perfectly. but i still don’t see past them to do it. the opposition needs something to wake them up.

“For, at the end of the day, power rests with the ordinary people.

And power is also given away by the ordinary people”

Well said, we need to exercise our rights, but for the past 3 election, I do not have the opportunity to do that, so I hope that willing peoples will come out and stand in all GRCs and SMC so that we have that chance to make CHANGE in our country.

All oppositon parties must really work as an alliance to reach out to our voters, be more proactive even you may not agree to present policies but must use it to be interactive with the proples just like speakers corner. So far only SDP is the only party using it for their cause. We have to be like Mr. Tan KL using that platform to voice what he stand for and is for the peoples to judge whether he is good enough to stand for election.

My humble opinion.

#Andrew
….for 2009, my wish and hope is that more people like Tan Kin Lian, Kenneth Jeyaretnam and his brother Philip, will step forward and give Singaporeans a genuine alternative.

How about you yourself and Choo Zheng Xi?

The Main problems with the Opposition is this:

1) The SDP sees the bigger picture, but provides no detailed solution. Furthermore, they utilize a strategy which only continues to alienate them.

2) The WP has brilliant detailed proposals, but no overarching framework to place them in. Furthermore, they are still far too timid and perhaps more focused on protecting Hougang then securing Singapore as a whole.

3) The SDA rides on the personality of CST and Steve Chia; it has neither overarching picture nor detailed solutions.

4) The Reform party does not seem to have fully started the engines at all.

Unless the Opposition can resolve all this, there is no way any of them – or all of them together – can beat the PAP.

Andrew Loh,

I hate to say this, again, but what you are saying sounds like a broken record.

Firstly, this word “unity” is always bandied but as ever, like many commentators before and probably after you, cannot defined. Like the other word, “credibility”, where people often throw at the oppositions but unable to define or articulate clearly. Seemed to be like the Voters themselves like to use these words as excuse to maintain the status quo.

As for the accusation that the opposition parties are not united, let me say that this is far from the truth. Time and time again the opposition has shown the electorate that they can unite but it is the electorate themselves that have been totally ungrateful to these selfless people.

Look at the electoral pact between the parties not to engaged in a three-cornered fight. Look at the so-call by election strategy where all the parties agreed not to compete more than 50% of the seat available (except for the last election) to let the PAP continue ruling. Are these not clear cut example of unity?

If the electorate themselves for whatever reason themselves can’t see they have such a golden opportunity to check but not topple the PAP thus the best of both world, than who is to blame here? The electorate or the opposition parties?

In my mind it is the electorate themselves that is to be blamed and if they continue to act the way they do, deserve to suffer the consequences of their actions. Personally, I think it would be kinder to let the electorate suffer when (not if) the PAP cockup big time. Look at Japan and Germany during the WWII they were allowed to suffer big time and now emerged stronger.

Secondly, the fact that different parties offer different policies and philosophical platform is not necessarily a bad thing. The worst thing that could happen is for the sake of “unity” all start to sound and act the same. How would you like it if every political party sounds and acts like the WP or SDP or the PAP?

The fact that the parties offer different policies and philosophy is a Good not a Bad thing because we have choice. In any case, not everyone in Singapore thinks and acts in the same way. And if we want to make sure every member of society have their voice heard than having multiple parties is a good thing. Even in nature we have different species of things competing against each other. That is a good thing not a bad thing.

I come back to the point that despite these differences the opposition has already shown that when it comes to electoral strategy they can unite — i.e. avoid a three cornered fight and even agree to let the PAP run things for now.

The real question is for the electorate now. Do they want to check the PAP or not?

If the answer is yes, then their job is simple. Vote and contribute to the opposition cause and stop hiding behind the excuse of “unity” and “credibility”!

1 dare say
the beginning
will only come
when the palpit has ceased completely.
everything else is
mirage.

and that the way in the
digital age.

The trouble with opposition parties here is that many wants to be the ‘chief’ and not ‘little Indians’. Members easily break rank and cross over to another party over minor disagreements. Or form another new party. There are just too many opposition parties in this small country. Of course, the PAP is very happy with more of these parties. Then it can boast to the whole world that democracy is alive here or else how can there be so many parties.

Readers of TOC should encourage more qualified citizens to come forward to serve in oppostion parties for the nation’s future as the PAP cannot last forever. Don’t be too trigger-happy to shoot down potential candidates for whatever reasons because every leader has his/her own style as can be seen in Low K T, Chiam S T and Chee S J.

Party leaders should come together now and not just before the GE to forge a common stand and not be conned to vote for the better PAP candidate over a fellow Opposition party candidate as happened in the 2006 GE.

“We should also not forget that ordinary Singaporeans have a part to play as well. We should continue to speak up on issues which we are concerned and passionate about. Better still, lend our skills to the various political parties – including the PAP.”

We should continue to be vocal as a people. We should create channels for people to vocalize. Period.

Parties are divisive and even destructive. Engaging clearly defined issues categorically will unite the people.

So no party politics and no rule by a “few good men”.

Very difficult. SDP focus on protest, potest, protest (to be fair to them, they openly invite public on policy which i gave thumb-up) while WP focus on groundwork, groundwork, groundwork.

My opinion: To get their leaders together and move as one (not merge, of course) their members need to organise more ‘gathering sessions’ on their own.

All alternative parties in Singapore should positively and aggressively launch recruitment campaign to attract highly educated and committed young people to participate in their soical activities.

With this initial start and foundation, alternative parties could gradually socialise with them and find out their real interest, thought and capabilities, most importantly retain those good ones – honest, capable and willing to serve people.

6) Teo Kueh Liang on January 1st, 2009 8.23 pm

All alternative parties in Singapore should positively and aggressively launch recruitment campaign to attract highly educated and committed young people to participate in their soical activities.

Er why don’t so called highly educated and committed young people come forward themselves instead of being so Singaporean waiting to be told what to do?

In any case, if you need to “attract” people to come forward, then how committed are they?

What good are these “highly” educated people if they still need people to tell them what to do?

All that education and no initiative is really a waste of time! We have to many of these in Singapore already.

Focus less on the Differences
and
Pay more attention to
the Commonality
= Synergy
unleaded super high octane

look at the BIG picture & not sweat the small stuff.

Oppositions need reform, not unity. Many opposition parties are like failed business but never go under.

Ng Teck Siong should take the lead to dissolve Reform Party. Don’t use JBJ as excuse to justify this failed existence. That will bring oppositions one step closer to unity.

SPP and NSP should settle their marriage quick, that will be another step closer to unity.

SDP should turn itself into NGO activist group, don’t wait until PAP shut it down. Party members go join whatever party they like.

WP can make some noise like TKL, but it is not going to do any good because most people don’t care. I don’t like the way WP plays the game also, but I am willing to wait for it to play it out. Remember that this biggest opposition party is actually very very small.

The inherent bias in the GRC system must be highlighted as a structural defect in an electoral system which grants the PAP its constitutional legitimacy. Unfortunately, I see no reason why the government (or any ‘independent’ electoral commission) would agree to a genuine review, when the apparent issue at stake is ‘ethnic representation’.

All opposition parties must be proactive in engaging Singaporeans with their policies, beliefs, in 2009 in order to have an effect in the coming election.

I have not voted for the past 3 election so contest all GRCs so that we have a choice.

6) Tan Ah Kow – There’s nothing wrong with parties having recruitment campaigns. Even the most desirable companies in the world have aggressive recruitment campaigns, often on college campuses. That’s a hint to the opposition parties. Catch them before the competition catches them.

The only chance for the opposition to fight the mightly pappies is for them to pool resources. Times and conditions are never better than today, and it is heartening for me to notice the springing up of many new faces among the oppostion. Tan Kin Lian would certainly give the paps a run for their money.
I hope that there will be enough opposition for them to fight in every constituency so that no constituency is a pap walkover. There is an important lesson to learn from the Malaysian opposition. They put in a candidate in every constituency and we have all witnessed how they almost won the election. The winds of change is certainly also coming to Singapore, and the opposition must have enough scope and island-wide coverage to be able to form an alternative govt.
Good luck and may God bless all those opposition who have the guts to challenge the pappies.

Minibombed,

I myself am not interested in entering politics and taking part in elections. I have no ambitions to be an MP. Further, I do not feel I am qualified for such a role either.

As for Zheng Xi, I do not speak for him but he is in NUS law school at the moment.

Tan Ah Kow, (#5)

” hate to say this, again, but what you are saying sounds like a broken record.”

I am not sure why you would say that as I think this is the first time that I have written about opposition unity, if I am not wrong.

As for my point about opposition unity, I am not referring to just providing a united stance during the hustings. I am referring also to such a stance during outside the election period.

In short, I am talking about a more substantive unity rather than a superficial one to avoid three-corner fights during an election.

As for what unity means, my view is that of parties standing together and speaking up for Singaporeans with a united voice on issues – such as the cost of living, or public transport, or means testing.

Regards,
Andrew Loh

It is disheartening to note that opposition parties could not get along and be united to challenge the PAP. Unless the present crop of opposition leaders are selfless and are prepared to think longer term , the GE will be another disappointment for many singaporean who yearn for opposition politics in Parliament.

They must be united in order to challenge the PAP candidates and hopefully win enough votes to get into parliament. Based on the previous voting pattern, simple logic will tell you that with an united front , a swing of 5 % of the popular vote is possible and in those margin seats, the opposition caandidates will be able to win.

If the WP dont want to join the united front, they will be left behind and their leader Mr Low may loose his seat.WP may even wound up if more united front candidates win an election, because they will deinitively be perceived to be spolier in this election process. Aljunied ward may well have been won had they be seen to be in the opposition grouping the last time.

The united front must be able to field candidates in all the constituents including Hougang and Aljunied in the next election in order to have the full impact. For a start, they should now work towards to actively scouting for candidates and introducing their candidates to the public and also making known their preference for the ward to be contested.

2009 and 2010 is going to be a very rough year for the PAP and with the world economies still in bad shape and full recovery unlikely. This fact alone is going to cost the PAP at least another 5 to 10 percentage point in votes.

You dont need to be a very clever mathematician to count the odd against winning a seat in the Singapore Parliament.

The oppositions all over the world are making inroad into parliamentary election, I dont see how the PAP can still hold their position. They have make too many mistakes this year and unless they improve their record in the next year or two, they will loose a lot of votes in the next GE.

Its time for all alternative parties to come together representing as the ONE VOICE OF SINGAPORE. By staying as individual parties will only play into the hands of the papees and this is exactly what they always wanted to see. It is just much too easy for them to disintegrate your source of unity against them, which is already proven all these years so why to hang on to a small sinking sampan when you guys can be united into one big ocean going supertanker.

