Sunday, October 25, 2009 0:35
A peek into PAP politics – present and future
In Main Stories, Top Story • 5,395 views • 116 Comments
Fang Shihan >> TOC News
Almost as an apology to the theatrical tragedy staged during the Kent Ridge Ministerial Forum (KRMF), the young PAP sponsored forum, tantalizingly titled “Straight Talk: Is Singapore = PAP?”, seemed like the Q&A session that the ageing MM Lee never got to engage in.
Organised by the undergraduate-run NUS Political Science Society (PSS), the organisers, despite not disclosing their sponsors, picked the panelists for the ‘open discussion’ in a manner that painfully exposed the organisers’ biases.
No opposition politicians were invited to speak, and of the four panelists, three were PAP MPs (Chris De Souza, Zaqy Mohammad, Teo Ser Luck) while one was an NMP who is also an academic (Dr Paulin Straughan).
Thankfully, three other political science academics were hastily invited at the last minute (perhaps after widespread student disapproval of KRMF’s panel selections), to balance out the otherwise pro-PAP discussion.
In comparison with the huge crowd that turned up for KRMF, the attendance for this forum was less than remarkable – 160 people signed up but less than 100 eventually showed up. When asked why she would not sit in for Straight Talk, final year political science undergraduate Shirah Nair said that after experiencing the audaciously staged KRMF, she was put off attending any other event that included political discussions with the PAP.
Despite the small crowd, and the confusion of whether the event was a political discussion or a book discussion of “Men in White”, the event turned out to be surprisingly insightful.
Who writes history? Whose stories get to count as history?
As much as the PAP boasts of sticking to the ‘facts’, the only truth is that winners write Singapore’s history, though academics would wish otherwise. When asked to comment on “Men in White”, one panelist remarked that he would not call it history, though it makes for an interesting read; and contrary to previous pseudo-historical publications, it does not have Lee Kuan Yew’s ever-present imprint.
Yet the PAP’s representatives showed otherwise, evoking history time and again to validate their views. When queried on various aspects of the PAP, such as whether luck played a part in Singapore’s success, or whether the PAP finds it difficult to replicate itself, or whether the search for the next prime minister is already in process, all three representatives from the so-called P-65 generation reacted in a single voice, quoting previous PAP rhetoric and referring to what was written in Men in White.
Remarking that the book exposes the vulnerabilities of a nation, and displays the natural reactions of new guard party members, Chris De Souza, who must be given credit for digesting the whole tome, referred to the last section when PAP members, including himself, were interviewed. Echoing the hackneyed party line, he stated that,
“The day we are less than honest is the day we do not deserve to be in power. You can’t be corrupt in any way”.
(From Left: Chris De Souza, Dr. Reuben Wong, Teo Ser Luck, Moderater Dr. Brad Williams, Dr. Paulin Straughan, Zaqy Mohammad, Dr. Federico Ferrara)
One wonders how he would reconcile this stance with a recent declaration by Law Minister K Shanmugam that an increase in corruption cases is to be expected when two casinos open here in 2010.
This repeated defense of the PAP’s rightful place as the dominant party, justified by the legitimizing process of elections, would manifest itself in nearly every answer by any of the PAP representatives, regardless of the question. When asked if Singapore is the PAP, and whether the civil service is beyond fear and favour, Teo Ser Luck answered without hesitation that Singapore was not the PAP, because Singaporeans chose their party and they decide if the opposition has a role in parliament.
It was almost as though they had memorized the model answers for a set of ‘Frequently Asked Questions’.
Even so, it was clear that these young leaders had minds of their own. They obviously were not representatives of the PAP at large, especially those from the more repressive old guard.
In the second half of his answer, Teo Ser Luck maintained, “The younger generation think differently. We’re surprised that the party accepts our views.”
Zaqy Mohammad too insisted, “The hardest hits [during PAP meetings] are from our own MPs…. We know the ministers better and we know how to hit them the hardest.”
The difference between the old and the new was made more evident when they were asked what aspect of Singapore they would change, if they were one day made Prime Minister.
Teo Ser Luck, after some hesitation and clarification that this was his personal view and not the party’s, revealed that he would change the political system as he believed in fighting for votes during the elections. Zaqy Mohammad, showing some affinity with other young politicians from the opposition, said that he would like a law on minimum wage, contrary to what the Minister Mentor might think.
So what exactly is the PAP? Is it a hegemonic but paranoid party? Does Singapore = PAP? And is it the party to bring us forward into the future?
Though the party is not monolithic, it obviously has tight boundaries restraining the personal political views that party members are permitted to articulate in public. Evidently these younger PAP politicians are the reformers from within, trying to rescue a historically important but increasingly unpopular hegemonic party. More apparently, they agree that there is a disjoint between the old party, and the party of the future. Our future.
The absurdity of the KRMF as a political dialogue between a historical artifact and a new generation seeking answers from the past is indicative of how lost we really are. The answers are not in the past. They are not in the PAP-chronicled history books nor can they be found in a tired old man who has obviously seen better days.
Yet the mere questioning of whether Singapore and the PAP are synonymous is indicative that we are in a transition of finding the anwer.
Singapore is the PAP for now. However, as we progressively ask: “Is Singapore = PAP?” and “Should Singapore = PAP?”, we inch closer to the answer of what comes after the passing of the PAP era.
———————————————————————————————————————————————————
Update 1 :
Shashikalah Krishnan, current President of NUS Political Science Society, has issued a statement to TOC. We publish it in full:
I would like to clarify that the forum organised by the NUS Political Science Society Straight Talk: Is Singapore=PAP? was not sponsored by Young PAP. Our sponsors were NUS Political Science Department and Office of Alumni Relations. We opened up the event to the public so that there will be more engement and increase the civic culture in Singapore. Young PAP was invited to participate as audience and the invitation also included young people who were from youth groups from the opposing parties.
