Tng Ying Hui / Andrew Loh
The Singapore Democratic Party’s national day message was as usual more hardhitting than those of the other opposition parties.
The party’s message this year was delivered by four neatly-dressed “women democrats”, in the four national languages, via a rather well-produced video which was posted on its party website and on Youtube.
Ms Chee Siok Chin, a member of the party’s Central Executive Committee, started off by suggesting that Singaporeans “should take stock of our progress as a nation”. She then took aim at the ruling People’s Action Party. “Now, more than ever, Singaporeans are beginning to realise that the ruling party is making life more and more difficult for us,” she said. She turned to the income gap between the “wealthy and ordinary people”, saying that this gap “has widened to an unhealthy degree”. She blamed this on the “ruling circle, made up of elites, [caring] mainly for the rich and powerful, most of whom are foreigners.”
While Ms Chee’s message may appeal viscerally to Singaporeans, one wonders if it would have any substantive effect. By and large, Singaporeans do accept and realise that the income gap is partly caused by globalisation, which most country experience. To pin the blame on the “rich and powerful” alone is not very convincing.
While the income gap indeed has widened, it is also true that the government has tried to address the disparity. And it has done so through many schemes in the last few years, such as the Progress Package, U-Save, S&CC rebates, CPF top-ups, New Singapore Shares and now the Jobs Credit Scheme.
As a result, Singapore’s income gap – as measured by the Gini Coefficient – narrowed for the first time in 10 years last year. It fell from 0.489 in 2007 to 0.481 in 2008. If government help is taken into account, the figure drops further – from 0.479 to 0.462.
As globalisation spans the whole globe, disparity of income has to be acknowledged. Perhaps it is too simplistic for the SDP to pin the entire blame on the government – and to particularly charge it for “[caring] mainly for the rich and powerful, most of whom are foreigners”, without any substantiation of facts. We’ll come back to this later.
Nonetheless, globalisation is not an excuse for the government to ignore the seriousness of the income gap problem.
Perhaps what the SDP should have highlighted is Singapore’s high dependency on international trade which will enhance its vulnerability vis a vis the ills of globalisation. As statistics have shown, the “incomes among the bottom 30 percent of households had actually fallen since 2000” (New York Times). The inequality between the wealthy and the lower income should be more urgently addressed by policymakers. With our falling GDP (Singapore’s real GDP in 2008 was 7.7 per cent, a fall from the previous year of 7.9 per cent) and with the economic crisis still in our midst, the smaller Gini Coefficient attained last year is in danger of being widened again.
Ms Chee’s claim that the government “cares mainly for the rich and powerful, most of whom are foreigners” is oversimplified and biased. The government has created schemes that aim to tide many through the economic crisis, such as the jobs credit scheme. They have also repeatedly emphasized that narrowing the income gap is their top priority. Perhaps, what the SDP should have focused on is the the effectiveness and results of the schemes, instead of using rhetoric to score political points.
HDB and citizenship
Another example raised in the SDP message was the issue of elderly having to “toil for a living” because their CPF contributions have been used to pay for ever-rising HDB prices which are controlled by the Government, said Jaslyn Go. She also accused the government of “[reneging] on its promise” but she did not specify what this promise was. Nonetheless, because of this broken promise by the government, “more and more Singaporeans, young and old, are losing the roof over their heads”, she said. Ms Go attributed this to the government turning public housing into a ‘profit-making” venture and the rules requiring buyers of HDB flats to obtain loans from the banks.
Ms Go’s assertion that escalating HDB prices was as a sign of profit making by the government may be pure speculation, but the lack of transparency and whimsical rhetoric by the government regarding this issue is unsettling.
Nonetheless, Ms Go did not provide any statistics or examples to better substantiate her points. While it may be true that some Singaporeans are finding it hard to pay their mortgages, it may be convenient to attribute this solely to an inability to pay the banks’ housing loans or that the government is “profit-making” from it. The problem of lapsed payment is manifold, and the causes are varied.
Ms Go’s point that “in a year, 1,000 Singaporeans renounce their citizenship” is not accurate. Perhaps she is using the number mentioned by MM Lee, when he spoke about Singapore’s brain drain problem. The 1,000 Singaporeans emigrants MM Lee was referring to were the “top brains”. Thus, the total number of Singaporeans leaving is much higher, supposedly.
