YA I agree with Mr Anthony Yeo’s commentary on the recently concluded US Presidential election. We are way far from such open – ended true democracy.

Our’s is more like a controlled one-sided election totally slanted towards one political party. Who can blame them? They were given the mandate to rule and lord over us for 43 years without much opposition. As LKY said during last election – the opposition would not expect seats to be give to them on a platter (words to that closest effect). They have to work doubly hard to gain the votes of the population in spite of such insurmountable odds. I hope the day will come when fairness will take precedence over our GE but I doubt it will come soon.

Politics is noted to be dirty and those who contested an election receive my highest bow. Not only did they sacrifice self but also their family members when someone stands up for election. They are true sons and daughters of Singapore as they have done what many SIngaporeans won’t do in their lifetime ever as there is too much to lose. So the next time we meet a political candidate on the street go and shake his hand for he has done much for Singapore to stand up against the ruling party.

Well written article nonetheless.

Lee Kuan Yew has indicated he will meet JB or some one ins some cul de sac…..

it is not happening – the voodoo hunt will go on and on till he is retrenched from the million dollar seat….

The basic assumptions in the article is that voters in Singapore share the same voting consideration with US.

Even in the US, city politics are very much partisan. For example cities in desert Texas will vote republican (even if the candidate is a tree and twice more if its a bush) whereas cities in New York and California vote democrat (unless if the candidate is a movie star and twice more if he vows that he’ll be back, acts a robot and marries a democrat).

“They were seldom attempts at personal attacks.” – Mr Yeo

That’s because you aren’t in the US watching paid adverts targeted at character assassination and where TV politics is more important than a speech. A single endorsement by Oprah won more votes for Obama than any speech he ever made will ever. In fact, an endorsement by Oprah for an inanimate “tree” will probably have a similar impact on votes.

“There was also a stark absence of any personal affront and no talk about taking each one to court for libel, defamation or slander.” – Mr Yeo

You obviously missed the whole John Kerry episode and how swift boating entered the lexicon.

In fact, US defamation suits involving politicians occur 100 times more frequently than Singapore. Notable examples include:

Arnold Schwarzenegger sueing Dr. Willi Heepe for defamation in 1999. He also sued the newspaper the globe for US$50m (the globe settled). Women sued him him as well for defamation (and lost). Bloody unfair, those californian courts… lol.

Inter-Politician suits include Barr vs Bill Clinton. In fact, US presidents have immunity from civil suits (SG PM does not but I think SG president does).

The desire for equality is strange. Obama had far more funds than McCain. He was thoroughly against use of private funds (and restricting to public funds only) and U-turned when he could raise more funds. In comparison McCain only got far less money from public funding. lol.

The author really needs to get out more….

can anyone recall a head of state of any country speaking in that manner ? armed with hatchet and inviting opponent to meet in the cul de sac ?

isn’t it deplorable for a leader to behave and talk like some gangster boss ?
the negative personality says it all, self centred, self serving, cannot be trusted, scheming, incorrigible bully, no sense of honour and shame.
so it should not surprise us to see the hostilities in our political environment.
even the real crime bosses will be dumbfounded that such a personality
can qualify to run a country. what a laugh !

You may have forgot to mention money, the one who raises the most money win the US presidentcy.

As for issues both candidates never specifically or in detail they outline them. During this election there were less personal attacks and Obama did better in this than Mccain (most probably you don’t get to see all the ads). Finger pointings are going on after Mccain lost.

There was graciousnes after the election, of cource, this is done to benefit and show the world that US is still the leader and not weak devided nation.

We only must admire, show respect and take lessons from them for their ability to take personal insults, ridicules, jokes and not to take revenge on opponent or electorates.

The rest is politics. Read bio on Lee Adwater… never a dull moment.

Dirty Old Man (DOM) thinks he owns this country. Thus, no one would fit to talk equal, set aside debate. If there is any of you still remember the incident where he sent a student into panic when the poor boy questioned his policies over National TV broadcast.

You can never win someone that always bullshit about his past credits (back stab people to gain power I think) which seem to have a elastic expiry date, and can be used to contra his or his gang present mistakes. Which I believe one day will be prove to be his and his family undoing.

Moreover, with so many pappy scumbags who echo his fart, you sincerely think they are mature and civilize enough to hold a proper debate with people? I don’t think these pappy scumbags even take time to smell and digest the “fart” before coming out from their mouthpiece.

There is actually no need for us to have Obama-McCain to stir us into imitating their mannerisms in both victory and defeat. We already have it way before these two went into battle.

We could have a very sensible, fair and unbiased political landscape if only . . . sigh … if only LKY practiced what he had preached.

I would like to borrow a post by AhKow from another thread to let you see what I mean.

“But we either believe in democracy or we not. If we do, then, we must say categorically, without qualification, that no restraint from the any democratic processes, other than by the ordinary law of the land, should be allowed… If you believe in democracy, you must believe in it unconditionally. If you believe that men should be free, then, they should have the right of free association, of free speech, of free publication. Then, no law should permit those democratic processes to be set at nought, and no excuse, whether of security, should allow a government to be deterred from doing what it knows to be right, and what it must know to be right… ”
Lee Kuan Yew 1955

“I pointed to an article with bold headlines reporting that the police had refused to allow the PAP to hold a rally at Empress Place, and then to the last paragraph where in small type it added the meeting would take place where we were now. I compared this with a prominent report about an SPA rally. This was flagrant bias.”
Lee Kuan Yew 1959

Thanks Genami

Reading you post, makes to think of honour, intergrity and gentlemenship. But I guess all that does not matter once you have achieved power and all goes down the drain as you get absolute power. After that , its anything goes to remain in power. That’s reality I guess and the people who have surrendered their power have nothing to say till they gain back the power.