I as the President of the Society would like to assert that the Society is non-partisan and that this forum was organised for educational purposes. This was stated clearly by our Department Head during his Opening Speech.
Thanks.
Yours sincerely,
Shashikalah
————–
TOC’s response:
When contacted by TOC, Professor Terry Nardin, Head of Department, Political Science, clarified that according to the PSSOC organizers, the Young PAP had originally agreed to cover food costs for the event, with other costs being covered by NUS or PSSOC itself. After being advised by Prof Nardin and Prof Straughan that Young PAP sponsorship would make the forum a political event, the organizers gratefully accepted Prof Nardin’s offer to cover the food costs from the Department’s budget. Because earlier efforts to include professors in the event had been unsuccessful, Prof Nardin also offered to recruit some colleagues to help out and to give the opening speech himself. Although the panel included several PAP members, the format was designed to allow different views to be aired by panelists and audience members.In his view, the PSSOC student forum was not a political party event held at NUS but an open discussion, based on a book about the PAP that has generated considerable interest, of the PAP’s place Singapore’s past and future, as seen from different perspectives.
TOC also contacted the administrative staff of the NUS Political Science department, who estimated that the crowd was between 170 to 200 people based on the 299 seating capacity of the auditorium.
When interviewed by TOC, Bernard Chen, a year 1 history major remarked that while the forum had the intention of being an academic discourse, the PAP’s party stand was being articulated in many instances. It would have been more appropriate if the forum had consistently focused on the discussion of the book; its pros and cons.
——
Related posts:
116 Comments
Bernard
Andrew Chuah
25/10/09
There is always the Party Whip, and all PAP MPs must toe the line unlike having a strong, credible and constructive Singapore Opposition MPs in Parliament like what we have seen in our neighbouring countries and the nearest is Malaysia, Indonesia and Manila, and others like Japan, Taiwan, Seoul.
Time for a strong, credible and constructive Singaore Opposition MPs in Parliament and the presently the Singapore Opposition Parties are still looking for someone to unite and lead them perhaps a combination of a Modern Lee Kuan Yew and Anwar Ibrahim, and hence giving the PAP MPs a run for their money (further, all the PAP MPs including Minsters have not lived up to the expectation of Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew).This chap must be able to reach out to all Singporeans regardless of races and knowing their problems, and prefereably a local born Singapore Chinese as the majority is stiill Singaporean Chinese, and not from the minority races ie Malay, Indians, Singh or Eurasin. Further, knowing the grounds and not from the Elites which we have now in the PAP and their MPs all from the Elites, perhaps, an Ordinary Singaporean Chinese, and the havenots and their problem ie costs of living, jobs and security ie all Singporean can sleep well every night.
Time for a strong, credible and constructive Singpore Opposition in Parliament and we are no longer in the Dark Ages where majority of Singporeans were uneducated and easily being mislead. Now, we are in the Internet Age or so called Borderless World and even Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew, has written “It is a Deep Space of information”.
Regards
Andrew Chuah
preston loon
As long as the PAP continues to manage Singapore well,i would say a Big Yes to Singapore=PAP.It would be a piped dream even to suggest that the passing of PAP
era begins when the OLD MAN passes on into eternity.However,we may see many
changes coming along after that,from within the PAP government with the help from
more opposition MPs in parliament i.e.more transparency,more liberalized social
orders.
Andrew Chuah
25/10/09
This chap must be able to handle hands on on all issues and problems facing by all Singaporeans regardless of races and ages (the young, middle age and elders) and fine tune all these besides having the Charisma and able to take these PAP MPs hands on on hot issues and problems, and as I can see only an Ordinary Singaporean born Chinese can do this, not an Elite which we already have seen in the PAP MPs which have gone out of touch with the people or rakyat problems.
Regards
Andrew Chuah
LKS
Nice piece on the forum Shihan but hope u would resist the temptation to name call, it only detracts from the integrity of the report.
Mr. E
“dialogue between a historical artifact and a new generation”
haha
massivelosses_sohow?
Ask their MPs to talk about their own party and you expect the whole truth? Would they talk about the closed door meetings when they are scared to shits when MM come to speak?
Obama allowed a kid to ask him “difficult question: Why do people hate you”? Here in Singapore, you have 20 security guards surrounding and another 10 checking and filtering questions.
PAP = Past and Present = Maintain Climate of Fear = Absolute Control of Parliament = Win At All Cost At Elections = Higher Pay For Ministers = Maximise profits for GLC = No level playing field for opposition = Reasons for every screw up = Always Right
Robox
1. Re: “When queried on various aspects of the PAP, such as … whether the search for the next prime minister is already in process…”
Glad that this one has come up because I’ve been itching for an opportunity to write this.
a. A normal, non-medicre government would have 1 PM and 1 DPm at the most. In Singapore’s mediocre government, we have 1 PM, 2 DPMs, 2 SMs and 1 MM – a total of six people – all doing the PM’s and his deputy’s job. Is that what the PAP would like us to believe is their competence? And just how much does the six men’s incomes cost Singaporean taxpayers?
b. In the 2000 elections, the PAP trotted out seven of its new candidates hyping them as The Magnificent Seven. (I can’t remember two of them but the remaining ones are Tharman, Vivian, Balaji, Eng Hen and Boon Wan.) All of them are still in the cabinet almost two elections later.
c. Sometime last year (or perhaps even earlier this year), Lee Kuan Yew crowed that the individuals comprising the current cabinet constituted the BEST cabinet that he has seen in his entire political career.
d. ALL of Singapore’s cabinet members top the list of the world’s most highly paid politicians, justified on the grounds of the legendary competence. Only after ALL of them in the list comes the Chief Executive of Hong Kong.