18) Andrew Loh on January 1st, 2009 11.27 pm :

On this point:

” hate to say this, again, but what you are saying sounds like a broken record.”

I am not sure why you would say that as I think this is the first time that I have written about opposition unity, if I am not wrong.

I am not suggesting that you, personally, have/have not said the same thing. What I am saying is that the message that you are saying sounds like many other who voiced the same sentiment. By others, I mean many commentators before and quite possibly many more to come will be saying the same thing.

The message itself is like a broken record!

As for my point about opposition unity, I am not referring to just providing a united stance during the hustings. I am referring also to such a stance during outside the election period.

In short, I am talking about a more substantive unity rather than a superficial one to avoid three-corner fights during an election.

On this point I find it strange that you would regard an electoral pack as superficial. I mean the point about getting elected is to be in the parliament and even if not to hold power but to form a check on the government. How can that be superficial?

Again I think you and quite a substantial portion of the electorates seemed to have this idea that unified = same voice. This is a ridiculous proposition. As you have eluded to that the WP is a disappointment. Now can you imagine if all political parties “united” on WP philosophy. Well in which case, we might as well not any opposition or alternative party.

Personally, I am no fan of the WP and have no regards for the leadership but that is my opinion. I personally believe in the SDP philosophy as it stands now. But I am one of many other Singaporean who share the country. I will do my best to sell the SDP philosophy through debates but is it right for me to deprive people who believe in WP philosophy for the sake of unity?

Like I say before, in any society there is no such thing as everyone thinking the same or suffering the same thing. If you believe in voice for the people, then you must accept there will be different viewpoints. And the fact that different view point needs to be represented by different parties with different political platform. It is when these different political parties compete with ideas and win over people that an strong one will emerge.

At the end of the day, it is for the electorate themselves to choose. And the electorate should count their lucky star that they have choice. Now of course, if electorate themselves are unable or unwilling to make their choice is it the problem of the opposition parties?

The key to any political parties victory is in understanding the grassroots, being seen as one with them, empathizing with them, advocating for them and finally rallying them towards the cause. No opposition party has managed to rally the entire segment of the Singapore population, accept for certain small constituencies. Victory at the elections is but a bi-product of real involvement with the grassroots.

the monopoly of mainstream media doesn’t help matters, and in fact aids the PAP in their divide-and-conquer strategy. true, the internet has closed the gap, but the opposition has yet to fully utilise this power, which is a pity.

what they really need is a coherent common strategy, which calls for unity basically. only then can they present a united front, and a strong and credible enough force to challenge the PAP and make those swing voters vote for the opposition.

in my opinion. the divide between the parties are just too wide at the moment, and only one party(SDP) seems to be trying to close the gulf. however, they cannot succeed if the other parties i.e. WP refuse to work. a pity. perhaps the other parties have their own agenda.

change needs to come from within each and every singaporean, to recognise that the current status quo is NOT what they want.

I’m sorry but I’m not so much interested in unity as I am in seeing opposition parties proposals on governance.

At the moment, short of domestic isues, I cannot see any opposition party member able to discuss trade, economic and foreign affairs with enough depth, experience and understanding. It is one thing to represent the voice of the people. It’s another thing to represent Singaporeans and negotiate trade agreements with other countries.

In my opinion, opposition parties need to remove themselves from the myopic view of challenging the ruling party for the sake of being an alternative, and really show some substance in governance.

I am truly waiting for you to earn my vote.

So you would rather vote for the party that keeps decreasing quality of life, increasing cost of living when they could do otherwise? Well, if you’re an employer or one of the “elite”, then, good choice. But if you aren’t:

Let’s assume you’re right that opposition parties at the moment, are unable to represent Singaporeans and negotiate well. However, I’m sure they can either learn or recruit those who can once they are in power. Better them than those who can improve our lives, but refuse to.

I attended the Countdown Party to say a few words in memory of Mr. J. B. Jeyaretnam.

The text of my speech is shown here:
http://tankinlian.blogspot.com/2009/01/in-memory-of-mr-j-b-jeyaretnam.html

Here is a summary of the responses to a survey on Mr. J. B. Jeyaretnam:
http://tankinlian.blogspot.com/2009/01/survey-j-b-jeyaretnam.html

#24

Spot on

“Better them than those who can improve our lives, but refuse to.”

But look what happened after 2006 GE. WP nearly won a GRC. It then went into its shell and is waiting for next GE.

It might be in for a shock in next GE. Voters might express their disgust with its complacency.

A Tan,

if you have grouses with the current party you will have similar grouses with any other party and maybe even worse( most are unproven so far).

at least, the incumbent has delivered a certain quality of living and security.

but some argued we need more opposition to check on the government. seriously, the idea sounds reasonable enough but the reality is, the opposition themselves too need to be “checked”. and no matter which way you look at it, at the end of the day, we are all done in not only by an imperfect system but by imperfect representatives.

so the way i see it, the whole electoral process is nothing but canvassing for a few restless souls who are not satisfied in being blissfully ordinary and contented, making necessary changes and contribution on that level.

i am wary of anyone who ascend to great power. if power corrupts, why empower fallible beings?

Ho Cheow Seng gave me this quote, which I like to share with others:

“The world is a dangerous place to live; not because of the people who are evil, but because of the people who don’t do anything about it.” — Albert Einstein

I agree with the views expressed by a few people that the alternative parties should have an platform on how to run the country. In my view, this platform should be based on the following:

> democracy – the rights of the people to choose their leaders and express their views

> justice and fairness – all people should be treated with respect and given a satisfactory standard of life

There are fears that the alternative parties may not be able to provide a government that can ensure the future well-being of the country. I think that this fear is unfounded. I shall write an article, for a future issue of The Online Citizen, to express how Singapore can continue to do well under an alternative government (although it has to go through a period of uncertainty).

Most importantly, we have to educate Singaporeans to accept change, and be ready to contribute to the change. The change will not be easy, so many people have to come forward to make it work.

I have always felt disturbed by the lack of coherence in opposition politics, very much like Waiting #23. Frankly, I think they lack even a rudimentary working policy for the governing of Singapore, much less foreign affairs and geopolitics. This (fact or perception) has to somehow change or nobody will vote them into power, regardless of how much people are annoyed by the hubris and arrogance of the PAP leadership. Imho, the MSM being biased is generally the problem here.

I would like to see the day when each political party has a “shadow government” that can offer alternative views on issues facing the nation, local or otherwise.

I would like to see these views presented more frequently than each election cycle.

I would like to see these views widely disseminated and available to the public.

I would like to see these views contested (or reviewed) by the PAP (or the governing party of the day – I *hate* the use of the word “ruling”) and robustly debated in parliament.

Imho, this is the ideal political scenario I would like to see in our country. I do not think we need (absolute) opposition unity because I believe the diversity of views is necessary. I would not like to see the opposition opposing for the sake of it. I think we just need a level playing field so people can make informed decisions about where the country should go and who are the best people to support in leadership in order to get there.

In any case, I agree with a number of comments here – the opposition needs to get their engines fired up and stay up. If all they are capable of is speaking at the start of each campaigning season, then I don’t think they are worth electing into office for the purposes of governing this country.

Singapore has established civil service equiped with bright and clever people. Change of the ruling party does not equate to change of the civil service system. The alternative party can still leverage on the civil service system with its local talents. Political leaders do not need to be jack of all trades. There are experts to help them.

Just look at Hong Kong in the past decade. It has the following change of head of state:
(1) Chris Patten – British Politician
(2) Tung Kin Wah – Shipping tycoon
(3) Donand Tsang – High ranking administrative officer in the civil service

Hong Kong is still functioning with this change of head who have hugely diverse backgrounds and up bringings. The engine of the HK society is still unchanged based upon its civil service system.

In short, why fear for a change of the ruling party?

They have been given over 4 decades in a row to learn and be the present team.
should the Alternatives continued to be denied a further 4 decades the chance to learn the ropes or how about for eternity?
which is wiser?

I urge people to think long term and not be narrow in thinking.

sometimes, we need to think Out-Of-The-Box.

2 brains are better than 1.

People can have Alternative views sometimes.

if it takes 50 years to dig it up,
then the more reason to start now.

think people . think. dun sabo.

You people still think that the success of the whole economy is just based only a bunch of people so called elites who claimed to be without them the whole country will collapse? Fear! isn’t it? well this is exactly what the ruling party is always that to happen to all people under them, so they can continue to do what they wish. Have you ever even think that there are alot of capable people within the ruling party who are still unhappy and yet cannot do anything about it just because of who we all know. I can bet you that even if there is an alternative party who can successfully take over office, you won’t be surprise that these capable ones will be more than happy to switch over. The big question here to all concerning singaporeans is whether you want it to happen or not, or just prefer to stay onto a system that can only cause more suffering to the people and more good years for the elites themselves, the choice is in your hands.

I believe that Mr Tan Kin Lian and the 2 sons of the late Mr Jeyaretnam have a very good chance of securing a GRC if they come together to form a political party to contest the next GE.

Mr Tan is a former high profile CEO of NTUC Income. The 2 Mr Jeyaretnam are a highly respected lawyer and hedge fund manager respectively.

#24 – I suspect that most people will NOT want an opposition that learns on the job, but that is my personal opinion.

#30 – If opposition party can offer me the likes of Chris Patten, I will be the first to cast my vote for them. As I said, I’m looking for good governance.

#28 – I don’t have much affection for the ruling party, but I will not want change for the sake of change, I want change for the better. To show me change for the better, it’s not enough to criticise and spout ideology, I am waiting to hear constructive comments.

Many elections have come and gone. That the opposition has not quite won yet meas that there’re segments of society that you’re not reaching. I think the opposition parties need to expand from rhetoric of change and alternative.

- I was highly amused by the bak chor mee podcasts and I passed them on to all my friends, but I was not impressed by the inability to do simple paperwork for registration

- I am outraged by the MSK incident, but I will only cast my vote if opposition articulates a clear understanding of the terrorist threat and offers a constructive alternative.

- I am saddened that there are people who are down and trodden and don’t have enough to put food on the table, but I need to hear the opposition educated stratagies on economics, financial management and distribution of wealth.

- I empathise with the elderly and uneducated who lost their life savings from buying minibonds, but I need the opposition to demonstrate understanding of the sub-prime crisis and the global repercussions, and offer constructive proposals on how to create a more robust financial system than the one we have now.

I am wishing for the opposition parties to raise the stakes in GE2010.

The ruling party has had 4 years to show how they govern, they can afford to engage in some dramatics at election time. If the opposition concentrates merely on dramatcs and rhetoric, I hear warning bells that there is very little understanding on how to really govern.