Foreign talents
The SDP’s views on the issue of immigrants, delivered in Malay by Ms Surayah Akbar, was the most hard-hitting. She suggested that the government should think of other ways to resolve the economic problems instead of “allowing the unfettered flow of foreigners” into Singapore. Social tension as a consequence would “threaten the foundation of our nation”, she said. The issue of immigrants has been a hot topic of debate for some time, and the fear of “social tension” is a legitimate one. This, however, should not suggest that our immigration policy should change to one that blocks the flow of foreigners. Globalisation has manifested itself in every single way possible and immigration is another product of it. In fact, acknowledging that globalisation has indeed arrived is analogous to accepting the consequence of immigration flow.
Ms Surayah’s point that these “foreign talent [sic] is taking jobs away from Singaporeans” is an oft-repeated one which most Singaporeans would concur with. The allegation has always been dismissed by the government but without providing any further proof that this is not so, this issue will not go away anytime soon. Ms Surayah’s assertion that the influx of foreigners has resulted in “unemployment and retrenchment for Singaporeans”, however, may not be entirely accurate. This is because the record unemployment Singapore has experienced this past year happened in the midst of a global recession. Thus, to put the entire blame on the influx of foreigners may not be very accurate – or convincing.
Her point about the “more than one million foreigners in our midst” potentially leading to “social tension” in Singapore, however, is one many would agree with. Even the Prime Minister has warned about this.
Ms Surayah’s call for the government to “look into the reasons for the mass emigration of Singaporeans instead of allowing the unfettered flow of foreigners” is a longstanding call which some Singaporeans have been making. Indeed, Singaporeans are dismayed that the government seems oblivious to this call.
Pet issues
Speaking in Tamil, Mdm G Prema reiterated several of the SDP’s pet issues – the lack of freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, the constitutional rights of Singaporeans and the “stranglehold that the government has over the mainstream media”.
“An ill-informed electorate will be unable to positively contribute to the future well-being of the nation,” Mdm Prema said. Interestingly, while these are well-known issues associated with the SDP, Mdm Prema’s delivery was the shortest among the four speakers.
Hope
Ms Chee then ended the SDP’s message on a more positive note. “There is hope,” she said, “and the hope lies with you and me.” She urged Singaporeans to “reach out and reach up with the Singapore Democrats for a more caring, open, just and democratic society.”
Perhaps the SDP should have addressed the issue of healthcare as well, which is an emerging concern among our elderly folks and which will see significant changes – HOTA, step-down care, rising costs, etc. Singapore is among the fastest ageing nations in the world. As the latest results have shown, we are spending much lesser in healthcare, compared to countries such as the United States, France and the United Kingdom, in terms of GDP.
Healthcare should be at the forefront of any political parties’ policies.
The SDP’s National Day message was delivered with apparent sincerity and each of the four speakers were articulate – clear and precise in their delivery, especially Ms Chee. Perhaps what the SDP should keep in mind for future messages is to do deeper research into some of the issues they would speak on and provide brief but better substantiation to the points they bring up.
Finally, one wonders why the SDP, for a message addressed to the nation, had chosen four women to deliver the message – none of whom holds any substantive positions in the party, although Ms Chee is one of two woman CEC member.
Among the parties which had a National Day message for the nation this year, the Workers’ Party and the SDP are the only ones which did not have it delivered by party leaders.
—–
HELP keep the voice of TOC alive!
If you like this article, please consider a small donation to help theonlinecitizen.com stay alive. Please note that we can only accept donations from Singaporeans. Thank you for your assistance.Do you have a flair for writing? Volunteer with us. Email us your full name and contact details to theonlinecitizen@gmail.com
I believe SDP message as a whole, taking into consideration the filming, the presentation and the delivery of the message overall is rather well done.
Any longer, as what the writer suggested, will not have capture the viewers attention.
Look at LHL long ND message, even the minsters are being seen struggling to stay awake. While opposition do not have the luxury of delivering the speech to such a audience on National TV, short and eye catching video production are a way to go.
Highlighting and concentrating on a few of the main concerns of Singaporeans is good enough to draw people to your message, your party and thereafter your party’s blog.
One comment I have is foreign talent issue. I reflect on the following (1) the emigration issue of Singaporeans outflow; (2) the inflow of foreign talents; and (3) Singapore’s previous goal of sustaining a 7-million-population economy. First two points were discussed here but the last was raised by our fearless leader, Goh Chok Tong, in several occasions. Maybe the ball should be kicked back to the well-paid MPs, MMs, SMs, PMs, and whatever -Ms to create jobs and entice businesses and investments that can produce jobs that are sustainable, less cyclical, and export oriented. Onus should be on the government to implement policies to entice businesses and companies to create jobs enough for almost everyone (e.g. supply-side economics), and diversify the economy to be less reliant on our pay-masters, the US (consumers).
