybe in hibernation.

SDP, too busy getting themselves arrested or sued. Wonder what will they do if AG and PAP ignore them.

Reform Party — vehicle for JBJ. Now shell co.

Chiam’s party — vehicle for him.

231) A Tan

I wholly disagree with your comments. It sounds very ‘defeatist’.

I say this because if you are to look at ‘opposition’ in the context of a political party, then, yes, most of the opposition parties are in hibernation mode at the moment. Then, it becomes “no point”.

However, if you are to look at the ‘opposition’ as a collective voice of the people, being able to come together at one gathering point to make this voice loud enough, then, it can be more effective than you’ve otherwise made it out to be.

I believe this is the recommendation made by TOC in post #230

When we back the opposition, i mean not one or two, but thousands, they will be the vengeance of the common man thrusted upon the elites of this country.Only then can we achieve true democracy. Right now we do not need separate opposition. They need to be unified and come as one whole opposition and spearhead our path to freedom.

Hi all;

when the Finance Minister talk about money, it is to be expected and in fact it is his duty to talk about the National Economic Health. When the MM(Uniquely only in SIN), SM(another Unique one in SIN) and PM also talk about money, we will still think okay, these people have very little else to interest them(selves). But, when You find your Health, Transport, Manpower, Sports and Social, Labour

I still find that there are some good politicians out there though they are in the minority. Too many of our MPs keep to themselves for their own good and didnt try to make an impact when they are serving their term. This is a pity as they are selected to be MPs to make a difference in the people’s life. Sad to say, maybe their partisan affiliation has deterred them from doing much for their constituency and country besides the weekly Meet-The-people sessions.

Politicians like Tharma, Khaw, George did a good job in their respective ministries and should be appreciated. MPs like Mdm Yacob, Lee Siew Wah, Charles Chong and some others stood out from the rest during Parliament and asked some pointed questions. Charles also led the infamous white elephant protest so that the MRT station is opened.

Singaporean politics and governance suffered from a group-think mentality and is seriously flawed from improving the lives of our people. One can see that most of our politicians are technocrats and work more for nationalistic interest ie. they care more for the welfare of the country rather than the people. They want to see Singapore prospers, make it’s mark on the world map and gain the respect of the developed countries. They want to see our GDP grows, that we boast of a cosmopolitan work force and we are seen welcoming to foreigners (talent). Most of the government’s agenda irks the population as we hold different views from the govt. on what is best for us Never have I see how detached the governance is until these past few years. The recent steep tariff increase despite reporting sky-high profits, privatisation of public utilities at the expense of increase in costs pass down to the public and unfair political tactics have all but drive the most loyal PAP supporters away.

Perhaps we have given them the mandate to rule us election after election when we were knocked left right and center. They have became complacent and govern from the “I know best” attitude.

I am afriad that our best option for change is still at the polls – like the Americans. Change is at hand if we use our votes intelligently and bravely.

Lastly, don’t ask what the country can do for you but what can you do for the country?

Hi all;

when our Finance Minister talks about money, we expect him to, as it is his duty to deal with the National Economic Health. When the MM and SM(Posts Uniquely SIN) talk about money, we kind of accept it because they do not seem to have any specific duties and money maybe the most valued item to them. If the PM is also talking about money more than other issues, than I suspect something is wrong somewhere.

AND when Tranport, National Development, Sports and Social Development, Health, Education, Labour Ministers and other Parliamentarians all talk about money and much less other national affairs they make me feel wary and weary.

Met up with Redbean of My Singapore News, whom I got acquainted through his Blogs, for a fews hours. Soon after our self introductions, he sang praises for our leaders. I asked him why he was so respectful and he replied that the Old Guards have made Singapore into the present prosperous state that it is now.

As he is a financial sector professional, I expected him to talk about money just liked much of the contents in his Blogs. BUT, he was different in one aspect, he emphasized ethics in ‘money-makings’.

I would like to pen here that even if national prosperity is ethically achieved, but, at the expense of other social endeavours, it will still fall short of holistic and wholesome developments. Unless ethical financial gains naturally lead to all other wholesome attributes, putting all efforts to economic progresses alone is taking a tree mistakenly for a forest, very much like saying because of one capable man, the whole country progressed because of him.

A humane and happy society is likely able to motivate its’ people to do all their best for the developments and protection of their country. Making a country rich without the wealth evenly or fairly distributed, worse, suspected to have being misused, misinvested and remunerated unjustly only make the people sad and angry.

The few hours were too short for the Two of us to discuss much, we talked briefly about Western and Oriental Cultures, a little about the History of Singapore after Straits Settlement and about bloggers and netizens etc. I told redbean that I was looking forward to have the company of Zefly, however, I did not have his contact.

I like to hereby assure Gilbert and all others that none has offended me nor am I offended by any comments. However, I was scared off, not by Authority of any kind, but complements that were too ‘glorious’ for me, here in this Thread. Over the time that I was in Blogoland, I had revealed that I am lower secondary educated, very much a menial worker that job hopped frequently and presently laid off myself from work due to burn-out and is entering the twilight zone.

Cyberspace is the School where I get free education now and my contributions of comments and views are to those that I feel deserve the accolades, supports and sometimes criticisms, which I do hope were(are) justified and fair.

May come in for a peep once a while and say hello when inspired and or aroused.

patriot

Hi Patriot

Nice to see you around again. We all learn from one another and hopefully we are better off together than alone.

Cheers.

Welcome back, patriot.
It wonderful to hear from you again and to know that your disappearance has nothing to do with the comments posted – well- it might have scared you off for a while but hey, when the things you say make sense, then compliments are to be expected. Likewise, if the things you say are rubbish, then expect the worst.

I am very heartened to hear that you’ve managed to meet up with others at TOC and I hope you can continue to do so because, contrary to what I have been championing ie. online discussions, I have come to realise that there is also a need for some to meet up face to face.

What changed my stand was an article I came across recently relating how the govt intends to reach out to the citizens. This was a yr2006 plan and Amy Khor described it thus:

“….the agency is mindful that diffferent segments and demographic profile of the population are comfortable with different communication channels. Hence, the focus is not limited to online or media but a range of methods covering conventional face-to-face dialogues to SMS, web chats, discussion forums, blogs, and an interactive exhibition ………..”

Listening to this ade me realised that there is a need to reach out to the masses in the same manner that the govt has adopted. We have to compete and we do have the advantage because I believe the public has ears for news of a different kind. We have to bring this alternative to them in whatever way possible.

So you see, Patriot, your worldly-wise education has brought about an intellectual solution to a simple problem.

It proves that when one has a heart, one can see solutions in manifolds.

Great to hear. Good luck with your thesis, and please keep me informed of your progress.