It is an uphill task, I must say, kudos to those who care enough to keep trying.

fully agree to #13……

2/1/09

Hi Andrew Loh- Good opinon. As I see it, the Singapore Opposition parties are very weak and fragile, and they are looking for someone who can lead them. The present leaders in WP and NSP are not good enough, sad to say this (the same in PAP, the present leaders did not measure up to Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew’s expectation also).

The late JBJ was a very selfish man and this I refer to his forming of the Reform Party (already there are so many Opposition parties and his Reform Party further weakens the Singapore Opposition and what he should had done was to bring all the Singapore Opposition parties together and lead them just like what Anwar Ibrahim in Malaysia did under Pakatan Rakyat, and he would had earned himself a title like Statesman). [---deleted---] We saw one Gopalan Nair an ex Singaporean and now US citizen came back and challenged the PAP Government and was very confident that the US Government would sent their Marines to rescue him (US Government not stupid as he deliberately broke every law in Singapore, also sad to say Dr Chee and his gang has been doing this also-breaking every law in Singapore).

As I see, what Singapore needs is a fine tuning of the present policies and institutions which have been establisehd by the PAP government came into power and not total dismantling of these policies and institutions totally which the late JBJ had tried to do but failed. Yes, there are flaws in these present policies and institutions which only need fine tuning. Singaporeans have been totally dependent on these policies and institutions ie CPF, HDB, Health, Education and Defence (including Civil Defence). As far as I am concerned,once these present policies and institutions have been fine tuning, life would be great once again for all Singaporeans and every Singaporeans must not be deprived of the very basic needs as Singapore citizens ie Health, Housing and Education and must be given total access and Singapore born children must be given free education from primary up to university-phd (only a minute of our GDP and reserves).

Coming back to Singapore Opposition, what we need is people that is equal or better than the PAP and not necessary with Phds like Dr Chee [---deleted---] or Tan Kin Lian who retired as CEO of NTUC Income.

Regards
Andrew Chuah

Comments edited by moderator.
Deleted are unsubstantiated allegations.

2/1/09

Further to my posting *36, what I mean “we need is people that is equal or better than the PAP” simply refers to one who is able to put Singapore above everything else, perhaps similar to Lee Kuan Yew when he was young and also his old guards (they poured out his very best for Singapore). We already have the best civil service in Asia and I salute them (even Malaysia’s Anwar Ibrahim acknowledged this).

Regards
Andrew Chuah

Hi Ronin (#33)
Your suggestion to put TKL and the 2 Jeyas together in a GRC is very interesting.
Perhaps we should also add CSJ or CSC in the same GRC as their popularity has recently shot up astronomically after having been jailed for fighting fearlessly for the people.
I think there is a very strong chance that they would win the GRC now that the ordinary people in Singapore are all extremely FED UP with the high cost of living, the indefensible increase in GST in a recession year, the atrocious increase in the Ministers’ pensions and salaries, the introduction of hospital means testing, the ever rising bus fares that do not drop back even with very low oil prices now, the huge increase in basic food prices, etc., etc.
Let us now work harder to persuade TKL and the Jeyas to come out and take up the challenge for the sake of the poor people.

[...] Do We Have Strong Leaders – TOC: The opposition in 2009 – time to get united [...]

Tan Ah Kow,

I think you may have misconstrued what I said. No one, least of all me, is asking for all the parties to think the same, act the same or be the same. That is the impression I have when I read what you wrote – that you think that’s what I am saying.

No one is asking everyone else to be like the WP, or for the WP to be like everyone else. What I am saying is that on certain issues, there are common grounds for working together. And that is where it should begin. Parties should be able to come to compromises in certain instances where the common good takes precedence over party-politics.

This is the sad thing to me, that they are unable to. As far as I can see.

As for the issue of the superficiality of presenting a “united front” by not having three-cornered fights, it is superficial simply because it is for convenience and nothing more. In fact, it is for the selfish reasons of the parties themselves.

For if they were really interested in providing S’poreans with a real choice, they’d go beyond this once-in-five-years superficial “being united” by avoiding three-corner fights.

They can “work together” in this manner for the next one hundred years for all i care and it will not make any difference, as has been shown in the last few decades of elections here.

So, what I am saying is a more substantive working together, being united on issues which concerns Singaporeans.

Time to throw out superficialities. Get to the substance.

By the way, Tan Ah Kow, the fact (according to you, at least) that many have repeated this “broken record” message should say something to us – that they want to see a united opposition.

To dismiss this as just “a broken record” is ignoring the sentiments of the public – which, ironically, is what the opposition parties have claimed to want to represent!

I think Andrew is doing the right things.

1. Everyone can play a part.

2. Effect can only come When everyone plays a part. keeping our feelings in our hearts is fruitless and unhealthy.

3. Anyone can play a part. Its large or small. 2 small = 1 big part. moreover, there is a severe shortage of people stepping forward. Those who are not charismatic enough can step forward working backstage.

4. Even voicing up in forums and blogs is playing a part. There is always an effect when one attempts. Posting comments is a form of Action in itself. Don’t let nay sayers make us give up attempting. nay sayers may have hidden agenda or vested interest.

while the mountain infront is as big as Mt Everest,
Time will spare no one, no animal.
Tick Tock Tick Tock.
the mouse went up the clock.
the clock strikes 1, hickery dickory tock!
all the kings horses and men could not put humpty together again.
the invisible t-shirt .
The Only Constant is Change, even if you don’t want.

regrads
Mee Hum

Dear Arix, with regards to your comment #4 comparing the manifestos of WP and SDP, I don’t know how you came to such a conclusion.

Here is WP’s manifesto as featured on their website: http://www.wp.sg/wordpress/our-beliefs/

Here is SDP’s manifesto as featured on their website: http://yoursdp.org/index.php/the-party/our-manifesto

“I cannot see any opposition party member able to discuss trade, economic and foreign affairs with enough depth, experience and understanding.”

Depth, experience and understanding ? Really ? You seem to possess the fantastic faculty of detecting something missing. You must be one great guy and so must better than the rest of the opposition party. Do you really think so yourself ?

“Many elections have come and gone. That the opposition has not quite won yet meas that there’re segments of society that you’re not reaching. I think the opposition parties need to expand from rhetoric of change and alternative.”

And where have the really good ones ended, if you know what I mean. Not quite won ? And why the need for rhetoric of change and alternative. Your education will come to nothing if you are not allowed to practise it, hence only rhetoric and theories. Who is preventing it ?? The people ??

Very difficult….Singaporeans cannot be bothered ……likeBarrack Obama. We have Behrak Chapkap Taksama !

Tak Boleh ….maybe 2019 boleh try !

Osamaobamataksamah

44) Andrew Loh on January 2nd, 2009 1.51 pm:

By the way, Tan Ah Kow, the fact (according to you, at least) that many have repeated this “broken record” message should say something to us – that they want to see a united opposition.

To dismiss this as just “a broken record” is ignoring the sentiments of the public – which, ironically, is what the opposition parties have claimed to want to represent!

Well if the “public” is not getting what they wanted they stop crying and playing the same record again and again. Why not do something about it!

Why wait for the “opposition” to do something. For example, when the US wanted to be free from its colonial master, did it wait for the “opposition” to be “united” or “credible”. No they join in the fight for independence. Even so, not everyone was able to agree. For example, Benjamin Franklin’s son fought for the colonial master.

After all the member of the “oppositions” are human beings drawn from member of the “public” not gods. Why don’t the “public” engage the opposition and “force” them to change?

Oh I bet the excuse is going to “I am not qualified” or “I don’t want to enter the political arena” or “Politics is not for me”

In that case, if member of the “public” are not prepared to get off the backside and do something about it, don’t blame the opposition.

On your point about being substantive, what exactly do you mean by that. Sound to me like another word for “same”-ness. For example, when you said:

So, what I am saying is a more substantive working together, being united on issues which concerns Singaporeans.

Now in the phrase alone, you are presupposing the concerns of Singaporeans are the same. But are they?

Let me give you a for instance to illustrate my point. Recently I had a debate about health care policies in Singapore with Tan Kian Lian. From our debate we have reached different conclusion, for him, he feel that health policy as-is is adequate and his overriding concern is “abuse” in the system. My view is, to put it simply, not to focus on avoiding abuse as “abuses” in the system cannot be eliminated by adding more bureaucratic layer. Instead by adding more bureaucracy you add cost which might be even more than cost inflicted by the abuse.

Put aside the question of whether Tan Kian Lian or mine is right or wrong. That is not to point of the argument here. The point as you can see is that two persons can see the same issue differently. Quite obviously there will be differences if you expand beyond the two to the Singaporean views in general.

Take another illustration, the WP approach to gaining power is to put it simply to play within the rules set by PAP. The SDP approach, which I happens to agree with for now, is to push the bounds of these rules and demonstrate to the electorate that these rules exists to perpetuate the PAP rule rather than for the good of the nation. Some people will agree with the WP approach and some will agree with the SDP. Should one view be deprived for the sake of unity? Who should be the arbiter of which views should be the “unifying” one? If these two approaches are not adequate, should there not be a third, forth or more until one is found?

At the end of the day is it not the job of the electorate, if they don’t want to part of the “opposition”, to choose from this differences either through voting or contributing monetarily?

If the want to go with the SDP, than support them. If they want to support the WP then go support them. If nothing suits them then do nothing and the status is maintained. Or if they really don’t want the status quo to remain and can’t get the opposition they want, step forth and form one that “response” to the need of the public.

As the current sentiment shows, it seemed the “public” themselves are unsure of what they want. In that case, is it any surprising that the opposition, which is drawn from the same “public” have difficulty trying to figure out what the “public” really wants.

all rhetorics. reality check. i think it has not occurred to people yet that MPs are basically powerless. so even if opposition gets into the game, they basically going to be like cst or ltk, enjoying the privileges of high offices and…generous pay probably nosier that’s all.

nothing much will change because the power resides in the CENTRAL EXECUTIVE.

so guys, dream on. you are not going to change anything by going through the ELECTORAL PROCESS in sg. you guys are basically perpetuating the same philosophy as the PAP howbeit by stirring the ground discontent.

once in power, a new lky will emerge and then another merry go round baying for blood!

People like Tan Kin Lian, Leong Sze Hian, E J, Chia Tik lik, Jaslyn Go, Seelan , Isrizal, and others bloggers,,,NGO members, must come out and fight PAP. Don’t give them walkover, walkover also they cried, like the sissy Lim, no contest he cried.

Waiting:

“I suspect that most people will NOT want an opposition that learns on the job, but that is my personal opinion.”