Yet, we are now told: the fourth prime minister of Singapore is NOT going to come from the current cabinet.
What gives? Are they or they not the bestest in the world and paid accordingly? Or have we all been taken for one long merry-go-round on the issues of ministerial incomes and the link to their competence?
Why isn’t the fourth prime minister of Singapore NOT going to be drawn from the current cabinet?
tookie
hmm.. Robox, where is it said that the next PM will not be drawn from the current cabinet? This is not possible. They would not be stupid enough to put somebody up there with no political experience. Even if you look at it from a completely self-serving point of view, a party that wants to stay in power would never nominate a person who has not previously held a significant portfolio to test his capabilities.
@ Andrew Chuah
“This chap must be able to handle hands on on all issues and problems facing by all Singaporeans regardless of races and ages (the young, middle age and elders) and fine tune all these besides having the Charisma and able to take these PAP MPs hands on on hot issues and problems, and as I can see only an Ordinary Singaporean born Chinese can do this, not an Elite which we already have seen in the PAP MPs which have gone out of touch with the people or rakyat problems.”
Regardless of race and age.. but yet can only be a Singaporean born Chinese? I cannot think of anything more contradictory or demeaning.
Online Shmonline
Could TOC allow Robox’s comment. I’d like to see it and appreciate its intent?
MP’s having individual opinions only has any impact if we were allowed to assess this opinion and how it impacts the policies they are looking to change or bring about. Seeing that we never have this opportunity in walkover constituencies nor with GRCs, I don’t see the benefit of hearing their personal thoughts that have no impact on the party line.
Sure, they may be the reformers on the inside but the pace of change is so slow within the PAP (in terms of policy evolution), I’m wondering if they’ve been struck by inertia and become inert bystanders instead. That serves no one, least of all, their constituents (unless the LUP is the highlight of their constituencies!!).
While I appreciate the questions asked, we need more such questions and we need the opportunity to compare apples with apples – invite opposition MPs and folks to see the difference in responses. I’m not interested in the easy answers given by people relaxing in their own skin. I want to push anyone who’s supposed to be representing me and my country and be sure that he’s the best person for the job, not the best person at stroking egos within the PAP.
Cheers!
Andrew Chuah
25/10/09
Hi Tookie
Noted your reply to my posting. The majority in Singapore is Singaporean Chinese and majority of them are the silent majority who wants someone from their own race rather than from the minorities. Let us look at the late JBJ who was from the minority race and he failed to attract support from the majority race ie Singaporean Chinese and I had a few opportunities with him, and he reluctantly agreed and I added his support was not across whole of Singapore and only confined to then Anson ward, he kept silent. The race question still matters in Singapore.
Regards
Andrew Chuah
tookie
i agree that race still matters to most. But that is largely because society has been constructed to perpetuate such divisions. JBJ was also allowed his emotions to get in the way of politics, and did not necessarily speak to the general population in terms of his substantive. Add to the general opposition controls and mud slinging by the PAP. I don’t think that his being of a minority race was the major factor for his lack of support. Sure the race factor does matter at present, but to further nurture such views will be to our own detriment. We should aim to reach a level of intelligence and progressiveness, where we can look beyond skin colour and social class, and look at what he/she puts on the table. Likewise, assuming that someone who comes from an ‘elite’ background would be incompetent would be fallacious. Judge on the substantive, not pre-existing conditions that one can do nothing about. We should encourage an evolution of our thoughts, rather than sit in stagnant primordial sentiments.
doctorwho
In recent months, i see PAP trying their last attempt to win the coming votes, such as replaying their old success stories (national day, MIW book), nothing new and boring …
Anywhere, our minds are already set to NOT vote for PAP, and rather waste their time convincing the public of what is NOT true, they can start packing their minister office for the new comer.
andrew leung
Singapore is not equal to PAP.
PAP is more than equal to Singapore.
PAP are the owners. We are the owned.
Equality is but an aspiration.
They are millionaires, not ministers.
Debra Chua Mui Mui of the Soon
I think i no need read on to look for the answer to the question of the forum.
Seems like mostly if not all guests are PAP.
Muhamad Nur
Why are they having so many forums and I do not know about it? Can TOC publish their forums before they are held. When will they start having public forums and have the members of the public asking them critical questions just like the USA town hall meeting. There are many outstanding issues with the PAP.
Quit pondering on the question is the PAP=Singapore. It is obviously not. It is the current government elected by the people of Singapore who happened to be the popular choice for the past 44 yrs. That popularity is diminishing and growing weak. PAP does not need to reinvent itself as that will only go against the tide. Riding the tide means accepting change and also staying grounded.
By the way, if the PAP were to address all outstanding issues and act to appease public anxiety, will we still vote for them? I believe we will. Singapore is a democracy and the public will vote for the party which appeal to them. For PAP and all opposition parties, stay grounded and relevant with your ideas. After all, you’re looking after Singaporean’s interest.
plopp
@ 16) Muhamad Nur
Strongly agreed. The entire question “Is Singapore = PAP?” is a laughable product of our depoliticisation since independence.
I think if we have intelligent and not-opportunistic opposition members, who are sincerely intending to work for Singapore’s future [and against others of their ilk who only want to be rabblerousers] then there is no need to painfully try changing the PAP from within. Although it does offer more immediate reach into government, but it’s a democratically thwarted way.
Intelligent people shouldn’t waste talents on futility?