Again, I am putting on my Alternative Thinking cap, but certainly not paid enough like the MPs to hash out all the details.
While admittedly no fan of SDP, I thought to be fair to do as did in the WP critique. And because I am “defending” a party of my nearly last choice (although I would vote for all opposition), that would help me keep abreast of debating.
Firstly, must say that if Ms Tng and Mr Loh wrote the WP critique, it may have turned out more substantial than what was churned out by Mr Ng. Secondly, the SDP message was more like an election message than a national day message (nothing wrong as it is a matter of choice). Now for the brickbats.
1) Have to agree with #1 (Yes We Can) that if the message was further elaborated, one might as well write a Master’s dessertation for any press release in future. Any suggestions for further elaboration is out of place.
2) Suggestions provided are too technical, like economic terms and asking for statistics. Again this is not supposedly meant to be a thesis. People would not connect “high dependency on international trade” to widening income gap, and there is no evidence that the former is the main cause. Also, international trade is as inevitable as globalisation, hence wonder the double standards in asking SDP to raise the former and discourage raising the latter.
3) By saying 1,000 Singaporeans renounce their citizenship every year, SDP’s facts are not wrong. This was the answer provided by Mr Wong Kan Seng in Parliament to NCMP Sylvia Lim in July 2008.
4) To state that SDP should “provide brief but better substantiation”. The statement reads like an oxymoron and is like saying that one should be “more silently talkative”. Substantiation often leads to less brief.
5) Central Executive Committee of any political party is taken by ROS as its leadership and any member within is a party leader. To insist that it is not is cherry-picking. Going further, others may insist that only the secretary-general and not chairman should deliver a message since the former ranks higher.
6) Overall, the first two critiques of SDP and WP both have a heavy element of “nit-picking sessions”. Even the fact that SDP’s Indian speaker spoke shortest is made into an issue.
Have to agree with comment #1, a longer video will put viewers to sleep.
Anyway, if one wants more “substantial” materials, they can always be found on SDP’s party website, updated on a daily basis.
Visually, the four women presentation is a refreshing change. from the usual format of the party leader making a speech.
Lastly, the author came across as defending the government (wrong statistics, etc) on some of the accusations, or at least trying to find justifications (poverty is caused by globalisation, etc) for the present problems.
Wow.. one of the 4 ladies is a MILF!
I think the criticisms in this article regarding SDP’s ND message do have some point, but first of all the title criticism of lack of substantiation. In all honesty, packing substantiation into their video presentation would unnecessarily weigh it down with encumbering details. What, instead, could be done is to release a separate essay that elaborates on that. This can even be in the form of annotations and footnotes to the transcript of their message. Or better yet: Youtube allows annotations, so SDP could’ve added annotations that provide links that substantiate their assertions.
Second, globalisation. While SDP did not explicitly say it, I think they are aware that the root cause of these problems is globalisation. But what I think they’re trying to make is that the government ought to do moderate the situation, the failure of which is the direct cause of the many struggling difficulties many Singaporeans are facing at the moment.
And again, there are again trivial quibbles that doesn’t matter, such as:
Finally, one wonders why the SDP, for a message addressed to the nation, had chosen four women to deliver the message – none of whom holds any substantive positions in the party, although Ms Chee is one of two woman CEC member.
Other than the fun in comparing the quality of opposition party ND messages, we get an inkling of each party’s capability, creativity, strength or weakness in its logistics from their individual productions.
In addition to debating about the good+bad of each party’s National Day message.. and more debate is always good.. these discussions highlight the fact of their existence. I know not many people know about these videos and messages, let alone want to pay attention to them. This awareness is good. A good start.. rather than continue thinking only “PAP=Gov” puts out ND videos. National Day doesn’t belong to PAP only.
ACR,
“1) Have to agree with #1 (Yes We Can) that if the message was further elaborated, one might as well write a Master’s dessertation for any press release in future. Any suggestions for further elaboration is out of place.”
Substantiation does not mean writing a dissertation. This seems to be your overarching point in both your comments on the critiques of the WP and SDP. Substantiation means, in what we’re saying, better informed statements which are backed up by better presentation and research.