Politician need not be an expert in the various fields they are in charge of. Are you telling me that the current Minister of Health and Education are respectively fully versed in their portfolio? (As in they were once a nurse/doctor/teacher/principal?) That’s what the bureaucracy is there for.

People “refused” to vote the loyal opposition in because they are “inexperienced”. They can never gain experience unless they get to do something. But they seem to be fine with all the coat-tail riders (whom of course, have no experience). Go figure…

The word but kinda negates everything that’s place before it. Like: you know, I really like you, but your arguments suck. (See the impact there?)

Tan Ah Kow,

“Well if the “public” is not getting what they wanted they stop crying and playing the same record again and again. Why not do something about it!

Why wait for the “opposition” to do something?

I have no issue with that. In fact, I said this at the end of my article. Please read it again.

From the rest of your postings, I get the sense that you feel it is, well, nigh impossible for the opposition to work together. I feel sad about that but I do not agree with you.

I also feel that you are taking things to the irrational logical ends – almost like the PAP where often they give the extreme examples.

Put simply, not sure if I am accurate, but you seem to be saying that it is not possible for the opposition to work together.

From what i heard that night at Speakers’ Corner, at least two opposition leaders and two other well-known personalities would disagree with you.

Unless, of course, the opposition themselves come out and unequivocally and categorically state that they can never work together.

Although they have scnatly worked together, they, however, have never said that.

Neither should you.

tsk tsk tsk..if it’s so easy for the inexperienced to pick up the “trade” on their own, then there is no need for much bigger countries politicians to come and learn from our best.

the only condition for a fast track in your learning curve is…you must be admitted or accepted by their team of….mental mentors. ;)

send anyone of their chiefs( let’s be kind and not name names in the oppositions camp) to negotiate with the powers in china i can assure you, they will be shown the backyard door entrance…locked. lol.

get real guys. dr mud up north with decades of experience was not even accorded the same respect as probably one of our lesser ministers. :)

53) Andrew Loh on January 2nd, 2009 6.44 pm:

Put simply, not sure if I am accurate, but you seem to be saying that it is not possible for the opposition to work together.

No that is not what I said. If you read the beginning of my comments, I have already said that to castigate the opposition as being disunited is not completely true.

Where practicable and in my mind a substantive way, the oppositions have shown that they can unite in terms of giving the electorate the best options and quite possibly what the electorate wants:

(a) To allow the PAP to continue ruling by not contesting more than 50% (except for the last) of the seats. But that would still give the electorate the option of having enough opposition numbers to check on the PAP.

(b) The fact that there are different policy platforms across the different political parties, allows for people to choose and for people who different views to be represented. Of course, given the lack of proportional representation, it will be tactically unwise for the parties to do a three-cornered fight. Given the situation, it was wise to allow for the different opposition parties to contest in different seats to achieve the same effect as being in proportional representation. And for the electorate to distinguish between which policy platform to choose vis-a-vis PAP.

So to castigate these effort as being lack of unity and not substantial is really way off the mark. That is the point I am making.

On this point of “unity call” and “speaking for Singapore”, the problem when you hear, I am not in anyway criticising only you but the general tone of these calls. Often it seemed to be:

(a) A statement of the despair,

(b) Or some yearning of some idyllic goal.

(c) Or an excuse to blame the problems on others.

In the case of (a), I accept that some section, including me, would like to see an effective representation at least in Parliamentary terms. Although I would agree with comment (50) that power is no longer in the legislature any more. So I am really not too despairing about lack of electoral success. Of course, others might be.

In the case of (b) having some idyllic goal is fine. Unity as a catchphrase is fine. But what is unity in practical terms. Does it mean Sameness? To me that would be a ridiculous proposition as a starting point. After all not everyone in Singapore think a like neither does everyone in Singapore suffer in the same way. That is why to me when different political parties addresses issues in different ways and if necessary compete with each other is a good thing. That way if one policy platform is deemed not desirable there is another to take over.

Of course, the problem right now is the PAP dominates everything. To progress into a state where we can have different parties compete as equally as practicable, the immediate goal is to remove or reduce the PAP dominance. At least this should be the first step. So if the question about Unity is narrowly focus on this goal, than my opinion is that the opposition has done what it can very well. The problem is not in the opposition camp as such but the electorate themselves. Which brings us to point (c)

Quite often when I read about people, not specifically you, calling for the opposition to be this and that. I seemed to get the impression that people are expecting miracle from the oppositions. On the one hand, they refuse to contribute by partaking in the activities of the oppositions and on the other they sit there complaining that such and such to meet this and take criteria. And when opposition members meet a criterion, like getting graduates into their ranks, they add another hurdle like “lack of experience”.

On the point about Unity, you often hear the complains of opposition unable to represent the views of Singaporean or can’t chime with the mood of the Nation. And yet, not realising that the mood of the Nation means different things to different people. There is no such thing as same across all people. So in that sense, I am glad that we have different opposition platform to choose from. And as I have pointed out in point (b), the opposition have already done a substantial job of at least uniting on a strategy to curtail the PAP power.

So here I am going to sound like a broken record again. What do the electorate want in terms of goals and tactics? If their is no unity amongst the electorate as to what they want, than don’t blame the opposition.

The fact that one opposition don’t attend one’s function or another is neither here nor there nor a substantial representation of unity!

But do ‘they’ enough experience to handle Opposition / Alternative parties
given that there is basically no effective opposition to deal with for the last……u-kno-better how many decades in a row.

like the lemon tree, i wonder….

Tan Ah Kow,

Things have to start somewhere. To you, the onus is on the people. (Pls correct me if I am wrong). For me, however, the start should be with the opposition parties. This is for a simple reason – they are the ones who have, by virtue of joining a party, taken it upon themselves to provide an alternative. We can argue about whether the public should be involved or not (which, by the way, I have always urged them to be), but it must start with those who are already in the parties.

You asked about the substance of this “unity” thing. I have already given my view. And this is:

First, establish channels of communication – whether official ones or non-official ones. They can be made public or remain private. Several years ago, the WP tried this with the SPP. Yaw Shin Leong (WP) and Desmond Koh (SPP) were involved. But somehow it didn’t go very far. But they should try again.

Second, work on issues in private. Do this with the intention to understand each other’s views. Different parties have different stands on various issues. But they should not remain in their own corners. Once understanding is established, perhaps areas of compromise or commonalities will emerge which will foster further co-operation. If you don’t even talk to each other, how do you work together?

Third, give support when possible. This could be by just being present at another party’s event or, if indeed possible, make statements supporting each other. When was the last time one opposition party supported another party in such a way?

The point is, lets not bicker over whether the onus is on the public or the opposition. The main thing here is the opposition themselves. For far too long, they’ve each stayed in their own corner (except for the component parties of the SDA for a period of time). This has led to mistrust, distrust and suspicions.

How does that benefit Singaporeans?

http://72.14.235.132/search?q=cache:W8T8KJQMlO4J:www.taipeitimes.com/News/editorials/archives/2007/06/24/2003366660+taiwan+singapore&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=sg

its my personal opinion that
although singapore and taiwan political systems are so different,
both systems produced commendable Economic progress.

what say u ?

Andrew

Things have to start somewhere. To you, the onus is on the people. (Pls correct me if I am wrong).

Yes, it has to start at the “people” end now. The opposition as far as I am concern has already done their part as far as they could practically go. As I have already said and at the risk to sounding like a broken record, they have shown they can work together on things that matter — i.e. get into Parliament — through a grand electoral strategy. They (i.e. the opposition parties) have done it in responds to what, and I fully agree with, a perceive believe that the electorates want to have a PAP government but with opposition to check.

It is in my opinion the electorates — i.e. the people who can vote — have failed to give a coherent view of what they want. Not the other way round.

I don’t know what generations you are of, but being a pre-65 generations, I have seen even less unity amongst the oppositions as compared to now.

On this point:

You asked about the substance of this “unity” thing. I have already given my view. And this is:

Yes you have a said it. Now as a point of debate, what you seemed to be suggesting is for so kind of facade of Unity rather than Unity of substance. Before I proceed further, I am not suggesting that you are NOT entitled to those views nor are the views wrong but I am only debating (offering a counter argument).

Ok let’s argue your points:

This is for a simple reason – they are the ones who have, by virtue of joining a party, taken it upon themselves to provide an alternative. We can argue about whether the public should be involved or not (which, by the way, I have always urged them to be), but it must start with those who are already in the parties.

When someone join a political party or form one, they of course have to bring their believes. Their job is to sell their believes. If their believes are not taken up than they loose. So when you have different political parties, each one is selling an idea.

For example, Microsoft sells Zune and Apple sells iPod. This is where choice comes into play and for the consumer, it is your job to discriminate between the two. If Zune and iPod no good try Creative’s or Sony’s. If all else fail than start a company to build a good one.

Likewise, with political choice isn’t it the job of the electorate to choose from these alternatives?

So isn’t having multiple MP3 players (that also compete with each other) to choose from a good thing? After multiple MP3 players can cater to different taste.

Likewise with political parties with different platform is a good thing isn’t it?

So it seemed your argument here is the onus rest with the “people” rather than the political parties. So if they find SDP too much to stomach don’t vote for them. If they find the workers party too ineffective don’t vote for them.

On this point:

You asked about the substance of this “unity” thing. I have already given my view. And this is:

First, establish channels of communication

What makes you think there is no channel of communication? What is the purpose this channel of communication?

What if they do communicate but can’t come to an agreement?

As I have indicated that come election time, the parties seemed to be able to co-ordinate their actions, so does it not suggest channels of communications already exist.

Second, work on issues in private.

How would you like it say if all the MP3 players do a deal in private to keep prices artificially high?

Now for me in a role as a electorate, I would be extremely nervous if deals between political parties are done in back room. I would rather have such deals done openly. This is probably an idealistic requirement.

In any case, how do you know deals are not done privately? After if you are not privil to such deals how would you know. I am not so idealistic to expect that private deals are not done.

After all, how did the SDP and WP avoided contesting in the same turf in the last election?

Third, give support when possible.

By this I supposed you mean to say that opposition parties should not back-stab each other. That would be nice but one has to be circumspect.

Take the case of WP and SDP spat. One party is sold on the idea that they have to be seen to work within the PAP rules to be credible. The other sold on the idea that you need to break to PAP rules to expose hypocrisies. Now how can you not expect the two under such stands to not criticise the other. After each has to sell their idea to their core market.

As a support of SDP current approach, I utterly disagree with the WP strategy but I respect them for willing to stand up to their believe in their strategy.

But from seen the perspective of the electorate, at least they have a choice. It would be scary if the two parties starts to pretend to agree with each other when deep down they don’t. I mean how are you going to tell which to vote for?