YODI
To your question as to why the 4th prime minister wont be from the present cabinet. The answer is very simple. It’s going to be HO CHING! And then there will be I PM, 2 SM,2 MM, and I SMM– senior minister mentor and your guess is as good as mine who it is going to be, I mean the SMM.
It’s the PAP tradition of merit given for loyal service. But you forgot we also have 1 president who is the key keeper of our nations whealth and he is also in essence part and parcel of the PAP government!
David
Is Singapore = PAP? To find the answer swift and fast requires only two years from now. Vote in the opposition into power, and watch how LKY react. It is either now or never if we don’t dig out the truth if given a choice and opportunity very soon.
Andrew Chuah
25/10/09
We already have world class Civil Service (at par with Hongkong, Taiwan, Japan, South Korea, Australia, New Zealand) and they are doing a very good job since our Independence and I salute them, and on the other hand, we don’t need those PAP Elites ie Ministers and MPs, who have not lived up to the expectations of Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew and I wonder why (even our former PM Goh Chok Tong was not his first choice, Tony Tan was his first choice), and I can live with the fact that these Elites-Ministers and MPs are being paid very high salaries, not a big issue for me and should one day the Singapore Opposition is able to form the Government of the day, they must not change this and I firmly believed with such high salaries, no reasons for them to be corrupt like those we see in Malaysia inparticular the MCA President was accussed of taking Rm10million from a businessman who is also a MP (same party in the BN coalition government).
We must continue to maintain our world class Civil Service and be proud of our Civil Servants who are the ones who made what Singapore is today ie Modern Singapore. Ministers come and go, and majority are for so called PR and ceremonial purposes (inshort just to show face or attend this function or that function).
Regards
Andrew Chuah
Order of the Clown
did any of these do the hip hop that time?
are these the so-called post65′ers?
oxymorsong
“Thankfully, three other political science academics were hastily invited at the last minute (perhaps after widespread student disapproval of KRMF’s panel selections), to balance out the otherwise pro-PAP discussion.
”
does this mean that the ‘three other political science academics’ are not pro-PAP?
leesjuanpat
Why are such forums only for the elites and PAP stalwarts. Ordinary articulate members of the public who are well-informed should be able to participate. This will reflect a stronger sentiment from ground level.
With 3 third generation MPs on the panel, though they spoke their mind, is still deemed partisan. Teo Ser Luck is frank and relates well on his level. He has charisma. Zaqy Mohammed tried to redeem himself after the ‘credible’ fiasco on our
MSM ranking at 133. Chris De Souza echoed well. He needs to stand on his own feet.
TOC, in its present platform will do well to inform netizens any oncoming forums to keep us connected to volunteer and paricipate in the process.
Peoples Arrogant Party
##19) David on October 25th, 2009 4.51 pm
“Is Singapore = PAP? To find the answer swift and fast requires only two years from now. Vote in the opposition into power, and watch how LKY react. It is either now or never if we don’t dig out the truth if given a choice and opportunity very soon.”
The Old Man 86 years old.
He has a weak heart.
I don’t think he can stand any excitement or stress.
We know for sure we can’t change history even if we send Angela Jolie to his bedroom.
It is not necessary for the Opposition to come into power.
If the Opposition can deny the PAP a 2/3 majority in the next GE, most of us will be doubly happy.
… as the Singapore flag will be flying at half mast.
gongkia
Why did the PAP allow such a forum to take place in the first place? Arnt they worried that some sensitive questions may be asked and put their young MPs in a difficult position?
Did the young MPs take the wrong medicine to be so bold as to attend such a forum?
#24) Peoples Arrogant Party
‘If the Opposition can deny the PAP a 2/3 majority in the next GE, most of us will be doubly happy.’
……………………………………………………………………
…….and then the old man would rise from his grave as promised………..
Wah sup
Anyone who join the PAP does not believe in debate and alternative voices. It have proven that PAP believe that dictatorship is the only way to nation success even with the hardwork from many non PAP. What else can we say.
don
oxymorsong
I attended the forum in my personal capacity
Whilst their affiliation cannot be ascertained, I can say that two of them were obviously giving very quality and sound rebuttals and questions to the PAP MPs. I wouldnt name names, but both of them posed very difficult but good questions and were definitely. Definitely not pro-pap. In fact one of the MPs said something in defence of the ISA and operation cold store, and one of the 2 academics swiftly rebutted him in a very cogent way.
CHeers
JW
Andrew Chuah at #11
Pity that Chuah likes to play the racist card.
Similar mentality to PAP leaders who accused Tang LH of being “anti-Christian”‘ but then, the PAP government recently found 2 zealous Christians guilty of sedition.
Their “crime”? —- distributing tracts for proselyting.
Some hypocrisy.
jo
Robox,
Your comments are very interesting. Would be looking forward to it materialising.
all singaporeans
foreigners pay more taxes and levy than singaporeans and siingaporeans should be thankful to foreigners? oh really??
singaporeans:
1) pay high income tax
2) pay high property tax
3)pay high gst
4)pay high town counsil
5)pay high SP bills
6)pay high transportation fare
7)pay high medical fee
singaporeans are force to accept lower paid jobs
so this is what basically singaporeans are paying for the rest of their life and with low income how do you expect singaporeans to have even a small amount of savings for the future to retire old age?
or is there a retire for us singaporeans? we don’t see that yet.
the pap and the goverment have made a way that singaporeans are to earn within the limit as not to allow us to have savings and our saving is in the hand of the goverment and it is up to them if they wish to give it to us or to pocket in the own banks.