“2) People would not connect “high dependency on international trade” to widening income gap, and there is no evidence that the former is the main cause.”
Not sure what you mean by “the former” in that sentence. In any case, our argument was between laying the blame on the “wealthy and the rich” and international trade. Anyone, we presume, would find the latter more reasonable than the former, don’t you think? Maybe you should read the paragraph again. Or are you saying that the cause of the income gap is, as the SDP said, the govt “made up of elites, [caring] mainly for the rich and powerful, most of whom are foreigners.”?
“3) By saying 1,000 Singaporeans renounce their citizenship every year, SDP’s facts are not wrong. This was the answer provided by Mr Wong Kan Seng in Parliament to NCMP Sylvia Lim in July 2008.”
Unfortunately, there are two sets of different explanations – one by WKS and the other by LKY. WKS said: “AN AVERAGE of about 1,000 Singapore gave up their citizenship each year in the last three years.” LKY, however, was more specific: “SINGAPORE is losing about 1,000 of its best and brightest every year and the numbers are growing.” Both statements were made in 2008. LKY’s statement, if you notice, is more specific in identifying these immigrants as “the best and brightest”. Unfortunately also that Sylvia Lim did not seek clarification in Parliament when she was given that answer by WKS.
“4) To state that SDP should “provide brief but better substantiation”. The statement reads like an oxymoron and is like saying that one should be “more silently talkative”. Substantiation often leads to less brief.”
Again, substantiation does not mean over-providing or over-elaboration. This seems to be your stickler-issue. Substantiation does not necessarily have to lead to “less brief.” Example: Instead of saying, “The income gap is caused by the govt caring only for the elites, the rich and wealthy”, one could say, just as briefly but more substantially, “The widening income gap has many causes – including: the cost of living, Singapore saw record inflation in 2009, and the artificial suppression of wages for the middle to lower income.”
“5) Central Executive Committee of any political party is taken by ROS as its leadership and any member within is a party leader. To insist that it is not is cherry-picking. Going further, others may insist that only the secretary-general and not chairman should deliver a message since the former ranks higher.”
After saying that our “suggestions provided are too technical”, it is surprising to me that you would then use a technicality to – according to the ROS, no less – to say that a CEC member is “taken by the ROS as its leadership”. I do not think the average S’porean subscribe to or know what the ROS deems as a party leadership. And while accusing us of “nit-picking”, you are demonstrating exactly the same “nit-picking” – relying on a technicality based on the ROS’s determination of what constitutes party leadership.
In any case, would you disagree that a once-a-year address to the nation shuld be given by the top leader of any political party? Or perhaps you’re suggesting that the ruling PAP govt’s message, given by the PM, should instead be delivered by say, the vice-president of the Young PAP? Like what the WP did?
“6) Overall, the first two critiques of SDP and WP both have a heavy element of “nit-picking sessions”. Even the fact that SDP’s Indian speaker spoke shortest is made into an issue.”
Made into an issue? Perhaps you did not read our sentence more closely: “Interestingly, while these are well-known issues associated with the SDP, Mdm Prema’s delivery was the shortest among the four speakers.” We sub-titled the part on Mdm Prema as “Pet issues”. One would expect that a party’s pet issues would be given equal, if not more, time in this once a year address, which is an opportunity to put these issues to the people. Especially considering that “pet issues” are what the party considers most important.
Finally, it is important for S’poreans to take note of a party’s ND message. You may call it “nit-picking” but these are messages, made on our National Day, addressed and meant for the entire nation. If we are lackadaisical about it, as the WP was, it only shows the lack of work put into it – and thus a disrespect to the people.
Lastly, may I ask if you’re a WP member?
—–
A National Day message is not supposed to be too lengthy! I think SDP message has done well as a “MESSAGE”. However, due to the way that the message is produced, we get mistaken that each parts of the message was the view of the individual presenters. This is not supposed to be so because the message belongs to the party, not the individual presenters.
This is the main setback of the message in creating such mistaken understanding of its viewers.
A good message resonate with the potential viewers. The best substantiation comes from the resonance of the viewers, not some statistics and figures chanting. The viewers, with their individuals’ real life experiences and observations, will decide whether the points raised by SDP or any other persons or political parties as valid. However, the way they present the points is very important in striking the cords of the hearts of viewers. You may have all the points but the phrases and way you put it across does not sound convincing or even puts people off, then the message will be loss.