Now coming back to the question of Unity, what I am saying is that you have said a lot about how to set up, as I see, it facade of Unity. But you have not answered the question WHAT is Unity for?

You have to unite for a purpose, if unity is to have any meaningful value.

Main problem with opposition is they cannot seem to attract the thinking crowd. You always need the thinkers behind you in whatever you do. Even PAP knows this. Bc behind the thinkers are the $ ppl. So the real question is not whether we should all consider supporting the opposition, what are you talking abt? but rather the opposition should go all out to woo the thinkers and not expect them to just step forward on their own accord. Thats unrealistic. It doesnt work that way. Never did and never will. Not even PAP expects it to work that way. As it is the opposition is so caught up with behaving like a primadonna outfit just like PAP. No wonder most of the thinkers r staying sidelined. With thinkers it is not easy. You cannot force them to conform. You rub them the wrong way. Or if they smell your logic is shaky. They will F u and that is that. You like or not, thats your problem. They will not break bread with you. But with thinkers, it is also easy peasy. You dont need to deal with 100 ppl, all you need to do is get a handful of key people in your pocket and the rest will follow, bc thinkers like to talk between themselves. They move like schools of fish. One leads all follows. Not like a rambling mob that goes here and there and bump into the walls. Even if you dont see them talking it doesnt mean they are not talking, it just means they are talking abt you in some place where they dont want you to know about. That is how sly thinkers r and how organized they are. They are always one step ahead of you, even when you lead it is bc they allow you do so. the opposition needs to learn this method of recruitment, otherwise habis la

#58

Well said Andrew

“The point is, lets not bicker over whether the onus is on the public or the opposition. The main thing here is the opposition themselves. For far too long, they’ve each stayed in their own corner (except for the component parties of the SDA for a period of time). This has led to mistrust, distrust and suspicions.”

If the parties play their part, and the people remain idle, well then the people deserve whatever the PAP dishes out.

Why do you think it is so difficult for Tan Kin Lian to get 100K votes online? Firstly is it really so difficult to get 100K votes? No. That is easy peasy part. Can be done in a matter of days. The reason why he doesnt get it goes back to what I said abt thinkers. Remember they are sly people. They are like schools of fishes. So someone must have told them all wait and see. So they all held back.

But how many people are we talking here? Who issue out that command? Maybe less than 3 or 4.

In the world of the thinker there is no democracy. The top few decide and the others just follow. They dont even ask why.

How does the PAP engage netizens who are anti them? Simple lah. Go and put those leaders of the thinkers in their back pocket. Dont ever get into their bad books. Engage them. Then you will see they will play ball.

Then they will give out the word to the rest, let them come in and dont disturb them or else. Otherwise all they will do is boycott them, then although the PAP are talking what is the point. They are not even talking to the movers and shakers. They will refuse to break bread with you and remember what I said, there is no democracy in a thinker society. The others will see this and they too will not engage them. End result, they talk, but get nowhere. What many people dont realize isThinkers organize themselves like the mafia. What makes you think they dont take orders like the rest of us all? What makes you believe they are any different from ants who may have foot soldier and worker and even five star general ants?

But one thing is certain, dont ever expect the thinkers to come in just bc you are trying to sell them a better Singapore. They already know that story alredi. Its not going to work.

Tan Ah Kow,

There will always be points of contention between parties. I am not so idealistic as to imagine that there aren’t.

In short, you seem to be saying that there shouldn’t be any working together outside the election period – as all your examples are of the parties working together during an election period.

I find this sad.

organizations are being privatised.
people are being paid CEO salaries.
i think it is time to adopt private sector creative marketing strategies
and offer people a choice and attract them and give them confidence in the unity.
Corporatisation.

Thanks for the article Andrew – well written and concise as always.

I am back in Singapore for about ten over days and have met several friends.

Sometimes, our conversation would venture into politics. Very often, they also lamented that our opposition politics have no substance and don’t deserve their votes even if they want an alternative.

For the opposition politics to flourish I see that the following must change:

1. Government – unless the govt allows opposition politics to take off ,frankly, it will be a very tough for the current parties to unite and be strong. Internal fighting is common among politicians even in oversea counttries and it takes a very matured sacrificial man to do the dirty job of uniting them. Hopefully TKL can help to do this dirty job.

The govt should also slow down it’s “sue and break them” system to allow opposition politics to flourish. It is only good for the country but of course bad for the ruling party. Who will want to give away it’s power to someone else freely?

Nevertheless, these two years, I see that the govt is slowly relaxing it’s tough stance on activism which is only good for Singapore. More needs to be done to rela thise stifling rules.

2. People- our people also need to stand out and be counted. They can’t just throw the country to the govt after each election and allows them free rein in governance. The people should be interested on how our country is governed. Mr Khaw’s advocation of getting more lay people to be involved in the town councils should be appluaded. Active citizenship should be the rule of the thumb now than pure ignorance and bochap attitude. Many here I realised prefer to earn their money than caring about our country affairs. They only wake up when they are out of job which is happening right now. Hopefully, this crisis will wake up alot of people in their slumber.

3. Political parties – most parties I observed even those abroad seldom unite for obvious reasons. Most have their job cut out for them and unless they appeal to the masses, they will fail miserably especially in politics-adverse Singapore. I feel that there should be a call for one more party to be set up. It should start afresh with a fresh mandate and totally different from those currently we have now. This party must be a totally radical one from the rest. It should start off with a shadow government setup meaning business all the way. It must be prepared to take on the govt with the mandate of even filling up the cabinet posts if call upon. Right now, our opposition parties are fragmented, unprofessional and too close to the ideology of the govt. Why can’t a new party be set up with a different mandate and calling? Such a party of course must be well staffed by professionals, politicians, researchers, businessmen and others. Singaporeans all lagmented the weak spine of the opposition and there is a need for a strong serious party to be set up with a clear vision of forming the next govt and not just winning one or two SMCs.

Our opposition politicians need to be more ambitious, sharp and cutting. If not, then best left the political scene to the PAP to rule and rein for centuries.

[...] Do We Have Strong Leaders – TOC: The opposition in 2009 – time to get united [...]

United in what? The quality of the opposition is pathetic.

#66 Gilbert

“1. Government – unless the govt allows opposition politics to take off ,frankly, it will be a very tough for the current parties to unite and be strong. Internal fighting is common among politicians even in oversea counttries and it takes a very matured sacrificial man to do the dirty job of uniting them. Hopefully TKL can help to do this dirty job. ”

but a political party is a political party. I do not think they do not need to help the opposition / alternative.

1 thing for sure, the people are the ones who made sure they never lost for so long. And if the people continue to do what they do, i do not see how opposition can ever take off.

correction : . I do not think they need to help the opposition / alternative. No brainer right?

You people have plenty of time to write all these copious, long-winded comments. Why don’t you guys do something? Join the opposition.

But then you are all afraid, right? Still will vote for the PAP and hope that others will be brave enough to do so and suffer.

All you cowardly word-monger! Don’t just talk cock sing song, do something!

Well, i certainly believe there has to be change. The opposition parties have to change themselves, to make themselves more viable.

As some people have pointed out in the comments, the Opposition is more or less fragmented. Since it’s fragmented it either has to get together, or one party has to be stronger than the rest of their compatriots. A two-party system cannot exist without a strong second party, and it’s so unlikely that all the current opposition parties could reach the membership and candidate strengths of parties such as those in Scandinavia.

Secondly, i’d like to point out that the SDP, although it has good intentions for Singapore, is essentially a one issue party and a very reactive one as well. WP did come out with a Manifesto but honestly, it was weak, and they didn’t talk much about it because of the Gomez incident. And sure, many of you respect Chiam but honestly his party (or coalition of parties, if you prefer) is also a one issue party. The route forward would be having more developed policies, and no you don’t need to be complete geniuses to figure that out.

As a simple example, even the Liberal Democrats in the UK, though having little chance of toppling the current 2 party system in Britain, has a manifesto of things to do, from economy to Iraq, Healthcare, Reforming the Electoral process and so on. It’s the first step to developing the party, to tell people who you are and what are your stances of major issues: this is what political parties do everywhere, if they ever want to grow in stature as an opposition or win power. Once people can begin to identify with your party’s platform they will start supporting you, or even better, join up.

Thirdly, i agree that the people need to be interested in political affairs, and you can see their interest peak only during elections. In order for that interest to be more durable, we’ll have to develop our society first. Too much self-centeredness, little interest in events around us. I’m not even talking about their interest in Politics: A lot of people honestly do not care about the world around them, only about themselves, and wouldn’t be involved in charities, supporting local artists, writers and so on. It’s the simple things we’ve got to get to first, before we can expect a quality level of political involvement by people here. You’ve got to, as Barack Obama would say, get hitched on a cause that’s greater than yourself. Then and only then would people start joining up, being involved with the electoral process.

Sporeans talk and grumble practically every day and every minute about the government. But when it is time for them to vote,majority of these people will still play safe and vote for the PAP comes what may.

Each and every one of us have different characters, different upbringing, different opinions and different ways of doing things, in fact 48 sets of these differences that were passed down from our ancestors. This does not mean that we are not united, as all of us do our part to make Singapore prosperous and a better place to live in. To unite together, the key is how we are able to combine all the goodness of all opposites to become a powerful force. If the opposition parties can come together, acknowledge each other good points and foster them towards the happiness of Singaporean, then Singaporean will see them as strong, reliable, sincere united block that they can count on to see them through the future. In my opinion, they should set up an Opposition Parties Board that comprises a panel of 10 to 15 members represented by all opposition parties’ Secretary Generals, Assistant Secretary Generals and Chairmans. This Opposition Parties Board has one common goal that is ” To work towards the happiness of all Singaporean”. They meet once a month to discuss matters of public interest and to issue common response towards any current government policys or fare hike that may hurt Singaporean. They may elect an opposition board speaker to issue their response to the press. If this board is actively engaging the government on various issues that hurt the public, it will bolster their credibility in the eyes of the public.

folks.folks,folks. when you come under a party, you inevitably come under someone’s “conviction”( agree or disagree, it will be a thorny issue sooner or later) eventually. different party, different chiefs with their pet agendas . stop and think. all our people’s working lives have been bossed by people above them.i think, you have to factor this question into your strategy and ask….why do they want to come under someone with political ambition? if so, what do they get in exchange for this support( awarding a high flying civil service job loaded with “generous reward” to again…”elites”),what will they gain in return ? empty promises and more ideas with unequal outcome which may work against their interests sooner or later?

in a nutshell, you have a leadership issue here(clue). even in the internet, you can see a “class” division amongst the dissidents. with what? some who pride themselves the “brotheloo”(very cheong hei) of the new world order or the next hotshot lawyer who is going to take on the old man who was once a lawyer but with a much bigger GAP or the calculative PHD holder who did a Houdini act on the authority etc etc

seriously, if you want to be under people with GAPS, you might as well stick with the current bunch of millionaire talkers and pen movers? at least, you know, according to the old man, with millions in their pocket already, they will (hopefully)stay “non corrupted” than risk your trust in people( on their way to being a millionaire or much richer) who are scared of being sued…in parliament?

if i were the ruling elites, i welcome you into my turf and contest. pap will demolish you before you can even utter the word…SUE.

but if i were you, i get out of the “party mentality” and path a …radical movement.