@#4. I remember heads of states calling other Satan. Also, destruction of another state. Using phrases like “bring em on”.

In many countries, the leader doesn’t need to say anything before shooting.

“If you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen” – Harry Truman.

Welcome to the real world.

http://www.boogiemanfilm.com/

@ 9)

the real world has all kinds, including scums in politics.
it should concern Singaporeans that we allowed one man
to dictate the type of political environment.
there are positive examples out there in comparison,
UK, Netherlands, Denmark, Germany, Sweden, Japan, HK, etc.
can’t recall any of these leaders behaving like some crime boss and
also hanging around to help another family member run the country.
pulling the strings actually. what a laugh !

Thank you Anthony Yeo.

Great article. Very well-written..

Good Afternoon,

No one disputes the political system in the US manages to contain, under conditions of peace, if not civility, a remarkable range of philosophical, ideological and even racial conflicts. What’s even more surprising to me is these conflicts rarely ever threaten the stability and legitimacy of the social political system. That’s to say, no matter how nasty it turns out, they always manage to remain well within tolerable limits; and this naturally leads many to ask why?

Of course we would all like to entertain the idea, by merely buying into a wish list or a code of conduct this will is sufficient to inure politicians, businessmen and or two competing chicken rice vendors in the same food court with culture of sportsmanship.

But nothing can be further from the truth, it appears FORM must follow FUNCTION for anything to reliably take root; take of example the gentle art of dueling (which incidentally I consider to be travesty of rational logic as to why it should even have been criminalized in the first place); why did duels take place only in the break of dawn?

One reason was partly due to the limitations of 18th century gunsmiths who still hadn’t perfected rifling, hence their barrels would be truest only if they remained stone cold; not to mention the moisture laden air during dawn would also greatly facilitate a steady burn of 18th century gunpowder since a failing common to that period was excessive quantities of potassium nitrate in the concoction.

So what we can see here is a practice or a way of doing things eventually becomes ritualized and stylized ONLY if it serves a useful function and not because a group of people decided to sumpah and sign up for the plan.

My point here is for anything to really assume a FORM, then it must be complimented with FUNCTION; and in the American political arena what’s generally held in high regard is not the American ideal as much as it remains the Roman maxim; without Gaul, there will be no Rome; that’s to say, these elites understood that skill-at-arms could only be effectively perpetuated PROVIDING there was a reliable and equal counter-force.

History it seems bears this out only too clearly; as soon as Hannibal was vanquished, Rome true to the Oracle’s predictions did give way to the Tiber; its legions grew so complacent that by the time of Augustus, the Roman senate even had to buy into a mercenary market by employing Praetorian Guards; as for the republic it had given way to dictatorship. The rest like the Americans say is history.

So if you want others to play by a set of rules; firstly, they have to buy into the idea of contending themselves with a counter-force, in this case, it may very well be creating the ideal conditions for an opposition to take root; but always bear in mind, this cohesion is possible only because of the general commitment to the principle of limited government – i.e for a credible opposition to emerge, not only do the ruling “elites” need to see the wisdom of how ONLY a counter force can reliably foster a culture of continuous improvement and excellence, but they also need to create a political arena where EVERYONE can be confident that they will be protected by the rule of law from the arbitrary exercise of government power – the remarkable thing about why politics is poetry in motion in the American sense is no one doubts for one moment, everything that I have just mentioned exist – they don’t doubt it for one moment and is it such a wonder, when they are called to the edge, they take flight.

Things are not so simple, but nonetheless a very enjoyable read. Tq

Good Day

SD (Internet Liaison Officer of the Brotherhood)

8) Sad

Just to add to it,

Did you also know that CSJ actually used some of these quotes at this maiden election rally at potong Pasir? Can you see why LKY has to have him destroyed?

I have to side with Lim on this one against Anthony Yeo. I was in New York during the US Presidential Campaign Race and I watched the smear campaigns on TV myself.

Hi 1.30 pm @ 14

You see the thing about Chee is this; he is not a politician; not in the true sense at least; that’s to say his grasp of how politics may serve the cause remains unclear; and he neither has FORM or FUNCTION or for that matter any other pattern that I have been able to trace out; I really don’t know what he is to be very honest with all of you, but I am certain, he is not a politician; if anything, he has to be the quintessential Singaporean crash dummy; if he wants to serve the cause of Singapore opposition politics, he should seriously consider resigning and working instead with general motors to help them design better cars or airbags by crashing into fixed concrete structures or something.

I have to be very crystal clear here; otherwise, we will all get confused; I do not consider him a credible politician.

Politics is ultimately a chess game; one needs to pick and choose one’s battles; it’s a game that demands cerebral fitness, you cannot be a crash dummy and win; it’s no good; it just doesn’t come around.

Good day

SD

16) singaporedaddy

Who, then, is a politician these days?