with low income and no savings..singaporeans are merely a slave working harder and harder each day to survive and what we earn are basically not ours, we only see the digits of our pay but do we really own it? NO!!
this is to contain singaporeans in this country as not to allowed any of us lower income earn to flee the country. the goverment knows well what it would be is one singaporeans were to give enough money and savings.., resulting them not wanting to live in singapore and flee away. why is this so? ask the goverment!!
so this is why poor singaporeans have no choice but to accept the indirectly of human slavery and torture and to let us live in pain despite knowing that we are suffering they simply doesn’t care as all this long in their mind is….WHICH SINGAPOREANS DARE TO VOICE UP?? the answer is NONE!!
vote after vote singaporeans blindly give in and hoping the goverment will pity and the old folks and the child to help them come up in live and feel the life they dreaming to live in. but the goverment simply do not have this time for us singaporeans
all their concern is:
you work you pay us
you sick you pay us
you want a house a place of shelter you pay us
you want help? sorry goverment has no money for us singaporeans
this is what will happen if singaporeans keep voting for them and they think we fear them
singaporeans think opposition will make our life more worst.
so are our life now any good? NO!!
as lky says..look at singapore now..yes singapore is beautiful!! with casino,F1 track, hotels,lots and lots of tourist attractions,lots and lots of entertainment for tourist
and what is singaporeans citizen getting out of all this? nothing. we have to keep sweating out daily to support and give the goverment the money they need to make more of this to attract tourist, foreigner working here and to give them support and welcome them with an open heart and help them even to land here with a high paying jobs and living in luxuries properties.
we singaporeans are carrying their loads.
ukrain in the ns?well…why not put the whole china national ,indian ,vietnamese ,japanese, korean and more.. into our army? must as well call in osama bin laden to join our army too as things would be easy for singapore to be destroy in any country finger tips. is this what we call defending our country?
STUPID LEE KUAN YEW!! you are exposing our country to disaster and open our country and selling piace by piece to foreign landing here. is this the promise you made for us singaporeans to vote you for the past 50years??!!
WE WILL VOTE YOU OUT THIS TIME AND WOULD NOT CONSIDER OVER YOUR GOODIES BAGS!!
all singaporeans
maybe when lee kuan yew die they will made a robot chip install into him to keep him alive again. maybe he will seek china for that and label lee kuan yew made from china. lol
vote them out!!
TOC reader
36) ace on October 26th, 2009 5.57 am
I believe P65 is more suited for discerning readers like yurself.
Bye.
complain
I just notices one thing in SIngapore. All workers in Singapore is working their butt off. Yet our Union leader like Lim Swee Say, Lim Boon Heng, Gan Kim Yong, etc are all multi millionaires.
Are they really looking after our welfare? Or their wealth fair?
New Era
Great article!
What I found extremely disturbing, as mentioned, was there were no opposition MPs or opposition party members invited. I am sure they would have loved the chance to debate our young PAP MPs.
But I suppose a debate was not what the MIW wanted. The Political Science Society wasted another opportunity to provide its members with a fair and balance account from both side of the political divide here.
Just as the Kent Ridge Ministerial Forum organised by the same society, it was only a platform for the PAP to spew its propaganda. Singaporeans would not be wrong to assume that The Political Science Society of NUS was filled with Young PAP members.
http://theonlinecitizen.com/2007/09/pm-lee-at-nus-wheres-the-substance/
The Political Science Society must show itself to be impartial or it will lose all creditbility.
Fortune-teller
I wonder why we can only see this type of sanitized forums organised to discuss about political issues…… When can we have a proper debate between the PAP and AP members for us the people to see and judge?
dt-spankz
Actually I would see this forum as a baby step. Yes, no opposition MPs this time. But com on, at least there are some neutral academics who provide opposing and critical views right? Can you guys just be more encouraging and let the society move progress gradually? From what i know about the society, this is so far their first event of such a scale.
In the future, even if the Society did manage to invite opposition MPs along, I am sure there wil be people to bash the forum on other aspects. If we Singaporeans as so unforgiving towards political progress, trying to crush any baby steps, how are we ever going to move towards an all embracing open society that some of the critics themselves look forward to?
I would be super keen indeed to begin bashing on NUS and the forum, and even if the young MPs get thrown shoes or molotov cocktails during the forum, I would say it’s all stage managed. Com on, when will all these hatred end? Until the day when Singapore is totally in Chaos? When the day people vote purely to see a change in government and perhaps to feel chaos…too pampered already right? itching to see some trouble happening to Singapore?
Peoples Arrogant Party
# 26) Edward on October 25th, 2009 10.03 pm
“…….and then the old man would rise from his grave as promised…”
Yeah. You are probably right.
The Old Vampire may rise from his grave..
But without the 2/3 majority, he would have lost his fangs and cannot suck our blood anymore.
He will nevertheless want to claim his monthly salary of S$ 290K / month.
Yeah, that’s right… don’t rub your eyes.
That’s how much our dear Old Dracula is costing taxpayers today.
Is it any wonder that he dosen’t want to retire ??
sighh
My friends and I attended the talk, and we thought “wow, Singapore is really opening up”.
TOC has made is open up our eyes.
Now that we know the NUS Political Science Society a stooge of the PAP, I wonder about the other student bodies. It is only a matter of time before TOC exposes NUS Student Union, as well as the SMU and NTU ones to be stooges of the PAP too!
Keep it up TOC! You’re the only credible source we can believe in nowadays!
Peoples Arrogant Party
## 26) Edward on October 25th, 2009 10.03 pm
Here’s another link to our PAP Ministers’ salaries…
Just in case our PAP-supporter friends start slamming us that we are the ones to blame for paying them high salaries.
