My apologies for the late follow-up. Have been under the weather these past few days. Now, let us return to where we left off.

First and foremost, allow me to thank Gilbert for a very well-written article that encapsulates every point that has been covered thus far on the discussion of whether Singapore is better off with a one or two-party system of governance. There are some ‘notions’ that have to be put right

The reason why I sidetracked it when I made my first comments was because I felt we have wasted enough time talking about an issue that is really a test of one’s intelligence. Even as I agree with you that indeed it came from the PM and that it merits the attention it has attracted, I cannot help but to see it as a topic to divert the people’s attention away from more pressing issues at hand.

More importantly, by continuing to discuss the issue, we are essentially helping the PAP to fine-tune its One-Party policy. How so you may ask. Well, as with most past PAP policies that when it had no idea where it would be heading, it is always best to lay it out in the open for ‘debate’. By so doing, comments will stream in and this is where the PAP will look at it and prepare its counter-arguments, all to its benefit. The MSM will be roped in to blow up their positive points and to equally blow up the negatives, practically ignoring the positives on the opposing camp. End result is, we always lose even when we have better reasons to theirs. And in this debate, I believe the two-party advocates have better reasons to believe they are on the right track. And I do understand that this is what Gilbert is attempting to put across.

The Fandi Ahmad Syndrome
Generally, this is my take on the political situation in Singapore. I would call it the ‘Fandi Ahmad’ syndrome.

Since the age of 17 years, Fandi Ahmad, our local foot-balling icon, burst into the limelight and became the mainstay of local football for the next twenty years, how many other footballers, particularly strikers, were left out in the cold because there is only room enough for one?. Year after year, it was Fandi Ahmad and Fandi Ahmad alone. Others like V Sundramoorthy had to play second fiddle. For as long as Fandi Ahmad was still playing, there wasn’t enough room for another. The end result was the regression of Singapore football especially after leaving the M-cup to set up our own S-League. It took some years to get to where we are now, with the consecutive successes at the ASEAN Cup tournaments.

It is only recently that we are seeing new talents like Khairul Amri, Indra Sahdhan, Nor Alam Shah. Why now and not before? Simply because, no one was dare enough to let go, of an aging Fandi, who had outlived his potency after twenty years. Similar to PAP? Why are we still clinging on to LKY and his supporting cast that does not have any real talent to crow about? It will take years and a new system (S-League) to uncover new gems. This is what the PAP is telling us NOT to believe because there is only room enough for them, THE talents of the land. You believe? If you do not believe that they are the only talents in the land, then you would surely advocate an alternative that contains these other talents that would be able to provide an alternative solution or approach when the need arises.

Alternative or Checks & Balance?
How often we have been made to believe that the opposition’s primary role is check & balance. How wrong this perception is. Agreed, the short term purpose of an opposition is to effect check & balance but the long term goal is to promote and institute an alternative – as TKL rightfully calls the opposition. For the moment, it remains an opposition but we, the people, must see beyond opposing, to the set up of an effective alternative, that can provide an alternative choice for the people. Look at the British system, it has more than two strong parties, Conservative and Labour. It has strength in a sizeable third party like the Liberal Democrats. Why can’t we look toward such a political composition?

Effective & Efficient?
We have heard comments like a one-party system is an effective and efficient system. These are sweeping statements that harps on the laurels of the performance of PAP’s predecessors. As soon as we have a group of inept politicians in power, we will all be in deep shit. They will be effectively and efficiently introducing policies that are detrimental to the people to safeguard itself first. Will this happen? I am afraid it already has without the need to elaborate further.

Still not convince? Let’s discuss then. Politicians from all over the world generally are there for the main purpose of serving the larger community. In Singapore, and in LKY’s own words, that it cannot attract talents to serve the larger community without paying them astronomical salaries; it clearly shows that the politicians up here are there because of the monetary incentives. Do we then blame them for not caring for the people more than they care for their own livelihood, their job? Indeed, it is job first, people second; if there is a second at all. They are not there to serve the people. It is another job for them, to produce the best result for the party, and they have no qualm to equate the PAP with the country, to confuse the people even further.

We are going through the pangs of child birth. It is a painful process and one we cannot run away from, if we want to cherish the joy of a new born child. Do not let the PAP abort us, for this is what it is striving to do.

I have a lot more to say on this but have so far refrained from adding to what have already been offered. I just felt the need to correct some notions. I think I have also taken up enough space in one post. So this is it for now.

“why are many Africian countries not progressing [1]?”

You have to understand. I am the brotherhood liaison. I have a mission here. That means my time is very important. I dont want to be rude, but you may be wasting my time here by attempting to draw apple to strawberry pie comparisons here; tell me, is it possible to compare the taj mahal to our merlion in marina bay? What about the grand canyon to the Nicoll Highway sink hole?

Then why are you comparing dysfunctional democracies with what may or may not have happened to account for the basket case of the African continent? I dont understand. What possible learning outcome can we possibly glean from there?