We have the FORM (in whites) but they have failed to FUNCTION.
Then we have the FUNCTION (other than whites) but without the FORM.

What is politics these days?
Who makes the perfect definition for ‘politician’?

“Politics is ultimately a chess game; one needs to pick and choose one’s battles; it’s a game that demands cerebral fitness, you cannot be a crash dummy and win; it’s no good; it just doesn’t come around.”

Really ? Perhaps you can exercise your cerebral fitness to ’smoke’ some people here.

Where cerebral fitness is defined by who utimately wins ? or where cerebral fitness can be extinguished in a fickle of moment without you even knowing it ?

Learn one word Gemami, “statesman,” Better still print it out, laminate it and put it in your wallet. If possible understand it beyond its dictionary meaning; that’s to say, you need to ask yourself whats the difference between a politician and statesman. And once you know the difference, then you will realize why that you asked me can never be answered. The answer is in the question itself.

Good day (I have to go for a meeting now)

SD

19) singaporedaddy

Thanks for the tip but I already know it cannot be answered . . . more so in Singapore’s political context . . . which means . . . as usual . . . . . your story is wonderful to read . . . . . but the substance . . . . urgh! ! ! . . . where is it? . . . . or . . . what is it? . . . . .

You might as well come out straight and tell our opposition to pack up and go have a long good night’s sleep and let PAP do as they like.

Play chess? ? ? when the chessbord does not have black sqaures? Come on!

Gemmy!

huh!….”Thanks for the tip but I already know it cannot be answered . . .:” Then why did you try to trap him?

21) rats

No, no, don’t get it wrong.

I wasn’t expecting him to reply to my post. He normally does not and I have a few other posts where he never gave a reply.

It wasn’t a trap, I was hopeful that he would explain further what his take was on being a politician because he contradicted himself in his own post when he said:

“You see the thing about Chee is this; he is not a politician;…

later, he also said:

“…I do not consider him a credible politician. .

and finally, he said:

“Politics is ultimately a chess game; .

Based on these three remarks, I was confused over what he was trying to convey.

Firstly, in his own opinion, Chee is not a politician, then he becomes one albeit not a credible one, then he becomes a full fledged politician who must play the chess game. Won’t you be confused? A sometime/non poltician playing a game of chess with a statesman?

For this reason, I knew there was never going to be a satisfactory answer. And this was what I meant.

I would have posted this lenghty comment if it was someone else but here is one gentleman who has an IQ that far exceeds the normal guy and who does not need me to explain in details.

:)

Personally, I see that what we have here in SG, is NOT politics; it is like Empirical Ruling, in the guise of Democracy.
We far far from USA’s form of polictics and democracy, and Obama’s win has made our self-reighteous goverment go into self-denial.

Hi;

today news reported that the Current US President, Bush, said free market(system) is not the cause of the Financial Meltdown. I am very agreeable to his statement. It is definitely the Failure of his Administration.

As an aside, many are worry for the safety of Barack Obama during and after the recent US Election. Bush’s safety after stepping down as President could be in jeopardy if his personal protection protocol is not maintained. I believe he is in the radars of his many nemeses(nemesis)

During his two terms in office, he concentrated and committed much of his time to implant democracy in others’ countries, he claimed to seek liberations for the citizens of others’ nations. He gave his business leaders free reins to free himself(Bush) from administering internal(US) affairs, including regulating and overseeing its’ financial institutions. Shootings resulting in many deaths happened in schools/universities and in towns. CEOs rewarding themselves crazy remunerations though their companies were not doing well, but Bush seemed more interested in other nations’ affairs.

Financial Institutions were giving loans indiscriminately which seemed to be ’symbiotic’ for every American, the US Government, the US Business People and the US People. Liberal Loans and Credits allowed Americans to live in big houses, drive big cars, start businesses, travels and live grand material livings, but mostly on empty and false artificial premises.

The American Dream went berserk when they started paying CEOs, artistes(models/singers/actors/performers/celebrities/law suit winners) sports personalities etc ridiculous/perverse remunerations that read tens and hundreds of millions(US$) per term, assignment and contract.

Now, in local contexts, the Singapore System is very much a shadow of the American Dream. We were told by our leaders to dream, to dare to dream and they lead by examples, they dreamt about 2010 World Cup(Football), Gold(s) at Olympics, Golden Era and so on so forth. The Singapore Leadership has shown the World not only its’ members dared to dream, they kickstarted the Dream by giving themselves the Highest Remunerations in the World for being leaders.

The Golden Period is still being spouted and touted to be with us though the Citizenry is pretty jittery at this point in time and most are bracing for hard times ahead.

Above is just a verve of a lay person and may not connect with the Topic in Discussion. May I just add that leadership is not just eloquence and charisma, it entails responsibility, propriety and the Will to be with the people in times of good and bad.

patriot

CSJ is not a politician. Why do people always assume he is?

He is a civil society and democracy activist, and a fairly passionate one at that.

our opposition just want a better singapore too. why keep trying to fix them?

PAP needs to be more gracious

25) Loyola on November 14th, 2008 5.11 pm
CSJ is not a politician. Why do people always assume he is?

His own supporters (and his party’s) said it themselves.

Obama’s win is just the beginning – we have yet to see him deliver results. Talk is easy.