Please note that they were the ones to give themselves a 60 p/c pay raise AFTER the last GE.
Don’t remember them telling us during the last GE that they were going to give themselves a 60 p/c pay increase. Did you ??
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/09/world/asia/09iht-sing.3.5200498.html?_r=1
Robox
tookie on October 25th, 2009 10.37 am:
1. Re: “…where is it said that the next PM will not be drawn from the current cabinet? This is not possible.”
This was announced sometime after National Day. (I think.)
But I agree wholeheartedly with your reasoning for why the PAP would not have someone with absolutely no political experience become PM on the first day on his/her political career. But we are overlooking one important factor here: Hsien Loong will continue as PM after the next election in 2010 or 2011.
I now go into flow chart mode:
1. There has been some speculation that it could be Teo Ser Luck who could be the one that they are grooming for the PM’s job. Given his sudden prominence recently, that could well be true. In that case, the fourth PM would in fact already have the political experience.
OR
2. If the fourth PM isn’t going to be drawn from the ranks of the current (younger) backbenchers which Teo Ser Luck is, there is still time to look outside the party for that Person of Prime Ministerial Calibre to stand in the next elections, after which Hsien Loong will still be PM and that person will gain political experience until Hsien Loong is ready to step down. (Though I could be wrong about this, hasn’t Hsien Loong already given himself 2017 as that year?
PS. I hated writing this post because I had to write as if a PAP victory is a fait accompli not only in the next election, but the one after that as well. But then again, didn’t a wise man once say that the outcome of every GE in Singapore is known even before the first ballot is cast?
Loyola
35,
PS Society isn’t filled with YMIW types.
theonlinecitizen
To sskl,
Your comments are disallowed for the moment until we have confirmation that you are indeed the President of the Political Science Society and the Deputy Director for the event, as you claimed.
Please email us at theonlinecitizen@gmail.com and identify your real name.
Also, if you’re who you say you are, please post with your real name.
Thanks.
Andrew Chuah
26/10/09
We who are posting our two cents worth are the so called barking minority whereas outside there are the silent majority who will cast their votes, comes every General Election.
Today, Singapore Opposition Parties are not united and only barking on small issues and not giving priorities to main issues, and are still looking for someone to lead, unite and head them and this chap must be a new modern Lee Kuan Yew or Anwar Ibrahim, or a combination of both, and must be able to stand up and better than the PAP and its Ministers and MPs, and able to look at much bigger issues (being credible but not an Elite who will never go to the grounds and the people or rakyat). Time has come for a more effective Opposition in Parliament ie we need more than 2 elected MPs and perhaps at least 6 to give the PAP and its Ministers and MPs, a good run for their money.
Bigger issues are like security which is very important and we must continue have good security in Singapore so that all Singaporeans can go to bed and sleep soundly and wake up fresh tomorrow and go to work and these include maintaining Death Penalty for Drugs Trafficking, Murder, amending the ISA to specifically to only being use on local and international terrorists and amending laws to protect local Singaporeans if possible jobs priority being given to them instead of Foreign Talents (what we have got are all the second and third class Foreign Talents) .
Time has come for a strong, effective and credible Opposition in Parliament and we are no longer in the Dark Ages where only Elites are important, we also need Ordinary Singaporeans especially local born who can reach out to the grounds and the rakyat besides giving the PAP and its Ministers and MPs a very good run for their monies. The Elites are already out of touch and this article simply show they only “wayang” as they have to toe the party line and in Parliament there is always the Party Whip.
Regards
Andrew Chuah
The Singapore Daily » Blog Archive » Daily SG: 26 Oct 2009
[...] Road to Perdition Election – The Kent Ridge Common: The candidate that does substantial damages at the polls – Die neue Welle: I am Singaporean Vol. 3, I – On Apathy – TOC: A peek into PAP politics – present and future [...]
hahaha
looks like Zaqy and TSL will kana from MM after this forum for speaking their minds albeit just a very small matter.
Not sure what will MM feels if there are so few in attendance…
lualeebodohkayu
yeap we should looked for an outsider to be the next prime minister
i would have voted the belated mrs ahmeng from mandai zoo
if mrs aquino a housewife can be the president of phillippines and that grandmother mrs lashimi or whatever can be the president of sri lanka
ahmeng cannot mey?
as though our prince is very capable of doin thinggies by himself…
well beside the twin IR casino biggies and the F1 onion dancin routines…
Shashikalah
(In response to Great Era)
I as the President of the Society and the Deputy Project Director of the Event would like to thank everyone for the comments. I do agree that oppositions could have been invited but we faced certain challenges doing that. Also, this is the 41st Executive Committee’s 1st major event of the year. We have taken this as a stepping step and have certainly learned a lot from it.
I am referring to Great Era’s comments in here. The Kent Ridge Ministeral Forum was NOT organised by the PS Society. It was organised by People’s Association, a different club to which we have no affiliation.
I do agree that we had YP people in our forum. We invited them as frens. We also had students/people from the other opposition parties. In the current exco, we have about 2 members who are from YP, And someone asked me if I belong to YP and if I would join it in the future. I am not from YP and I will not be joining it. The presence of a few YP members in no way makes the society partisan.
My main concern here is that by making it seem like a YP sponsored forum, the public is making the society seem as non-partisan when it is not. Also, credit is not given to the true sponsors. If sponsors are crucial, then credit should go to PS Department and Office of Alumni Relations.
Regards
Shashikalah
Kate
Just to clarify, this forum was organized by the NUS Political Science Society, but the KRMF was organized by the Political Association of NUS. These are in fact 2 separate student societies not related to one another – the Political Science Society is affiliated with the Political Science department of NUS, while the Political Association is an arm of the NUS Student Union.