Go! And get an apple to apple comparison. And I promise you cjc. I’ve walk you through the A – Z of this whole discussion and show you the error of your ways.

Trust me, you will see the world clearer after this.

Go!

SD

And who should be doing this quality control. By the very group of people whose own quality may be replaced ?????

Same here and vice versa so that you know. The wonder of free speech.

“If you can’t control your temper, how can people trust your vote.”

Same here, if you can’t control your own sense of proportion and fair play and the need to be dominant, how can people trust you with their vote.

I do not know which group of people you are referring to. Candidates do not need to trust my vote or the others, candidates just have to earn it lah. You sound like all of us owe our vote to them lah. So what if you do not trust their vote, steal it from them ???

Do not expect people to stand still.

How do police and soldiers show their temper when doing the dirty enforcement job. They do sweet talk first. If this does not work, they do the nasty talk. If this does not work, they use force. If you use more force to retaliate, they just shooooooooooooot you lah.

Temper does not come out of nowhere lah.

If you can’t control your temper, how can people trust your vote?

Simply put, we need quality control on oppositions for any hope of getting multi-party system to work in Singapore

if can’t you control your temper, how can people trust that you vote wisely?

I don’t think you get my point. Even if you consider “calling in military if there is a freak election result, and also on single-party system.” “brute force”, that doesn’t mean whoever disagree with you supports the “brute force” or using brute force.

We simply need quality control on the oppositions.

Trash my views not if they sound heavyweight or not.

I’m neither against democracy nor multi-party systems in general, but let’s not be dogmatic. We need to go beyon adopting generic policies wholesale and blindly.”

Adopting generic policies wholesale and blindly, you do make it sound like you are some heavyweight and some of us are some neophytes fresh out of school in political studies.

Talking about dogmatic. You still have not addressed the issue on “calling in military if there is a freak election result, and also on single-party system.

Hello, are you in some dream state. Who is being more dogmatic. We have 43 long years of rule by a very single dominant party.

Ya lah, you’e neither against democracy nor multi-party systems. Maybe you prefer sarong wayang party.

I don’t think all oppositions are trash, but most of them in Singapore’s last election are. And it’s enough for the bad ones to offset any benefits the few good ones might bring.

Not all oppositions are trash, but democratic multi-party system does not solve all problems. If it were, why are many Africian countries not progressing [1]?

I’m neither against democracy nor multi-party systems in general, but let’s not be dogmatic. We need to go beyon adopting generic policies wholesale and blindly.

[1] Xavier Sala-i-Martin. World Income Distribution.
http://www.columbia.edu/~xs23/papers/pdfs/World_Income_Distribution_QJE.pdf

Not decided by me alone lah. However, you ask it shall be provided.

Probably, TKL, GMS, CSJ, SL, SKH, TLH, FS, just a few to start with.

Displaced 5, 10, 15, 20 ….. over the next 5, 10, 15, 20 …. years respectively for smooth and non-chaotic transition.

Fine tuning process – reasonable timeframe of 5 to 10 years to really size up performance.

“I don’t believe in brute force.”

I do have similar concern. Brute force strictly not allowed. Hey, how do you associate on your mention of “brute force” from calling in military if there is a freak election result. and also on single-party system. Talking about brute force somemore. You should look at the other side lah.

Who is the “anyone decent”, and how many and who in the parliament to displace? How long to talk about “fine tuning later”?

I don’t believe in brute force. But I think you stereotype any person who doesn’t agree with the approach of blindly voting in oppositions.

“I can see why you are mad with PAP’s arrogance, and your emotional response is understandable. But seeing destroying them as the ultimate goal do nothing more than venting your anger.”

Please do me the courtesy of not put words into my mouth cjc. There is nothing malicious abt what I have written above concerning PAP or even the planet of the apes.

My primary concern as I have mentioned here and elsewhere remains one that relates specifically to the issue of quality, competence and delivery reliability.

As a tax payer – I believe, I have a right to ask how this may be reliably delivered in the absence of a multi-party system that stimulates healthy competition; it is not a spurious question, but one that remains jugular to the issue at hand; how is it possible for ANY oligarchy (doesn’t even have to be PAP, could even be two chicken rice vendors in a food court) to perpetuate its class politics coherently by ensuring the good people get in the and lousy don’t have any room to hide in the system, in the absence of competition.

If you say,

“I don’t think blindly allowing more opposition solves the problem of shortage of talent (which I think is a real problem.) It’s not because the PAP possess the elite genes of supreme governance. But, rather, I don’t think allowing more oppositions bring out more talent than trash to bring us any benefit. Just look at most of the opposition candidates during election. We need better ideas.”

Then forgive me but that is really just your opinion on the issue (and a very poor one at that). I personally don’t think it is fair or accurate to label the opposition as “trash.” That could only be true, if what is often reported about the opposition was fair and there exist such a thing as a level playing field – I leave it to other readers to draw that conclusion – and what usually emerges as an account from the MSM did not also emerge from the very same apparatus of assimilation – so you must forgive me, if I choose to disregard your version of the status quo ante as the real “trash.”