Democrats and Republicians – they do not call each other “Opposition Parties”. Both parties are powerful and rich. Each party have people capable of running the country. Most of their speeches were prepared by other people, who spent hours choosing the right words. The voting system is different from Singapore.

They have their fair shair of mud-slinging – why are you looking at the USA system with rose-tinted glasses? Obama’s win is not applicable to Singapore. USA politics is not applicable to Singapore.

Except for PAP, the rest of the other political parties in Singapore are lost causes – not united, bad funded, not leadership, not trusted by the people, and no consistency.

PAP is the best choice out of no choices. You all just don’t get it: without PAP, Singapore is doomed.

PAP is the best choice out of no choices. You all just don’t get it: without PAP, Singapore is doomed. – PAP Anonymous (#28)

That’s why it is dangerous to only have PAP. When you buy stocks, do you diversify your portfolio to reduce risk or only stake all your money on the PAP stock? Having PAP only is very risky.

Mr LKY is a petty man that cannot tolerate people who have different opinions. He has a need to prove he is always right and have to have “face”.. look at how close his eyebrows are to each other…….

“28) PAP Anonymous on November 14th, 2008 5.46 pm
Obama’s win is just the beginning – we have yet to see him deliver results. Talk is easy.”

Of course, talk is easy and it will not cost you and me a single cent. So you do not have the worry. But wrong action is really realy coSTLY hoh. You know what I mean.

“They have their fair shair of mud-slinging – why are you looking at the USA system with rose-tinted glasses? Obama’s win is not applicable to Singapore. USA politics is not applicable to Singapore.”

Not applicable ? Hey you should go ask your foreign service friends, some senior ones lah if you have any, not those kacang puteh ones like you.

“Except for PAP, the rest of the other political parties in Singapore are lost causes – not united, bad funded, not leadership, not trusted by the people, and no consistency.”

Please close your eyes and pray that this is so for many years to come. Orelse you point of view may be interrupted by a rude shock.

“You all just don’t get it: without PAP, Singapore is doomed.”

Another naysayer cranko from Sungei Lokang.

I really don’t like the campaigning where rival parties threw accusations. When a society isn’t matured and strong, it could lead to riots. However, when the race was over, the loser was a good spot and showed graciousness. No threats or intimidation. They know where to draw the line.

#3 Lim offers an interesting perspective. But defamation suits here often lead to bankruptcy. There’s a difference on the predictability. and how politicians conduct themselves.

Kid ourselves not that the people and those in power are unprepared for change, no matter what they say on cyberspace.

Actually, US politics is far more damaging. Defamation suits have no $ limits. In Singapore, one still has to follow case law precedents. One can thank CSJ for some of the case precedents which defines the more extreme end of defamation.

The reasons why Singapore politicians end up bankrupt is not because the suit payouts are high but that the people standing aren’t that rich in the first place. Paying S$600k (in the expensive case in Singapore) barely makes for lawyer fee coverage in the US where suit payouts can range into the millions.

In the UK, its just as bad. Tommy Sheridan won 200k pounds vs news of the world in 2006. Even George Galloway got 150k pounds from the Daily Telegraph for asserting that he got money from Saddam (he probably did but the newspaper just could not prove it). The politicians at least are smart enough to throw insults at each other in places where they won’t get sued. If politicians threw accusations outside of parliament as CSJ did, they’d be open to such cases as well.

There’s no parliamentary privilege in Singapore (which is meaningless since 99% of parliament comes from a single party anyway).

Secondly, it costs far more to conduct an election in the US. TV slots have to be bought, locations managed, advertising and other related expenditure including staff etc. Its a lot cheaper to run a campaign in Singapore (and also because the place is smaller).

The impact of money politics in the US is now so severe, forget about being president if one can’t raise like US$50m in 1/2 year. In Singapore, one doesn’t need as much but qualifications for president is still restricted.

I’m not defending the SG system here. But to criticise it whilst lauding foreign systems without recognising the fallacies of their systems either is a demonstration in lack of objectivity. I don’t have to guess why some people do it.

“Defamation suits have no $ limits. In Singapore, one still has to follow case law precedents. One can thank CSJ for some of the case precedents which defines the more extreme end of defamation.”

What precedents ? How did it come about in the first place ? Out of thin air ?

“Paying S$600k (in the expensive case in Singapore) barely makes for lawyer fee coverage in the US where suit payouts can range into the millions.

In the UK, its just as bad. Tommy Sheridan won 200k pounds vs news of the world in 2006. Even George Galloway got 150k pounds from the Daily Telegraph for asserting that he got money from Saddam (he probably did but the newspaper just could not prove it).”

You do have a magical leap from US to UK where the defendants are big businesses. 200k pounds and 150k pounds somehow come below the sgd600k mark.

As for the US, you did not really state the nature of lawsuits involved. Leaking breast implants ? or political defamation suits because of dirty x-rated satires ?

“The impact of money politics in the US is now so severe, forget about being president if one can’t raise like US$50m in 1/2 year. ”

And what is your problem. At least, the field is level for both sides to do it. So what if it cheap here monetary wise. It is expensive non-monetary wise.

“I’m not defending the SG system here. But to criticise it whilst lauding foreign systems without recognising the fallacies of their systems either is a demonstration in lack of objectivity.”

Why restrict your educational lessons here where most people already know it. Why not have it discussed in the MSM for even more people to know with panels of views from both sides of the fence.