Just clearing up a small detail here :)
Koh Rin Song
@Kate wrote: “These are in fact 2 separate student societies not related to one another – the Political Science Society is affiliated with the Political Science department of NUS, while the Political Association is an arm of the NUS Student Union.”
and the difference is …. ??
Kristie Juliani
don wrote : “. I wouldnt name names, but both of them posed very difficult but good questions and were definitely. Definitely not pro-pap.”
i suppose there is no video evidence to proof what is said?
Shashikalah
In response to Koh Rin Song:
The difference is the Political Science Society (PSSOC) is non-partisan and is self-funded while the other is otherwise. The PSSOC only organises events for educational purposes. Its activities are to boost the interest of the PS majors and those who have a keen interest in PS. It also believes in creating opportunities and platforms for student discussions that will allow students to learn and benefit.
Confused or doublespeak
Shashikalah,
You seem to be either contradicting yourself or you’re not aware of what you are saying even as you say it.
In post #49, you said:
“The presence of a few YP members in no way makes the society partisan.”
And in post #53, you reiterated:
“The difference is the Political Science Society (PSSOC) is non-partisan …”
But in the later part of post #49, you said:
“My main concern here is that by making it seem like a YP sponsored forum, the public is making the society seem as non-partisan when it is not.“
So, you have admitted that your society is NOT non-partisan.
Thank you.
Confused or doublespeak
Shashikalah says:
“The presence of a few YP members in no way makes the society partisan.”
Incredible. I think this is what you call burying your head in the sand. I’d like to see your society have WP or SDP members on it and you tell the PAP that it is not partisan.
Lets not be naive or engage in rhetorical or semantical spin. It just makes you look ridiculous.
Julian Ho (Treasurer)
Just a polite clarification to the article:
The krmf was not organized by the Political Science Society, it was organized by the Political Association. In NUS, there are 3 politically inclined associations, namely, the Political Association, the Political Science Society and the Democratic Socialist Club, all three associations are by no means related to each other. Just like Liverpool and Man Utd are football teams with no mutual love for each other, so too with the 3 associations in NUS.
As for partisanship, the PS Society serves as a bridge between the PS majors in the school and the department, our main purpose is to help students do well, like how a history club or geography club would help their students to do well. We have no political leanings to the left or right, conservative or liberal. individual members might have their own views on politics in Singapore, but the society as a whole, we have no such biases. We seek not to promote the agendas of either the opposition or the PAP. in light of the policy forum, this might seemed contradictory with the panelist being mostly from the PAP, however, we have tried to balance this out with academics who, to those who actually attended the forum, would find helpful and prove to be rather insightful and neutral. Call us whatever you want, but as i have said, we serve not to promote any form of propaganda for the incumbent party, or the opposition.
dt-spankz
i really wonder why everyone is trying to force a good-willed society trying to raise political awareness/education amongst students into a position which it is not?
is this the collective wisdom of a mob? pls read post #37 from me above.
why is everyone taking their furstrations out on a neutral and innocent organiser of events? is that even fair? will bystanders be even willing to be involved in politics in the future? now i know why singaporean youths are so apathetic.
james
perhaps the PSSOC would consider inviting opposition MPs for their next forum to hear from another point of view. also the hawking of the MIW book makes the non-partisan credentials of the society rather suspect in my opinion.
just my two cents worth, otherwise thanks for organinsing this event and all the best to the 41st EXCO.
Shashikalah
In Response to:Confused or doublespeak on October 26th, 2009 1.48 pm
(Shashikalah,
You seem to be either contradicting yourself or you’re not aware of what you are saying even as you say it.
In post #49, you said:
“The presence of a few YP members in no way makes the society partisan.”
And in post #53, you reiterated:
“The difference is the Political Science Society (PSSOC) is non-partisan …”
But in the later part of post #49, you said:
“My main concern here is that by making it seem like a YP sponsored forum, the public is making the society seem as non-partisan when it is not.“
So, you have admitted that your society is NOT non-partisan)
Typo error on my part. The presence of 2 YP members in the exco and the presence of a few YP members in the audience does not make the Society partisan. I assert again that the society is non-partisan.
andrew leung
49) Shashikalah on October 26th, 2009 12.26 pm
(In response to Great Era)
“I as the President of the Society and the Deputy Project Director of the Event would like to thank everyone for the comments. I do agree that oppositions could have been invited but we faced certain challenges doing that. Also, this is the 41st Executive Committee’s 1st major event of the year. We have taken this as a stepping step and have certainly learned a lot from it.”
Dear Shashikalah,
What were the challenges that you faced when you tried to invite the opposition party members.
Shashikalah
In response to Confused or doublespeak on October 26th, 2009 1.51 pm
The Singapore Forum on Politics that the society organised 2 years back had oppositions in it. That thus shows you that the society is non-partisan. Like what I have said, this is the 1st major event of the 41st Exco. We took this as a learning experience. Future forums organised by this exco will have oppositions.
Shashikalah
Dear Andrew
I think this is getting too personal and I believe the society has the right to not reveal our internal administration issues, such as challenges faced with event planning, to people outside the school . Thanks.
Shihan
Dear Shashi,
I have contacted Dr. Nardin and the PS administrative staff. They will be issuing a statement soon.
You have the right not to reveal your internal administrative issues, but it begs the question of what is there to hide.