Oppositions in whatever form, be it a pesky shareholder who demands tough answers to the engineer who puts up his hands to draw attention to safety lapses or even the housewife who cautions her husband from putting all his retirement fund in one investment product. ALL have something very valuable to offer, they are certainly not “trash.” Otherwise how could you account for the fact that out of 86 functional democracies in this world; why do think 9/10 of them subscribe to a multi-party system?

We encourage you to read broadly cjc.

SD (Internet Liaison officer of the brotherhood)

“As far as getting capable into service. Let me tell you this! I dont see why PAP should be having a problem. I believe they deliberately create this perception of scarcity very much in the way the price of diamonds are artificially hiked by promoting the myth, they are very rare and precious stones.”

I like the way you said it teacher. Deliberate creation of this perception of scarcity ? And frankly speaking, how does this benefit us other than more for those clever inventors & creators.

Teacher, what can you teach your students. trickery ? Mind you, I have been brought up from this local educational system and detection of dissonance (let me use this term singaporedaddy) slowly grew into me through observation on the national scenes here.

You are a teacher, aren’t you. Do you think we should continue this perception of scarcity and that some worthless pieces (not totally lah) of rocks “are very rare and precious stones.”

“I do however have stern reservations abt people like the brotherhood joining politics.”

Do not worry, the brotherhood still has to cross the line drawn by the existing higher priest and the wider general electorate. How about those worthless pieces of rocks that have already been displayed as “very rare and precious stones.”

You mentioned perception so I presume a lot of things are not so real. Am I right, teacher. phew !!!! teacher somemore !!!!!

, So it meants indirectly Telling the citizens that “THOSE ARE PAP assets??

No one is calling for ultimate destruction lah. So cruel and uncivilised lah. Have you yourself heard of one-party system. What do you think they mean coming from someone in a democratic system that they created in the first place. It really pains my soft tender heart.

“The current one-party system run by the PAP has weaknesses, and I don’t subscribe to the one-party ideology. I’m pragmatic.”

You do see something lah.

“My point is this: I don’t think blindly allowing more opposition solves the problem of shortage of talent (which I think is a real problem.”

We have reached a dead end where even proper & decent approaches trying to get into parlimant won’t even help bcos of magical fleeting rules. We need to change approach, get anyone decent in first to test them out and talk about fine tuning later.

If you analyse too much for perfectness till the cow comes home, you may get mad-cow disease lah. Can’t you see we are seeing some “symptoms” of it already lah.

I can see why you are mad with PAP’s arrogance, and your emotional response is understandable. But seeing destroying them as the ultimate goal do nothing more than venting your anger.

The current one-party system run by the PAP has weaknesses, and I don’t subscribe to the one-party ideology. I’m pragmatic.

My point is this: I don’t think blindly allowing more opposition solves the problem of shortage of talent (which I think is a real problem.) It’s not because the PAP possess the elite genes of supreme governance. But, rather, I don’t think allowing more oppositions bring out more talent than trash to bring us any benefit. Just look at most of the opposition candidates during election. We need better ideas.

“The only reason why you want this to be a moot point is because you jolly well know once, it assumes a point of contention, then the whole issue of competence is thrown into question.”

Please let’s not get personal early in the morning.

Our main concern relates to value, quality and delivery reliability. You make it sound as if this is such an unreasonable question.

Tell me why do you think society regularly makes sure people who hear voices don’t get to sit in the cockpit of space shuttles?

As I have said for the 100th time; our primary concern is how is it possible to create a system where capable people can continue to serve and the useless people don’t have any where to hide in the system?

How can this be accomplished without competition? We do not understand. We seek to understand.

Allow me to be crystal here; on record, this question still stands.

“Problem with Darkness and his people is if they dont like something. They will pretend to comply at first. It is like his famous coup d’état, he onced staged to overthrow those who in the gaming confederation.”

Again let’s not get personal. There was no coup. How is it possible for us who only make up 0.0005% of the gaming federation in a global industry which is estimated to be USD$30 billion to even stage a coup? Do you even have any idea what you are talking about?

We don’t have a global mind control machine. We are not adding anything into the worlds water supply.

I believe the members who made up the previous confederation of gamers resigned voluntarily after they were impeached by a democratic vote of no confidence BY the rest of the international gaming fraternity; all we did was table the motion for impeachment and exercise our right of veto which is well within our stated rights in the charter. Pls go and check it out, if you dont believe me. All it takes is 5 min. Or if you really want to save time, just ask anyone in any gaming forum.

We did not act ultra vires, neither did we exceed the ambit of our powers stated in the charter.

Everything was done will full transparency. And again to the best of my knowledge, there was no coup as you mentioned, but rather a democratic process to remove “incompetent” people who had no business to be there in the first place.

Let us not spread rumors here.

SD (Internet Liaison officer of the brotherhood)