Ya la, you are not defending. You are a joker my friend.

oldfart is PAP and the rest are there at his pleasure.
oldfart does not believe Singapore is big enough for 2 people to be leaders, either you work for him, stay out of his way or take him on.
oldfart believes the means justify the ends when you take him on.
oldfart is still calling the shots when all his contemporaries have retired.
oldfart openly stated he prefers to be feared and this says a lot about him.
oldfart could have engineered 100% victory but allowed 2 seats as a token
to make his system appear democratic.
oldfart has been successful fooling outsiders and many of his citizens
that he is above board until recently.
oldfart has the mentality of some ancient emperor paving the way
for Lee jr to ascend the throne.
oldfart is an incorrigible bully and he has nothing but contempt for weaklings.
oldfart is the reason for our political situation
and it is long overdue Singaporeans rise above their fear
and send a strong message to him through their votes.
anything less and oldfart will depart laughing to his grave.

lets have a general election soon, given a choice i will vote non-pap anytime of the day or year. I rather vote a dog than a pap. I hope pap anonymous get the point. most of us are finished supporting pap. go tell all your grasses/rc/pap puppies to fly kite this coming election.

27) Wisely on November 14th, 2008 5.40 pm 25) Loyola on November 14th, 2008 5.11 pm
CSJ is not a politician. Why do people always assume he is?

His own supporters (and his party’s) said it themselves.

No, not true. LKY called him a political novice, so he is a politician isn’t he albeit a novice. Novice or not, he is a politician, right?

28) PAP Anonymous,
Except for PAP, the rest of the other political parties in Singapore are lost causes – not united, bad funded, not leadership, not trusted by the people, and no consistency.

PAP is the best choice out of no choices. You all just don’t get it: without PAP, Singapore is doomed.

Let me just say this, “PAP is a time bomb ticking away”.

You believe they are so united and cohesive? Mark my words, the day LKY dies, is the day the end of PAP is at hand.

You see, the PAP is only united because of LKY. Since all you people in whites have been singing his praises, I shall do the same. The bond that he holds is so great that no one can tear it apart. But, when he goes, who can continue to bind the party together.

Let’s be honest. We can see clearly the PAP big guns in the present cabinet. Do you think they are a cohesive lot? George Yeo, Vivian, Teo Chee Hian, Wong Kan Seng, Khaw Boon Wan, Tharman.

Believe me, I see one or two within this group that may have problem with the others. Whoever else that may walk in the door, I do not know.

Now, can you see trouble? Can you smell it?

When the infighting begins, tell me, what do you think will happen? More importantly, what will become of Singapore then? What if the breakaway PAP B team wins the election at that time? What do you think the A team will do? Vice versa it.

Hypothetical you say? Foolish I reply.

So, all you whities and their supporters. Do you think you are doing Singapore a favour? Do you think we will continue to be a happy, harmonious and rich one party system country?

You think. No more than 10 years after the demise of LKY is my prediction.

Danger lurks below when all above looks nice and wealthy.

Though citizens of many many countries have voted for CHANGE this year alone,
we must remind ourselves that Singapore is not these countries.

uniquely singapore.

38) gemami on November 14th, 2008 10.22 pm
Infact, many people can see that those MIW are just waiting for the right time to strike among themselves when the old fox goes. you think the group would agree that LHL is capable enough to be PM without his daddy’s forced arrangement? c’mon even morons can also know what’s going on.

I thank myself for being able to see the morning sun of every single day because the old man has 1 day less to go…Time will tell.

In S’pore, there is witch hunt.

Regarding the U.S. Presidential Elections, I definitely do not agree that the candidates did not personally attack each other. At the very least, their supporters were personally attacking each other through many channels; Barack Obama had to set up a web site, FightTheSmears.com, to fend off the attacks against him, his family, and his personal history, while the politically-neutral web site FactCheck.org listed many instances where both candidates made mistruths about each other; on some occasions these bordered on the line of personal attacks. Fox News, a notoriously conservative news network often derided for their content and extreme bias (under the guise of their motto, “The only network for fair and balanced news”), made countless assaults and quoted whole mistruths about Barack Obama; examples included alleging that he studied in a Muslim madrasah when he was growing up in Indonesia (wholly disproved), and sensationalising the fact that he was an ex-cigarette smoker. A run through web sites like Sourcewatch.org will tell you how low and dirty U.S. politics can be.

However, I was pleasantly surprised that, at the end of all these, both candidates could reach out to each other graciously; the most amazing thing that happened was when McCain asked his own supporters to stop the booing when he congratulated on Obama’s win, while the latter promised to reach out not to his own supporters but also those that voted for his opponent; while all these may have been a political show, it does indeed demonstrate that they are willing to show compromise and graciousness to each other – at least in public – despite the ugly, bruising battle they had with each other.

In Singapore, sadly, there’s a lot of political hate going on in between the political rivals here; the enemity between Chee Soon Juan and the Lee family is probably one of the most infamous. Much of the reason why I cannot bring myself to support any local politician, be it governing or opposition, is due to all this anismosity and immaturity displayed by both the politicians and their supporters, where personal attacks are hurled around freely like tomatoes during a food fight.