This may be the case in SDP where some may find it more of rhetoric instead of heart reaching.
The message from SDP presented a one and narrow sided view of Singapore. The poor nd the needy will always be in Singapore. Will there be no needy or poor if the SDP comes to power? Will the SDP do a ‘Robin-Hood’ to steal from the rich and give to the poor if it comes to power? Will there be no homeless if the SDP comes to power? The SDP’s message is and has always been one of brinksmanship. It is not too difficult to see through them.
Take it as a branding exercise:
With its perky video, the SDP is sending out the message that “We not only have Courage and Intellect, we have Style, too!”
Traditionally, issuing a lengthy statement may be a safe way with little cost, but it also shows up a party’s dated mentality, and the possible scarcity of its resources.
Stranger, why so black n white? even if still got poor , can vary in degree. Maybe despite there being poor, Singapore is still a more equitable place? Is the current system fair or fair to who??
Tng Ying Hui and Andrew Loh must think that the SDP has 2 hours to deliver its National Dau message. This SDP message has made me go into their website to read more about the problems the 4 ladies raised. The website has a section on the issues raised in the video message.
Also, the writers complained that SDP and WP whose ND messages were not delivered by party leaders. Perhaps TOC should note that Lee Hsien Loong was delivering his message as prime minister, not PAP leader. In that case, might want to ask – where is PAP’s ND message?
Stranger #11,
That is why I like NSP message.
It doesn’t give one the impression of narrow message because when touching on the same topic like Singaporeans losing their roofs over the heads and living off the streets, it used past situation to compare with present. The past is a success of PAP, the present will of course be the failure of PAP!
If PAP claims that we have progressed, then why in the past all Singaporeans have a roof over their heads while now, people are forced out of their HDB flats without a roof over their heads?
Well, no big issue with SDP. Just a small suggestion,
Can Mr chee, by the way, smile more when he is going around selling his party news magazine? Trying to support his grand democracy act, but all i get is a sour sad face.
14),
Please read my reply to ACR above.
Also, I really doubt that the PAP, if it were not the govt, would have its National Day message delivered by the vice-president of the Young PAP.
But that is a moot point.
The current system is fairer than the system of let’s ‘bumiputeras’ in Malaysia and caste system in India, or the communist system in China. What is the system SDP will use to govern for all the pet isues that they espouse? That should have been addressed in the NDM.
Andrew,
I’d rather spend my time reading policies that the political parties have to offer than rad your lengthy explanation of your critique.
I think SDP is smart in having 4 ladies present the message. I thought the Chairman and Chee Soon Juan have been delivering for the past few years. This is indeed a refreshing change.
Those who think we don’t have a sino-bumiputra system must be blind. SAP schools, Mother tongue policy, “bi-cultural elite”, Malays in the SAF and ‘sensitive positions’ in the Civil Service, these are just a few examples of how our supposedly ‘meritocratic’ system favor Chinese rule over minority races. Get yourself updated man.
At least SDP put some effort into their message. Not like that PAP-approved WP who can’t be bothered and let its YOUTH WING VICE PRESIDENT deliver the message!!
$14,000 per month has infected the brains and guts of Low TK, SL and Chiam. Major surgery needed!!
@Chin Peng: So what is the better system that SDP will use? That my friend is still an unanswered question.
1) First, don’t think it is not up to SDP to correct the contradictions, if any, but the government. The liberty to use any govt statement as a basis of their point. Secondly, the 1,000 is elementary the best and brightest. With no intention to look down, I do not expect the tin-collecting auntie or waste-rummaging uncle to have the means to migrate. Thirdly, 1,000 who give up citizenship and 1,000 lost talents may not be the same, if one were to include those who held their citizenships but worked overseas and never came back. There may be an overlap of WKS 1,000 and LKY 1,000 but may not be totally so.
2) “The income gap is caused by the govt caring only for the elites, the rich and wealthy” (17 words)
“The widening income gap has many causes – including: the cost of living, Singapore saw record inflation in 2009, and the artificial suppression of wages for the middle to lower income.” (30 words)
It is clear which sentence is longer, and by two times at least. That would mean the SDP video could lengthen by at least 25% more. the Case closed.
3) “Technical” and “technicality” are not the same and I thought this should have been easily understood. The first is meant to refer to being in-depth. The other is a law. Everyone probably knows that whatever happens to a party all in the CEC is taken accountable. I must say I don’t know how political parties around the world are recognised.