Andrew,

In short, you seem to be saying that there shouldn’t be any working together outside the election period – as all your examples are of the parties working together during an election period.

First of all, did I say or imply that they should not work together. In fact, my argument has shown the contrary. They can work together when the time requires them to do so. And when it comes to the big picture of trying to curtain the PAP’s power then have shown they can and have done so in quite a grand way.

The problem with your use of the phrase is “working together”. What does it means?

What is the ULTIMATE GOAL of this working together off the election period means?

If you mean to work together to get the electorate appreciate the need for check on the PAP. Well given the resources they’ve got they have done as much as they could. The SDP in particular. Should the WP do more on their part, possibly yes?

Does the WP need to “work together” — whatever that means — with the SDP to communicate with the electorate to sell WP policies? Well is it not the job of the WP to do so themselves? If they can’t do it themselves then it is their problem own problem not other people. After all it is their job to sell their own policy.

Do you expect Apple to promote Microsoft Zune because Microsoft is unable to do so?

If by by “working together” you mean selling the common message to the electorate the importance of having oppositions (or as some would like to call it alternative) parties to check on the PAP. They have already and are already doing that albeit tacitly. Each party may have different approach on achieving the end goal but together the common thread is the same. Each may not agree with the approach of the others.

Coming back to the MP3 player example. Apple don’t promotes Microsoft’s Zune and vice-versa. They also compete with each other on features. But ultimately by aggressively creating a product (different) for capable of playing MP3 they altogether, tacitly, have created a common market for digital music!

For example, the SDP by constantly portraying the rule of laws are bend to suit the incumbent by breaking the rules. The way WP Sylvia in parliament raise issue of the change in law to allow the military to function as a internal security apparatus as a potential danger. They may be approaching from different angle and they may not have “formally” speak to each other but the core of the message is the same — Dangerous to give too much power to one centre.

The question is are the electorate listening to the core message?

Maybe no.

Now you are going to say, why don’t the opposition parties not bicker (your definition of “working together”?) amongst themselves to make the message clearer for the electorate.

But then there is a saying: you can lead a donkey to the water but you can’t force the donkey to drink. The opposition parties, in my mind, have done what they can without compromising individual principles and with their resources to give the electorate a chance for change. But it is the electorate themselves that seemed to have rejected the opportunity.

If the electorate themselves don’t see the danger, your so call “working together” ain’t going to mean anything. You can’t force the electorate hear what they don’t want to hear. And if the electorate don’t want to wake up to smell the coffee it ain’t going to work.

Sure the opposition parties can stop bickering (maybe WP can stop portraying the SDP as radical or irresponsible) but if the electorate, which is often portray as being better educated, can’t tell for themselves what is being offered to them then whose fault is it?

Take for example, Hong Kong, when the security bill was pass, a sizeable people of Hong Kong rose up against it. Yes the opposition democratic party may have raise the issue but it was the momentum of the support from the people that brought the issue to bear.

Mind you, even amongst the democratic party they are bickering over what would be the best approach to challenge bill (parliamentary or off parliamentary way) but still why is it that a sizeable people were willing to come out in support of the anti-bill. Why is it enough people of Hong Kong can wake up and smell the coffee and Singaporean can’t?

It seemed that the Singaporean electorate not only want the coffee to be brought to them, explain what a coffee is and explain how to drink it. After all that still expects others poured down the throat so they will drink!

TAK: This is what i’m saying. Let the parties decide themselves their own agenda.. Strongest wins. Impossible in Singapore to have 3 or 4 strong and viable individual opposition parties, especially WHEN some of the issues are actually adequately covered by one or two opposition parties (if that happened we’ll be better than all the other democracies in the world). The electorate also needs to understand and appreciate the concept of “Democracy”. But before that, every man/woman needs to stop thinking about themselves all the time, it’ll render the hard work done by the Opposition here as useless. So to foster that is another issue in itself.

Observer: What do you mean by a “radical movement”? As in the further advocation of nonviolent protests or a call for a revolution?

77) Dex on January 3rd, 2009 9.11 pm

As a general point, from someone with a liberal perspective, your point:

Let the parties decide themselves their own agenda.. Strongest wins.

I fully agree with this sentiment and would subscribe to that. But for that to work, the other part of the “market” forces to work is the consumer — i.e. the electorate — must also play their part.

But currently, we now have a situation where we have the consumer (i.e. electorate) that is not playing the part. They seemed to want the seller (i.e. the opposition) to perform a miracle before they would sit up from their sleep.

For example, I have seen the opposition camps move from not bothering about other parties engaging in three way fights to realising maybe the electorate want to have the PAP in power and they becoming a check. After much effort, graduates are now entering the ranks because the electorate wants more “credible” ones. Putting a side my biasness towards the SDP for now, Steve Chia to me is more than equal many in the PAP side. But still the electorate wants more but don’t/unwilling to help out. And now the excuse is the oppositions despite all the hurdlers getting graduates in the ranks, is the opposition are not experience enough. You see the electorate seemed to be changing the goal posts all the time and expects all those selfless people in the opposition camp to do miracle thing!

Just like the people of Hong Kong, when it comes to a common threat they came out. They didn’t want for “unity” on the opposition side to act.

To use the MP3 analogy. Before digital music player, the walkman tape machines were king. Creative came up with one digital music player. The consumer don’t fully warm to it and Apple came along with iPOD.

But in the Singapore context, the analogy from here would be like iPOD still no good so we are not going to buy it. Or I won’t buy digital music until Creative, Apple, Microsoft, Sony, etc provide a united front or work together. In the meantime I’ll be stuck with Walkman tape, which I don’t like but I can’t be bother to change to MP3.

The point is I am trying to make is that yes the opposition should if at all possible collaborate, which in my mind they already in a substantial way. But like I say before, members of the oppositions are not Gods, they can only do so much. All they can do is to sell what they believe in. Being human beings one can’t expect all of them to think a like nor should they. Because the diversity ensure there is a choice and choice for the electorate.

The next step really is in the hands of the electorate now. If they don’t play ball, then really they have to take the consequence of their own action.

That has been the general thrust of my arguments.

i am not sure if
all the alternative parties
understand the benefit and need for them to unite and compete with the ruling party as 1 alternative party?

or are they overly ambitious or confident that
they can not be united but still win?

i mean, what is going on ? what is their stand and thoughts?

can i say the ruling party have enough experience working with a strong alternative party?

can i say that the alternative party have not enough experience running a country?

tw, hk and sg all have very different political systems. yet they were once called the asian tigers. why is it that different political systems produced similarly remarkable economic results? is it in the 80’s – 90’s USA and Europe poured money investing in Asia?

if it takes 50 years to uncover,
is it not time to start doing it now than delay further?

does TC investment fiasco and transport hike debates point to the need for more transparency? if people initially got clarified about how how transport hike come about , would it have been better? who really understands what does ‘not directly linked’ to oil price mean? who ? who confidently can say for sure they know it means? just guessing? why people got the impression fare hiked due to oil? mis-communication? but public-related policies should have been communicated clearly in the first place?

i think for future issues like fare hike formula, we the people should clarify each and every component so that we need not keep asking why this and that.

yes, i got many thingies to say.

Wah lau Maurice, can spot you anywhere, even here though you’re using various nicknames. Your fragmented writing style still makes people too confused to continue reading.

what pundek said in post 61 and 63 makes perfect sense. If you really think about it. It makes far more sense to go to a political party and say, I represent this number of people and if you want us to support you, then we want you to do this and that. But if you just give support as one person, what can you get. Coming to think of it, is Tan Kin Lian trying to get 100,000 votes for precisely the same reason which I have mentioned?

IIt all boils down to bargaining power at the end of the day.

But I agree, a site can benefit from a coterie of thinkers and intellectuals. One reason why the neither YPAP or P65 does not seem to get any where is they have not managed to attract this group of people. They once made the mistake of barring, censoring and deleting their post, the result, they themselves kena boycotted. It was managed in a short sighted manner and they are paying for it even till today.

As Pundek rightly said, it doesnt pay to get into the bad books of thinkers.

The PAP was pro-people in its early years of running the government, but somewhere along the line its attitudes and policies have changed. There is no doubt that a portion of the electorate has become dissatisfied with some of its policies, hence the voting in of opposition parties.

Whether the PAP has done both good and bad, or more good than bad or vice versa, in going forward a country should have an opposition party which can keep a check on the actions of the ruling party. That Singapore has not had a credible opposition party in the last few decades speaks ill of the political scenario in Singapore.

Someone by the name of Rayner Teo, in his article captioned “Logic favours two-party system”, published in The ST Forum on 22 Nov 2008, succinctly argued that the potential monolithic mindset of a single-party system is more dangerous than the chaotic free-wheeling debate engendered by a multi-party democracy. On the same page was another article, by a Vincent Tan, arguing also in favour of having a multi-party democracy for Singapore.

As a citizen who has seen the PAP in power over the last five decades, I think a change in our government is long overdue. And that means having a strong opposition party to counter the PAP in any policy that is deemed as detrimental, or not contributing, to the welfare of Singaporeans generally.

PAP is in deep trouble as they cant get the brains to sing a long with them. If you look closely the brains these days dont want to work with them. That is not a good sign, it means they are waiting. But what are they waiting for?

One thing is certain, they dont have much faith in TKL as the agent of change. He should have engaged this crowd rigorously. As it is, he defaulted and in so doing, they cannot regard him as a heavy weight

My hope is some of the brains will give PAP a chance and try to get to know us.

They should start with YPAP. Just come in for a chat. They would not be censored or deleted there ever again. What happened in the past is the past. This is a time for change within.

That is my hope for 2009

It is a good call by Andrew to ask for the unity of the opposition parties.

Resources are scarce and good men are even more scarce. Why? Because good resources and people can see that PAP is doing the right thing and therefore all flow there. That’s why the law of attraction works – the good attract more good, success begets more success.