Since I believe most readers here already have their own perceptions of the kind of people the Lees are, I could like to take this opportunity to shine the spotlight on some of Chee Soon Juan’s actions. Indeed, he has been on the receiving end of one too many personal attacks in the name of politics, but does he think he is any better himself? Looking at the dialogue he and the Lees had with each other in court not too long ago, I found both sides to be equally pathetic, having been reduced to trading insults at each other in court. While Chee often decry the kind of ugliness he is receiving from the establishment, he himself is being hypocritical when he uses the same tactics against his opponents.

And on the internet, is not uncommon for people who openly express their personal hatred at the Lees and the PAP in general; as I see above, there’s already people who are actually hoping that Lee Kuan Yew will pass on quickly, probably one of the dirtiest tactic in the playbook of politics. I don’t exactly like Lee Kuan Yew myself, but what good are you doing when you curse him to his death? You are only making yourself unhappier by pulling a veener of false happiness at his impending demise over yourself.

If one is to voice an opinion online that seems even remotely aligned to the establishment’s opinions (like what I may be doing here), what almost always immediately happens next is that that particular person will be attacked by countless other anti-establishment supporters as “a PAP bootlicker” and shunned. While similar incidents do occur in political discussions in the U.S., it is usually a much more balanced affair; in Singapore, it seems like such people are a pitiful minority against a large online populace of blindly anti-establishment types, who often forcibly snub out any such people whose opinions and thoughts do not click with their own’s.

I know, I risk getting flamed many times over for my comments here, but all these are things that had to be said sooner or later. These are my own opinions, and while you may not agree with them, personally attacking me and shunning me out is not something people who practise free speech morals could do; they could instead respect his/her differing opinions and intelligently engage the person in a debate instead.

Indeed, Singapore still has a long way to go in becoming a real democracy. If there’s anyone who is seriously committed to such a goal, then he should first start with the basic political courtersy – that, as ugly and dirty the fights may become, at the end of the day everyone, including your opponents, has to be treated with basic courtersy and graciousness, that your plan be as inclusive as possible. This is the only way for us to move forward, otherwise we will be forever struck at where we are right now.

Hi Alex Ong:

I agreed with what you said. I noticed that TOC has somewhat degenerated into a PAP slinging site. Netizens need to be aware that for the site to be neutral and above-board, it has to welcome pro-establishment comments and such bloggers not be subjected to name-calling and silly mud-slinging.

If netizens can debate logically by raising their views without criticising each other’s opinion and character, then this site will be a solid one.

So far, I can only see alot of opinions going against the ruling party and even those that purportedly supporting the ruling party.

So far, I can only see alot of opinions going against the ruling party and even those that purportedly supporting the ruling party. – Gilbert Goh (#44)

Support for the ruling party does not mean blind support for all their policies. This is what constructive criticism is all about.

Lets learn from SCV TW channels 49, 52, 54 (TVBS) programs like “Speaking your mind on 2100″ hosted by Tao Ge. Other programs are Chong Tian news.
They provide 2 sided views and broadcast info from both sides. And yes, there may be some bias. But the fact remains, they allow both sides of the views to reach the people. This is significantly different than in dictator-controlled countries.

Allowing both sided views gives credibility. Let the truth emerge.

TW : the problem is not so much about Freedom of Speech or Democracy but Evil people and Manipulation of uneducated minds. Any good system can be abused by Evil and Greedy people.

To: Unreplied Questions

Ya I guess all this tight control on the media and unfair election tactics will backfire on the ruling party one day. What you plant you will also reap back sometimes many fold. They are using 1960s’ election strategies on a population that has already move ahead of such fear and survival tactics.

Remember how LKY always, during election period, talked about his younger years of fighting communism and trying to spread fear that the same thing will happen in modern SIngapore? The fear of people dying in a demonstration was constantly used on a politically apathetic population that may be too dependent on the govt too much. Such dea tactic always worked in countries that are small and vulnerable. We are always told that we are surrounded by hostile nations.

Without PAP we will not make it.

We have gone beyond survival now and thriving very well. The country is crying out for respect, maturity and equality. We are being constantly treated like small kids bowing down to an emperor. Enough is enough!

Suggesting copying practices from other countries without proper justification is strange. Its like suggesting allowing legislators to throw punches at each other like the Taiwan legislature.

I hesitate to have constant political propaganda being thrown at me from both sides of the aisle. Esp on TV, I’d hate to have political messages interrupting my favourite TV shows (adverts are already bad enough).

If political discussions were profitable, there would be such channels on US TV as well as other countries. The reason why there aren’t should illuminate its popularity.

There has been skewed emphasis on freedom of speech as opposed to freedom of silence. Last I heard, democracy also extends to our rights to peace and civility.

Alex Ong,

What you are seeing is the result of a skewed politico-media landscape for the last 40 years.

The population has been socialised into two polarised camps, with very little room for the centrist in either the new media or MSM. It is not a phenomenon that has been created for shiok factor, in fact, it is a creation of circumstance.

If we wish to see greater centrist politics in all media forms, there must be a move away from the zero-sum game played by the establishment towards a more inclusive form of debate amongst all players.

Until then, we will see skewed rightist articles in the MSM, and equally strident Other voices who think that their only path to victory is not through democratic debate or advocacy, but rather the passing on of a political rival.

Gemami,

I believe in the long run (30-50 years), we will end up having a two-party system, or at most 3 dominant parties with two forming a governing coalition.