4) #14 (nitpick) said it well and I would like to add on. PM Lee’s message is not stated as the government’s message. That’s why it is called “PM’s National Day message”. The parties ND message on the other hand is stated as SDP message, RP message etc. To add, I think people would find it odd that Lim Boon Heng delivered the message, but he is PAP chairman after all. As to whether PAP will get someone else is speculative but PAP already releases very few statements every year and yet the PAP Secretary-General never signs off any of the releases.
From the article: “SDP should have highlighted is Singapore’s high dependency on international trade which will enhance its vulnerability vis a vis the ills of globalisation.” “Ms Go did not provide any statistics or examples to better substantiate her points”
How do you do all this in a 5-minute video? Unless of course it is your recommendation that the video be made longer, which in turn will have its setbacks too because not everyone wants to watch for so long etc.
If you look at promotional political videos in other countries (or should I say actual democracies), this is the style being used: Short, snappy, promotional. Generally younger people are not going to sit around for 20 minutes listening to some old man lecture to them.
“Ms Surayah’s assertion that the influx of foreigners has resulted in ‘unemployment and retrenchment for Singaporeans’, however, may not be entirely accurate.”
Do the reviewers have any basis for their view? The recession worsened conditions but the problems related to the influx of foreigners started way before the recession.
Freedom of speech should not be trivialised as SDP’s “pet issues”. It is the very basis for democracy that all opposition parties should be concerned with. Criticise but don’t trivialise. Even the Malaysian opposition constantly pushed and fought for freedom of speech so that they could reach the Malaysian public.
#11Stranger is either very strange or demonstrates a woeful lack of depth, insight and maturity in the political arena.
A few have implied that an NDP message is not supposed to be long.
That’s a wrong assumption.
For opposition parties, the NDP message is an opportunity to put across their criticisms and their platform. They can be as long or as short as they like. But what they cannot be is vague.
The SDP message is a failure simply because it puts out the usual criticisms, and doesn’t even hint at any sort of policy or recommendation. It reinforces the public’s view that SDP does nothing except oppose.
“1,000 who give up citizenship and 1,000 lost talents may not be the same, if one were to include those who held their citizenships but worked overseas and never came back.
The point is that they all leave or left Singapore. You’re picking on a technicality. Quite surprising, given what you’ve been saying. ;)
“It is clear which sentence is longer, and by two times at least. That would mean the SDP video could lengthen by at least 25% more. the Case closed.
So, you would agree that the sentence: “The income gap is caused by the govt caring only for the elites, the rich and wealthy” is appropriate? When one wants to make an accusation such as the SDP did, one would be more accurate and choose appropriate words, esp in a message to the nation. Whatever, you think the sentence I posed as an example is lengthy. I disagree – considering the significance of the accusation contained in the original one.
“Everyone probably knows that whatever happens to a party all in the CEC is taken accountable.
Well, that is conjecture – “probably”, as you said. I reiterate that the average Singaporeans does not think of the CEC when considering who the party leader of a party is. A simple test will show this. Just go out and ask S’porean who is the leader of the Wp or the SDP? I would bet with you that none will say, “CEC”. The answer, invariably, will be Low Thia Khiang/Sylvia Lim or Chee Soon Juan – that is if they know these party leaders at all.
As for your last point, as I said, even if the PAP were not in govt, I’d be hard put to believe that the PAP would have its vice-president of its Youth Wing deliver its National Day message on the party’s behalf.
Criticism need not come with so called ‘solutions’. Can be mutually exclusive. Those who go ‘so what are your solutions’ sound like PAParrots.
#15
NSP message might be good, but I can’t continue watching after about 2 mins. (Editor has pointed out, we should concentrate on discussing the relevant party in the topic, so pardon me for not elaborating).
Same goes for RP’s long delivery of ND message, where my mind start to wander off after 2 mins into his speech at HLP.
It is refreshing to see 4 ladies representing 4 different races and 4 different age groups representing SDP to deliver their ND message, something I believe it’s the first in SG political scene.
The Fact that people here are scruntinizing our loyal opposition’s messages
is a healthy indication that these people want a Stronger opposition by helping them to be on their toes in what they say.
A better quality opposition is what many wanted but due to lack of it, the overwhelming turnouts at their rallies did not materialised into victory for the opposition in the last many elections where many could not get the chance to vote due to walkovers.
So, how many actually support or disagree with the ruling party from a total absolute population perspective where population is simply tiny compared to larger countries.