Opposition parties in modern Singapore seemed like is a waste of time – as can be seen from their 40 years of “achievements”. I say why not set up a KPI system to measure the performance for the opposition parties and those that cannot match up just automatically close shop and its members moved on to join the surviving group(s)? Maybe at the end of 10 years, you can have a stronger and united opposition through this distilling process.

The good thing is that if all opposition parties cannot match their own KPI system, then they also know they are not cut out for such work in Singapore and they can quickly retire from the political stage and not waste their time walking down a dead-end.

Based on current state of affairs in the Opposition, PAP will triumph in Potong Pasir and Hougang and have completely control in Parliament in 2011.

I am disappointed that although I obey all the rules in the forum, 2 of my comments (in another article) were deleted :(

All I said was:
a) asking whether they can make the email field optional before comments can be accepted
b) agreeing with another commenter (whose comment was also deleted) that we can actually use a fake email address

c) mentioning that they also use “sitemeter” and “google analytics” which are web technologies for tracking readers (see the HTML code yourself)
d) saying that this can also be circumvented by using web proxies or anonymiser

e) concluding that I’m still nevertheless happy that they provided a platform for discussion

f) but all these may unintentionally make TOC look like they are trying hard to get information from readers in a futile way even though they are claiming to preserve anonymity

I was just trying to do make things more convenient and help TOC eliminate any possible misunderstanding. And I didn’t use any vulgarity. What wrong did I do???

c / j / c

82) Miss Lee on January 4th, 2009 12.37 pm PAP is in deep trouble as they cant get the brains to sing a long with them. If you look closely the brains these days dont want to work with them. That is not a good sign, it means they are waiting. But what are they waiting for?

Yes, they are sure indeed in deep shit cos no one of high intelligent would want to be manipulated by these elites no more. The problem is not the people, its the system which make them sick, sick of being told to do things against their conscience, sick of being used as money making instruments for the old man, sick of seeing so many innocent people being penalized just because they have a different point of view against their selfish policy making, its just damn sick of the system. If the system stays, what they can get are only those who are nothing but just bootlickers who are and will only cause more trouble to the country and downfall of the party. Old man says pay them high $$$ so no corruption, he has already made a very bad move to cause what the party is becoming today. Money is important, yes but too much money is serious problem when they are not properly utilised for the right spending. Bottomline, they messed up their own system just because of $$$.

[i]Partisan on January 4th, 2009 12.55 pm
Based on current state of affairs in the Opposition, PAP will triumph in Potong Pasir and Hougang and have completely control in Parliament in 2011.[/i]

yeap according to the charkwayteow eater senile minister
who happenned to be the EX_PRIME MINISTER
who was also delegate to assist he pap candidate to win potong pasir in the last elections
with his goodies of albalone $2 porridge
and free street lightning
it was a sured sured WIN
that even the senile minister dared not placed his head on the choppin block not liked the last ime in tanglianhong grc…
even leekuanyew
boosted
he too wasn’t delegate by his son to challenge the opposition
if leekuanyew is so grand and confident
why don’t he waltz to houghgang and challenged a teochew businessman?
why hide behind a giant GRC?
so in 2011
what is your betting stake?
your head
or your a s s?
since you said
sure WIN what
dbs also tell us
lehman brother minibonds sured maked money…

Lim-peh bet with you lah! I bet next time election PAP also win because opposition will hamthum each other first before they fight PAP. Its like that one. And PAP will sit one corner and laugh until eyes got tears. Last time stupid WP guy want to try be funny at garmen office and got caught by camera. See bey lao kui ah! Somemore suppose to be damn smart farker work with ang mo lang. Hah! The farker working Europe don’t know everywhere Europe got CCTV to catch crooks?! Opposition ownself kaki bo standard, choose this kind of half past six character for election. How to win? Lim-peh bet with you all, ai mai? I take PAP and give you 5 balls advantage. How? I also side bet Potong Pasir, Ah Chaim buay sai dong liao. Ai bet mai?

I know what the brains are waiting for. I know only too well. But trust me, you dont want to know. You dont. If these people are so smart as you say, then it can be for only one reason. People dont hold back for nothing. They dont keep their powder dry for no reason.

During the last general elections in Malaysia. BN thought they had all the bases covered before the GE. Their cronies owned and controlled the entire online network. They figured, if things got out of control. All they had to do was slow down the traffic by limiting the bandwidth to snail crawl. When D-Day came, they actually pulled the plug, but guess what? The whole system was still up.

Phantom servers from HK to Munich right up to Copenhagen kicked in and re-routed the information traffic. They kept the network and the traffic moving by piggy bagging on banking and air traffic control networks. They even used the Kerajaan optical highway lines in putrajaya. The Malaysians definitely had help. They couldnt have done it alone. BN didnt know what hit them, they got pearl harbored so badly. It was planned with such precision that it could not have been a coincidence. They had no idea what hit them. It happened only for a period of two weeks. Later on when they investigated all the link files had been mysteriously erased. It was as if all those servers that once diverted the traffic had never even existed. They was no trace. Nothing. It never ever happened.

The Malaysians had help. They definitely had help.

Of course I am just kidding, its a great opening plot for a comic. I am kidding that is. I am. Really I am. Just kidding

Ya i am sad that we have only one-party politics here.

This will hurt Singapore in the long run.

We all can see that the country is in standstill since 2006 GE when the PAP won the election handsomely. Only two opposition MPs were re elected.

There are too many policies right now that reflected the one-party dominance of our government here much to our dismay.

Worse of all, as the power is centred one a few good men, it can be seen that they can push through any polices anyhow as there is hardly any opposition both in Parliament and in the people.

Lacking a strong check in govt plus an inept citizenship, we are all doomed. The enxt few years will be tough as the govt will ramp alot of stuff down our throat in the namne of bitter medicine. The doctor is only one person and he calls all the shots.

I hope that people like TKL, Kenneth, Anthony Yeo and Leong will come forward and be counted. Talents need to sacrifice themsevles for the good of the country.

I remember in the 1950s, people like LKY, Rajatretnam, Ong Teng Cheong, Goh Keng Swee and others all sacrificed important careers to run the country. LKY could have being a top notch lawyer but he sacrificed and became the PM of a small fishing port. Goh KEng Swee could have being a solid banker but he chose to be LKY right hand man and the rest is history.

Hopefully, in this time of need, capable people will not be ignorant and answer the call of the heart to serve in the interests of the country. Names will be smeared, family in conflict and jobs can be lost as our talents come forward and stand for election. It is when people sacrifice all for the love of the country that we can see a better tomorrow.

I don’t think that people should even start thinking about opposition.

The main thing now is to work hard and keep your money safe. There’s no one to depend on than yourself. Just look at the current situation, will a new party actually change things around? Not unless they have godly powers.

#88) Lim-peh, you wrote:
‘ Lim-peh bet with you lah! I bet next time election PAP also win because opposition will hamthum each other first before they fight PAP. ……. Last time stupid WP guy want to try be funny at garmen office and got caught by camera. ‘

100% PAP will definitely win the next GE but the more important target for the opposition parties is to win more than the present two seats. With better quality opposition candidates hopely the people will be brave enough to vote for them. Bear in mind the electoral system here is changed and changed to the advantage of the PAP.

#92) Parka on January 4th, you wrote:
I don’t think that people should even start thinking about opposition

Quote from Mark Ywain:
‘To lodge all power in one party and keep it there is to insure bad governmant.’

Yes, for now Singapore is safe with the PAP in power. But we must think and prepare for our children’s future. If LKY was not in opposition and took over the government in 1959, I don’t think we could have developed so rapidly. Imagine what would Singapore be if the then Chief Minister Lim Y H had arrested LKY and the other PAP leaders and remained in power?

It is the duty and responsibilty of the present government to ensure a smooth transfer of power should it fails to deliver its promises and loses the election. How can a good and loyal opposition emerge when so many obstacles are stacked against them? When and if the PAP collapses so will Singapore. Then it will be too late.

Edward, ah hia, people like me ai vote pun buay sai. PAP got money to give bursary to students, got CC people to do their dirty work and got the lobang everywhere, opposition mana wu chance? Now got economy problems, opposition got suggest anything anot? Got give out scholarship anot? Bo leh. Only when election then I see opposition people appear and give out flyer outside MRT. Normal days where got see them? So you think next election got chance to have more? Buay sai lah. Ordinary people ang mo no good, don’t want people talk big and talk cock. Got time, talk something got make sense one, no need what big vision, manifestos and other bo liao things.

#92 God is exerting his powers now, thats why the current recession, even a 4 decades almighty, 110% experienced, one and only arrogant proven party who warns that Singapore will be destroy in 5 years if ruled by the opposition, cannot even stop. What they arrogantly belittled the oppositons, is happening to them now. They are leading Singapore to “ruins” for introducing the Casinos, not building deep-rooted domestic economy that can withstand current recession instead depending on make-quick bucks export economy and using easy way out of import foreign works to reduce business cost for companies to prop up the competitiveness of local company resulting in excess unwanted foreign workers roaming the streets during this severe recession.
Very soon, many of their grassroots leaders may loose their jobs and may turn against them leading to their eventual collapse in almighty power. Gods like harmony of diversity, this is the ripe time that the various different opposition parties will be elected by the people to parliament. So there is no need to call for unity of oppositions partys, unity is naturally imminent once they are in parliament.

#87) moshedyan on January 4th, 2009 3.46 pm

#[i]Partisan on January 4th, 2009 12.55 pm
Based on current state of affairs in the Opposition, PAP will triumph in Potong Pasir and Hougang and have completely control in Parliament in 2011.[/i]

My view: the PAP did not and still does not want to win back Potong Pasir and Hougang because that will make it truely a 100% one-party state. This will make Singapore an even bigger laughing stock of the world. A First World economy but worse than Third World democracy. Potong Pasir and Hougang are showpieces for other countries to see.

If Low T K or Chaim S T has given as much troubles as those ‘bankrupted’ politicians they would have been FIXED a long time ago and kicked out of partliament.

Singapore needs a better class of opposition and ruling party….

[i]jason on January 5th, 2009 12.30 am Singapore needs a better class of opposition and ruling party….[/i]

would you cared to norminate a better class?
since you think it a song and dance contest?
the techgheephuat young opposition team
not good enough?
not braved enough?
some even mocked the indian candidates as porkchop nervous chewcheng kaki?
what do you expect
have you ever start your 1st driving test?
or your 1st deflowered session?
ain’t you chewcheng YOUSELF?
for a young opposition team to garner 33% of the oppositioins team
is good
damned good
in other europeans countries
you would be lucky if you garner a 105 votes for 1sttimers
than again
what would you know regarding the
MINIMUM qualification
to be eligible for elections in singapore?
would you?
cared to point out?

opps
misquote
you would be lucky if you garner a 105 votes for 1sttimers
you would be lucky if you garner a 10% votes for 1sttimers

#91
How about you yourself, Gilbert ?