Good Morning, Gilbert Goh Keow Wah @6.29 am # 44

“I agreed with what you said. I noticed that TOC has somewhat degenerated into a PAP slinging site. Netizens need to be aware that for the site to be neutral and above-board, it has to welcome pro-establishment comments and such bloggers not be subjected to name-calling and silly mud-slinging.
If netizens can debate logically by raising their views without criticising each other’s opinion and character, then this site will be a solid one.”

There is no need to sweat the small stuff. Everything is cool. Try to see TOC as just a public square. Nothing more or less. Today, this the happening place. Tomorrow it’s anyone’s guess. I really don’t see the need to impose structure, symmetry or even a way of thinking here that is acceptable.

For me, it just doesn’t make ANY sense to fashion TOC into ANOTHER real world facsimile of Singapore. We already have that already. Why do we want to build another real world version of Singapore online? Besides if people really want to buy into more of the same stuff, they can just as well vote with their key boards to go to stomp, razor tv, channel 5 and of course our beloved rag.

As I said, it’s a public square and people should be allowed to stand up and even shout out whatever they feel happy or unhappy about, providing of course they don’t breach any laws and understand that we live in a world of implications and consequences. If they feel like telling people, if they don’t slouch, they stand 2 inches taller. Or falling in love is like succumbing to a haunting refrain. Then I say, carry on.

Only remember one thing; be it PAP, WP, SPD or even some lunatic fringe organization like the Mickey mouse club, just DON’T expect EVERYONE to agree with you – one thing about the internet is while everyone is free to say anything, you cannot stop people from thinking and deciding accordingly.

As I said, don’t sweat the small stuff – just go with the flow – this is not something that we should necessarily fear; but rather understood.

Breathe….relax….let it come naturally.

SD (Internet Liaison officer of the brotherhood)

Agree with singaporedaddy.
TOC provides the platform.
We live in the real world – views are not 50% pro 50% against.
TOC comments gives an indication of PUBLIC Opinion. I hope Gilbert understands this term.

It so happens that for many issues, the public commented the way they did based on what they honestly feels.

Gilbert, don’t be angry.

43) Alex Ong (eX.A.K.R.)

You have given a very good take on the political situation in Singapore at
the moment. It would have been perfect if you had included the people in
your opinion.

Where do the people stand amid all this mud-slinging and most ungentlemanly
behaviour. For you see, even as the political showdown is played out before
our eyes, we, the people, have to live our lives while the episodes are being
shown in the big screen.

I do not know if you included me in your assessment that I might be one who
wish ill on LKY, I would like to state clearly that this is furthest from the truth.
I respect the man for what he has done for Singapore.

Unfortunately, I do not know if it is a blessing or a curse for him to continue
to be in politics. This sentiment is largely due to the presence of his son,
more so his being the PM of Singapore. Has this resulted in LKY being more
skewed in his thinking? Probably trying too hard to protect his own legacy
and ensuring that his son could also live up to it? This may just be speculation
on my part. The point is, amid all these, Singaporeans could well be the
victims of such impressions.

About LKY and how long more he may live, this is something we, the citizens
must consider. We and our children will live beyond him and if there is a
possibility of the PAP running in trouble thereafter, then we too must consider
in all honesty what we ought to do now. Can we ignore this and just hope for
the best?

So, you see, taking into consideration where Singapore would be heading
after the death of LKY is not the same as cursing the man. It is a serious
and a very valid consideration.

What will happen to Singapore and Singaporeans then? Don’t we want to
start planning for such eventuality? What should our plan be?

This is no laughing matter and we MUST not side step the issue.

All said, I appreciate your sharing very much. Good take. Thanks.

To: Sugardaddy/Unreplied Questions

Hi thanks for your comments.

I am not angry just airing my thoughts here haha.

Don’t worry, I am not that petty. Just maybe hope there will be more mutual respect of each other’s views however divergent.

I understand all of us have different views but mostly anti-establishment.

So if someone gave credit to the ruling party we should let it be instead of battering that comment. That person will think twice of coming in here again.

We should welcome both pro and anti establishment comments or else this site will be very one sided and that is not very healthy right?

BTW the person is not me – I am merely making a statement here after reading this site for the past one month or so. I have enjoyed it rhoroughly.

51) singaporedaddy

Bravo! And so it should be.

28) PAP Anonymous on November 14th, 2008 5.46 pm
… Except for PAP, the rest of the other political parties in Singapore are lost causes – not united, bad funded, not leadership, not trusted by the people, and no consistency.

PAP is the best choice out of no choices. You all just don’t get it: without PAP, Singapore is doomed………..
——————————————————————–

How is the PAP funded?
Did PAP have much experience when they were founded?
How many years have they accumulated already? With so much experience, do you not expect much?

Yes , there is a lack of choices and maybe that is why….

When something has NEVER happened before, how can you jump to conclusion? Very dangerous mind you have.

56) Call me Mr Okamoto on November 15th, 2008 9.10 pm
PAP is the best choice out of no choices. You all just don’t get it:

without PAP, Singapore is doomed………..
ya ya, so smart said only,
with today’s PAP, Singapore is doomer and doomer and . . . . . bo liao, finished, game over, ka poot, wan le, see liao, pok liao, siao liao . . . .