No. 22 Stranger,
Go to SDP’s website for answers. Can’t spoon feed you here.
I guess the stranger need some help,
SDP website : http://www.yoursdp.org/
Good Samaritan
1) “You’re picking on a technicality. Quite surprising, given what you’ve been saying. ;)”
Anyone would know that is not a technicality. To say that 50 bad apples in a basket are thrown away and 50 apples in a decrepit wooden basket are thrown away is as different as chalk and cheese and that would clearly be understood by elementary school student.
2) “So, you would agree that the sentence: “The income gap is caused by the govt caring only for the elites, the rich and wealthy” is appropriate?”
No one ever talked about appropriateness here. I would read first.
3) “Whatever, you think the sentence I posed as an example is lengthy. I disagree – considering the significance of the accusation contained in the original one.”
I believe there is no need for further debate given that even a word count is done. Might as well not end with that and come up with a drama series.
4) “I reiterate that the average Singaporeans does not think of the CEC when considering who the party leader of a party is.”
That is fine but I would not expect an analytical TOC article to be written by the man on the street.
5) “A simple test will show this. Just go out and ask S’porean who is the leader of the Wp or the SDP? I would bet with you that none will say, “CEC”. The answer, invariably, will be Low Thia Khiang/Sylvia Lim or Chee Soon Juan – that is if they know these party leaders at all.”
Like I said, I would read first. This is nothing to do with the people knowing the party or leader. It is a party statement versus PM statement. Since your simple test shows that people know WP, SDP etc, then my point is already made.
6) “I’d be hard put to believe that the PAP would have its vice-president of its Youth Wing deliver its National Day message on the party’s behalf.”
This is the only point I’d say are subjected to different opinions but the opposition PAP to have poster boy Teo Ser Luck to sign off a release seems rather marketable.
BTW it’s good that writers are defending their points.
As the population is small, i urge that all opposition and their supporters go forth and communicate with the man on the street asap.
There is little effect communicating to converted netizens here. You need to seek unconquered territory. The time is limited.
I walk the talk and have on my own attempted several times to communicate with man on the street and realise many are ignorant of current affairs and worse is those who are aware do not think have any comments on the issues.
Why should people be afraid of honest comments ?
Why should people fear voicing up their questions?
A question is a question and it is derived based on the desire to find out more and learn more about things they do not understand.
Real gold no-scared fire grilling.
Cheap shots delivered by exploited ladies merely echoing CSJ’s pent – up anger.
Seelan in skits would do a better job?
Like Tng Ying Hui, I agree that SDP’s video was well produced. It was very professionally done.
Ying Hui says that: “By and large, Singaporeans do accept and realise that the income gap is partly caused by globalisation, which most country experience. To pin the blame on the “rich and powerful” alone is not very convincing.”
IMO, our Government has in fact exacerbated the income gap by letting big corporates become overly dependent on cheap foreign labour, and for refusing the implement policies like comprehensive welfare schemes for the poor & needy, or unemployment insurance, that can help redistribute society’s wealth.
In other words, the Govt has failed to temper the excesses that capitalism often engenders. Entrenchment of GLCs, which make up 60% of our economy, and which has a crowding out effect on small businesses, is also an issue.
I think that is what SDP might have been trying to get at in their message, but did not do so due to time constraints.
Ying Hui lists out various schemes like the progress package and U save rebates. Of course, such schemes are welcome, but they don’t go far enough. Other ill-timed policies like GST (which they said they would not lower even in a recession) act to take away what they have given in these schemes. Furthermore, by failing to keep a lid on the overall cost of living and allowing property prices and rentals to become so inflated through lack of regulation and failing to properly manage demand & supply, individuals and small business owners are squeezed ever more in a tight corner.
To put it more cynically, the Govt is giving on one hand while letting you be robbed in the other.
I agree with SDP’s message that the Govt has turned HDB into a profit scheme and reneged on its promise to deliver affordable housing to all citizens. This is because the govt has given citizens a market subsidy on public housing, rather than a cost subsidy. By letting property prices go sky high, HDB home buyers will also be aversely affected because the market subsidy alone does not make houses more affordable for them.
Hence, this issue is not just pure speculation on SDP’s part, but a real issue that we need to raise in Parliament and contend with.
E-Jay
Andrew,
I skipped your long reply to ACR in post #9, but when I was scrolling back, I notice you question ACR if he is a WP member.