89) anonymous on January 4th, 2009 5.35 pm

……
Phantom servers from HK to Munich right up to Copenhagen kicked in and re-routed the information traffic. They kept the network and the traffic moving by piggy bagging on banking and air traffic control networks. They even used the Kerajaan optical highway lines in putrajaya. The Malaysians definitely had help. They couldnt have done it alone. BN didnt know what hit them, they got pearl harbored so badly.
……

so, you mean other countries by now would have understood how the battle was won in MY and would have come up with other attack strategies already lor?

i think the trick is the ISP.

lucky some ISP never shutdown wan. install patches and then reboot. better network control and monitor.

i mean if ISP maintained well, less downtime lah.

noone never know anything for sure
so many hackersz aroundz
no way to stop all traffic even all blocked up
better be safe than sorry

~~~~~ stay safe
tip #1: use fake email address abc@xyz.com
tip #2: use anonymous web proxy (google for list)

“Now got economy problems, opposition got suggest anything anot? Got give out scholarship anot? Bo leh.”

Economy problems ? Ask those who are getting magical high pay to suggest / solve it lah. More pay should have more magic lah. When opposition gets majority, they will become the ones to issue scholarships lah. Anyway, it’s taxpayers money lah.

Even if opposition gives good suggestions, will it get highlighted in the MSM ? I do not know leh.

“Only when election then I see opposition people appear and give out flyer outside MRT. Normal days where got see them? ”

Normal days, must get permit or not. Can they market themselves by putting their own banners in estates.

“Ordinary people ang mo no good, don’t want people talk big and talk cock. Got time, talk something got make sense one, no need what big vision, manifestos and other bo liao things.”

You better stay ordinary lah. That is what some people would love to have. See bursary or scholarship distributed out and you will sing song for the whole day.

Dear sad sad reader (#85),

The article is about the opposition parties in 2009. I do not know how the discussion has become about TOC’s requirement for commenters to fill in their email addresses. Thus, your comments were disallowed – along with others – as they do not have anything to do with the article.

But to answer the question of anonymity and the email address issue:

Anonymity is preserved as we do not know who is behind the nicks – unless the owner of the handle tells us himself or herself.

As for the email address requirements, there are times when we need to contact the commenter about things he or she said. We have done this several times over the last two years as we needed to verify certain things with the commenters.

TOC has thus far been more liberal in allowing comments. We do not require registration before commenting and we allow all comments (save those with vulgarities and other content) to be posted before we moderate them.

Rest assured that TOC does not collect or collate the information given through your emails or other sources. We simply do not have time – nor interest – to do that.

Lastly, let me say that we require comments to be related to the issues raised in the article simply for the benefit of everyone. We do not want the discussion to deviate and tangent off to totally unrelated issues. The discussion will then become cumbersome and tedious for those who want to discuss issues raised in the article.

I ask for everyone’s understanding.

Regards,
Andrew Loh

You mean normal Sundays opposition cannot come down to my hawker centre and shake my hand and say hello? Garmen law never say opposition cannot shake hand. Garmen law never say on Sunday opposition cannot go to my area to walkabout what. Use your brain. What talking you? MSM is what sai? Ordinary people education not as high as you clever smart [---deleted by moderator---] who talk so cheemology ang mo. Wa buay hiao tiah. Lim-peh have simple ambitions, like children got education, got money pay bills, got people to listen to my problems. People like you smart [---deleted by moderator---] look down on people like us because we no speak ang mo well. Why? Got study university damn big is it? You know why PAP always win? Because my children got bursary and I no need worry for their school. I no care where money come from. If opposition is serious, then they should start taking action and no need [---deleted by moderator---] to talk talk talk. Understand anot?

Lim peh, pls refrain from using vulgarities, even if they’re spelt differently. Tks.

[i] Because my children got bursary and I no need worry for their school. I no care where money come from[/i]
well said indeed
why should you care?
as long as YOU get it for FREE
right?
so when the mental1
demand your virgin daughter as his warm bed maid
you also give lark…
this 1
you want to poll the audiences?
LINKONG would also sell you
if he known you has protitute YOUSELF
for GREED
in times of wars
YOU would had betrayed your neighbours
over for a cup of riceseeds….

The opposition in 2009 – time to get united.
Thanks to Andrew Loh for his opinion about this topic.

The Alternative Party( SDA, WP, SDP, NSP, RP) must united.
They should focus to avoid three corner fight.
All the constituency will be fill with candidates.
No walk over.

Voters than can vote with their eyes open.
No Mini Bond saga.
No increase in GST from 3% to 5% to 6% to 7% now 8.5%.
No increase in transport MRT, BUSES, SCHOOL BUS, STUDENT FARE.
No increase in ERP.
No increase in INCOME TAX.
Transperancy from Town Council.

Hi Mr Voter
I agree with your list of the people’s unhappiness with the pappies. However, you have unfortunately left out the most unhappy issue of the atrocious Ministerial salaries, plus their (unknown) outlandish bonuses, plus their multi-term pensions even while they are still gainfully employed.
All these moneys paid to the politicians are a very severe drain on the ordinary people, which is something no ministers of another country would dare to implement. One USA minister has jokingly said that he is now applying to be a minister here in order to earn eight times his present salary in America.
Politics should be about passion to help the ordinary people, and not for the purpose of earning atronomical income. If a minister is really interested in making a lot of money he should be a businessman. I have voted PAP previously but for this unbearable and totally unjustified reason alone I have decided not to vote them anymore.

I would consider it a form of CHANGE
IF in the next election,
there is ZERO walkover or just a few walkovers.

Competition is good for all citizens.

Got competition then got emerge good candidates.

chinese saying : ai biah zaht eh ngia

to be honest, I have always found it incomprehensible why for the last several decades the Opposition or alternative parties never formed an alliance to give the giant a run for the money? kind of incomprehensible. I wonder the why.
Its unwise not to work together.
Its almost surely defeat if go alone.
thus, given its so obvious,
I wonder what is the real motives to go alone.

“You mean normal Sundays opposition cannot come down to my hawker centre and shake my hand and say hello? Garmen law never say opposition cannot shake hand. Garmen law never say on Sunday opposition cannot go to my area to walkabout what. Use your brain. What talking you?”

What garmen law lah. You still have not answered me this question. Need permit or not. You know 4-men assembly. Use your brain. What talking you.

Even cycling in big group may get you into trouble if trouble wants to find you.

“Ordinary people education not as high as you clever smart [---deleted by moderator---] who talk so cheemology ang mo. Wa buay hiao tiah. Lim-peh have simple ambitions, like children got education, got money pay bills, got people to listen to my problems.”

Glad that you are admitting that ‘Wa buay hiao tiah’ cheemology as you are behaving like a fool. Good that you keep on having simple ambitions so that your masters can keep their own ambitions high. They need people like you to provide the right balance.

“People like you smart [---deleted by moderator---] look down on people like us because we no speak ang mo well. Why?”

Who is looking down on people like you lah. You need to have your head examined for having all the unnecessary hallucinations.

“Because my children got bursary and I no need worry for their school. I no care where money come from. If opposition is serious, then they should start taking action and no need [---deleted by moderator---] to talk talk talk. Understand anot?”

I am glad your children have earned their bursary. I am afraid to say that you, ahem, have yet to earn your own take.

If oppositions do not talk talk talk (communicate) in order to be heard (gain visibility), you think you have super bionic ears to hear and know it meh. Understand anot? Can oppositions put their own banners ?

For TOC attention. This is my input. As I read through the forum I think some of the veil counter-attacks are unwarranted. It seems to be penned by its own writers and supporters hidden behind “no names” or some longish copied down “names”. No wonder TOC is still classified as immature and unprofessional blog. May be only a step better than Ah Beng & Ah Kow blog. Come on. Be more open. Let it be a forum for all S’poreans to express opinions, frustrations, unhappinese to the present environment, suggestions for improvments and whatever political inclinations. Do not just hide underneath the skirts and write to leverage attacks on other people opinions using “funny names”. Be Brave. Use your true name, the name your father and your grandfather gave it to you or otherwise you may not have a name as though you are a “bastard”. Otherwise get lost and away from this forum if you have no tolerance for other people pt. of views. All views should be welcome as long as they are reasonably and sincerely expressed.

Hey folks! Happy New Year to everybody!

Just got back from vacation and wowee, I must have missed a lot of the action. Gee folks, you don’t even take a break, do you all?

Back to the subject on the state of the opposition right here in good old Singapore. You know, we got no figurehead like what they have in other countries, the kind of person that fires the imagination of the people, savvy enough to know the system inside out and go mano-e-mano with the big guy. The nearest best example is Anwar Ibrahim. Man got his flaws alright, but he sure made life hell for UMNO and threw Abdullah Badawi under the bus. As the Bonnie Tyler song goes, I’m holding out for a hero.

when i go overseas, i still try access TOC via internet easily available.

113) Oscar Choy on January 6th, 2009 8.08 am

Welcome back, nice to see that you are back from the sewer system again spewing another new round of rubbish.

“No wonder TOC is still classified as immature and unprofessional blog. May be only a step better than Ah Beng & Ah Kow blog.”

Like it has been mentioned quite a number of times before, why are mature people like you still here in “this immature and unprofeesional blog.”

Surely, good, cultured and classy people like you would not want to be contaminated by immature and unprofessional comments here.

“Come on. Be more open. Let it be a forum for all S’poreans to express opinions, frustrations, unhappinese to the present environment, suggestions for improvments and whatever political inclinations. Do not just hide underneath the skirts and write to leverage attacks on other people opinions using “funny names”. Be Brave. Use your true name, the name your father and your grandfather gave it to you or otherwise you may not have a name as though you are a “bastard”.”

Now you are beginning to show temper and frustrations. Have you ever thought of the temper and frustrations that other people may have gone through also because of certain rules. Here, TOC rules apply lah. You have “conquered” enough public space already, be kind and generous enough to leave this little TOC space alone. Please please please we need your help. Phewwwwww !!!!!

Hey Raymond, buddy (hope you don’t me calling you that), you mean you still access this site when you’re on vacation?! Man, TOC gotta give you credit for loyalty.

Continuing my earlier point on holding out for a hero, well, the last real heroes died with Cheng San in 1997. Those of you who were at Yio Chu Kang Stadium during that glorious night 10 years ago, you will know that nothing now compares to back then. When the J man spoke, everyone listened. And when the Tang man rose, we rose with him. That was how it was back then. Don’t need no Hong Lim Park, just pure charisma. These were the heroes….