48) lim on November 15th, 2008 10.11 am

Suggesting copying practices from other countries without proper justification is strange. Its like suggesting allowing legislators to throw punches at each other like the Taiwan legislature.

>>>> No, that was not the case. That was saying what is happening in TW. Not saying good or bad. Don’t jump to conclusion.

Yes, TW legislators fight. That is why that is what we should not have. The danger I see in you is your jumping to conclusion and making sweeping statements. Democracy is a concept. How democracy is practised depends on the people. Evil or bad people will abuse it. Does this give you the sweeping excuse to deny more Freedom? You might as well say no gun should exist in this world since some people accidentally kill others? You need to understand that this world is not perfect and nothing can be perfect. We need to make things more towards perfect. The fact that things can never be perfect does not give you the reason to deny efforts towards perfection. Your thinking is dangerous and shows me you are biased and fear Freedom and power to the people , for some reason.
—————————————

Are views in this blog created by 1 person?
There are many different viewers here who comment on the articles.
The FACT that many individuals comment with their own views that either criticise or are unhappy views shows the REALITY. You have to learn to accept reality. Else maybe you are living in Denial? Respect the majority’s views / stand / opinion. We have chosen to live in a Democracy, so lets maturise it!
We do not live in a Dictatorship. this I am sure you agree. I agree.

I read Straits Times political senior correspondent Lee Siew Hua wrote on Saturday, November 15, 2008, “Goodness gracious me! A tip for Singapore – US politician shows how rivals can reconcile for nation’s good”

Then I read Mr Anthony Yeo’s on the same subject, I think.

The difference is so astounding that
I pen my thoughts at http://www.feedmetothefish.blogspot.com

To each, his/her own.

Peace.

feedmetothefish

singaporedaddy:
I agree with you. On the internet, anyone can say whatever he or she pleases, and that no one else has the right to stop him or her to say it. The problem I have here, however, is how they say it, and how that affects the parallel situation in the real world. In many ways, the attitude of the people on the internet is a reflection of their hidden attitudes in the real world, and it does reflect the kind of people we really are. I don’t have a problem with their opinions, even if they do not click with my own; once they start taking it too far though, it’s really a good cause to worry which direction our political discourse is going towards, not only on the virtual space but also in the real world.

Glibert:
I won’t really argee that TOC has degenerated into an anti-establishment rathole; TOC per se is, I find, one of the more neutral and objective political discourse web site in Singapore. Many other sites I have seen are often slanted very heavily towards either side of the debate; some of these are the real ratholes of mudslinging, in my honest-to-goodness opinion. Of course, I won’t be naming any sites, but I do hope most of you know which particular sites I’m thinking here. I rather think that much of the mudslinging here is carried out not by the writers of the articles here, but by the visitors instead, which is something that generally happens with local political discourse elsewhere on the internet, no matter where the web site stands.

Loyola:
As long as the establishment wishes to continue their vice-like grip on power, it’s probably not possible for them to give us more room; consequently, the law of equal and opposite reaction comes into play, with the opposition also holding onto their extreme views. It eventually degenerates into a catch-22: nothing happens unless one side gives way first, but given the amount of distrust both sides have with each other, neither side wants to be the first to give way to each other for fear of being taken advantage of by the other side.

I rather think that much of the mudslinging here is carried out not by the writers of the articles here, but by the visitors instead, which is something that generally happens with local political discourse elsewhere on the internet, no matter where the web site stands. – Alex Ong (#60)

That’s why TOC should not have a forum, but retain the current format of a commentary thread. A website forum will have a life on its own, which may be detrimental to TOC’s cause or reputation. I guess improvements are required perhaps in breaking down the commentary thread into 30 posts per page.

Loyala:

I just read today ST online and got a shock on the heading spoken by PM Lee: “Singapore will be better off with a one-party dominating party,” (words to that effect).

What has happened to him? It puzzled me as being so highly educated and intellectual he could have utter such a remark? It just shows absolute power is devastating to the country.

My heart ached when I see how the ruling party bulldozed through so many unpopular medicine down our throats. There is no way for compromise – it’s my way or make way!

It only goes to show that the showdown will be at the polls. Singapore should be more ready than GE 2006 to show what they want for their own country.

The day has arrived for our country to be brave and show what they are make of. Even if we have no upgrading or higher valuation on our flats let us sacrifice so that others may have a better life!

just read today ST online and got a shock on the heading spoken by PM Lee: “Singapore will be better off with a one-party dominating party,”

He had been saying this for some time now. The last time he gave an analogy of countries sending their soccer teams to play in the world cup. He said Singapore, like the other countries has room for only one National team. He questioned where the logic is for a country to send out two teams.

Imagine this sort of stupid mind games that went unchallenged? The shitty times did not even venture to question him further.

So, it shouldn’t come as a surprise to hear him say that Singapore has room for one party only. But he can say all he wants. The future history of Singapore has yet to be wriiten and the ones who would be writing them are you and me.

Gemami:

YA Singapore will be poorer in the future for sure. We will be handicapped by such governance. Though we may be progessing well economically, we are left very far beind in terms of human rights and political space.

We have all got a foretaste of the adverse dominance of one-party politics and Singapore by now is no fool. Even aunties and uncles now may think twice about the lighting strike as they have all being strike by the high cost of lightning.

Something is very wrong in my country and I am very worried and disenchanted.