Over at the WP article, you ask that readers keep their comments to the topic and no personal attacks, I would like to know then why are you questioning ACR about his party affiliation?
I hope you practice what you preach, more so when you are the Editor of TOC and co-writer of this article.
Nice uniforms with party logo on the polo-t’s sleeves.
The Malay lady is very photogenic, too.
#38 the lady on the right looks quite chio. who is she?
GAS, are u referring to Seelan the film maker? What has he doing skits got to do with this?
@PAPWhack: Nobody is asking for a spoonfeed. All political parties should use all medium available to communicate their views and especially their espoused systems and policies. Especially the TOC, which has a ‘slant’.
@Yes we can: should the people go the the various parties or should the partie come to the people?
And anyways, I have been on the website and there is nothing there on systems of governance on which their espoused policies would be advocated. Any party that comes to power without establishing their systems of governance, they will lead by popular opinion. And in this instance, popular opinion, becomes the ‘system of governance’. Popular opinion, may not be the opinion of the majority, it could be the opinion of the ‘loudest’. Such a system will surely lead the country to its ruins.
I suspect that it is the system of ‘popular opinion’ that the SDP espouses. But whose popular opinion is it? Now, that is the question.
Ahgong / BrotherBear,
to me, I am most attracted to the Iron Lady of Opposition.
she to me is the Aung San Suu Kyi of Singapore.
I have the greatest admiration and support for what she has stand up for and how strong she came out of it.
The rest of the 3 ladies are just new faces to me.
Way to go Ms Chee.
Stranger,
you might have missed this – http://yoursdp.org/index.php/the-party/our-manifesto
but it’s not entirely your fault.
perhaps SDP should display their manifesto more prominently.
also, should the people be answerable to PAP government or should the PAP government be answerable to the people? That is the more important question.
Dear stranger (comment 41 and 11)
I searched SDP’s website and found their manifesto and the kind of system of Govt they think Singapore should have:
http://www.yoursdp.org/index.php/the-party/our-manifesto/the-political-system
Each opposition party has made the effort to “go to the people” through their ND messages. The critiques are about how effective they have been, and whether the people will now pay attention to them after hearing their messages.
SDP’s message may appear one sided to you because they can’t be everything to everybody — they have to forcefully state what they believe in.
The issue of poor and destitute in Singapore is a real one that MUST be addressed.
Our economic policies have failed to temper the excesses of capitalism. We have failed to enact enlightened policies like comprehensive schemes to look after the poor and needy. We have allowed corporates to become overly dependent on cheap labour. All these issues affect the pocketbooks of working class citizens. Opposition parties should speak out on them.
Even though I don’t have an economics degree, I can see where the PAP has failed on its economic policies, and can see why the opposition should rigorously challenge the PAP on this issue.
E-Jay
@ E-jay& Yes we can: The SDP manifesto says in one part:
“If Singapore is going to survive, it is imperative that a system be devised in which the negative effects of the free market are ameliorated and people, young and old, rich and poor, boss and worker, can sit at the same table and partake of the successes of their labour through a system that ensures a more equitable distribution of wealth. An economy that boasts of large financial reserves but has little compassion for the poor, that rationalises, indeed celebrates, grotesque wealth inequality cannot be sustained—morally or practically.”
But fails to describe what is the system that needs to be devised and how that system can be implemented to the benefit of all the society.
The manifesto is filled with ‘anti-PAP’ stance, grandstanding, brinksmanship and actually looks too cartoonish to be taken seriously. If this is the system they espouse, why should they be taken seriously? Why should they be elected?
@Yes we can: all government are answerable to the people through the ballot box.
I observe that
1. An article praising NMP.
2. An article criticising the SDP.
Stranger..
I don’t know if you are strange or maybe even reading too much of the PAP propaganda.
answerable though the ballot boxes where many of our citizens are not given the chance to vote because of their GRC system?
answerable through the ballot boxes where it has shown that opposition are not given a free and fair election system and our election department is neither independent nor is it transparent?
@Yes we can: Nobody is stopping the opposition from contesting the GRCs.
28) Bulldust said “Those who go ’so what are your solutions’ sound like PAParrots.”
Well, there’s no need for personal abuse and name-calling, Bulldust. It is so easy for anyone to criticise. But citizens are entitled to demand more. If someone is purporting to be an alternative voice, then we are entitled to ask, “what are the alternatives?”
We all know what the problems are. It’s nothing fantastic or remarkable to keep harping on them. It would be fantastic if someone offered an alternative.