Shashikalah
I think it is ridiculous to say that the Society is partisan with just this one event. A student from NUS who has close links with the society and any administrator within the university knows the truth. I would suppose that it is advisable to look at the society’s past events before you come to a conclusion. I have been in the society for the past 3 years and these are the things we have organised: Singapore Model United Nations, PS11o1E Crashcourse which are our flagship events. We had Singapore forum on Politics which was co-organised with the department had opposition leaders, Myanmar Panel Discussion, Landmines in Cambodia panel discussion, Stand Up Against Poverty panel discussion. This was the 1st attempt of the society in organising a large-scaled forum solely. I and others from my exco have done our part in making things clear to the public. It is up to you guys who criticised us to make the decision whether the society is partisan or not. But one thing that the society will continue doing is continue coming with more educational events. However, if you guys do not see any future large scale forums from non-partisan groups in NUS, I think you know why. Being critical is fine but talking without knowing the truth is bad.
Shashikalah
Dear Shihan
I have already told you the challenges we faced. If I were to start revealing these issues to the public (meaning people who are not connected to University at all. You are our senior after all), I have to have more personal questions that may not be appropriate. Thanks.
Shashikalah
Dear Shihan
Sorry for the typo error. If I were to entertain personal questions now, there could be more personal and inappropriate questions. Thanks for contacting the PS department.
Straight Talker
Hi Shashikalah and PSSOC,
I applaud your exco for organising the forum.But there was hawking of the MIW book.There was even an autograph session.Until the Exco organises another forum telling the story of the Opposition, the NUS Political Science Department and the various gambits will continue to come across as derivatives of the PAP.
What are the ‘challenges’ you faced in inviting players from the opposition? Were they invited or was this a decision made by the Exco not to invite them or was there pressure from the Board of Governors,Union,Academia and Staff?
Two members of your exco are YPAP members.Are there any ordinary members in your political club from any of the other opposition youth wings?Anyone from WP,SDP,NSP,SPP,RP?
You are the Deputy Project Director of the Event.Is the Project Director of the Event Kimberly Trump?
What is Kimberly Trump’s role in the exco? She is a YPAP member and so is Abner Koh.What is Abner Koh’s role in this event?There is a huge YPAP presence in both the PSS and PA.Is the DSC inundated with YPAP members as well?
The society may have been non-partisan in the past.Can you elaborate more on this political forum with the opposition that the previous Exco organised in 2007?
Is the current Exco leaning towards the PAP?This was like a plug for the MIW book.Was it sold at the forum?Why were the academics not advertised as panelists?Was this because of the backlash from the stage managed Kent Ridge Forum?
Shashikalah, we are looking to you as President to be impartial about politics in Singapore.Higher Institutes of Learning in Singapore are several generations behind their western counterparts in these aspects.If NUS truly wants to be a globally recognised university and be accepted among its peers, it has to open up.
We are living in the 21st Century not the ‘communist infested’ 60’s.Surely we can move forward?
It is preposterous that Opposition parties are not welcomed in Higher Institutes of Learning in Singapore.
What are the ‘challenges’ you faced? Maybe I should send my kids abroad if they are bound to be restricted and ‘challenged’ in their search for true knowledge.I am even more concerned about the curriculum and course of study.
Confused or doublespeak
Shashikalah,
I forgive your freudian slip. ;)
Be that as it may, your assertion that 2 years ago opposition members were invited does nothing to dispell the partisanship of your society.
Are you telling us all that actually took place? My advice to you would be to either make sure you get your facts right, or make sure you know exactly what went on in the organising of the event.
You say that for future forums, the opposition will be invited. I would instead require more than that – that the opposition will be invited without the PAP being invited as well. It’s the same as you’ve done for the recent forum.
Now, until we see that, your claims are just that – claims.
Janice Ong
67)straight talker, “the current Exco leaning towards the PAP?”, TOC is a Reform Party website isn’t it ? Why didn’t TOC do 2 articles on WP ? We were invited to a forum organized by the past exco of PSS some years ago. We thank PSS’s past exco for giving opposition like ours a chance to engage the students. There were no other plaftorms then to attract more than 300 students btu you gave us our break.
“What are the ‘challenges’ you faced? Maybe I should send my kids abroad if they are bound to be restricted and ‘challenged’ in their search for true knowledge.I am even more concerned about the curriculum and course of study. ” If you are really a father, I would suggest you don’t just send your kids abroad, but you should also migrate with them and leave this place for good.
Shashikalah, i don’t know you. But your predecessor has certainly done their part for the opposition. It is up to you.
Confused or doublespeak
As for the claim of non-partisanship of your society, which has 2 YP members on it, one really wonders if you’d thought through the implications and public perception of this – as President of your society.
Can you tell us if this was a concern for you? And did you try to invite opposition members to your society?
Julian Ho (Treasurer)
i do think this is getting out of hand. We are merely students, and i repeat, FULL time students who took a little time out from our busy schedules to organize an event for people to raise their questions, be it to PAP leaders or what have you. You have all misconstrued our intentions. MIW was itself supposed to be a non political book detailing the rise of a political party. We admit that we did fall short of the ideal of holding a truly democratic forum with equal number of oppositions, reporters, and add in some singers, dancers for pre and post forum entertainment, but i reiterate my point, that we are students with a limited budget and time to plan this event. We will take into consideration all your suggestions. A formal statement will soon be issued by our department. However this experience has definitely put our committee off in organizing any future forums.
Khairulanwar Zaini
There is a difference between alleging that the NUSPS Society is partisan, and asserting that the forum was framed in a suspiciously partisan manner. The latter is valid, and I believe that was the charge that Shihan made. Concerns can be fairly raised about the partisan nature of the forum without having to bring into doubt the non-partisan nature of the society.
However, this exchange unnecessarily elevates the function of the PS Society – at the exclusion of the core substantive debate itself. Whatever the premises of the forum, we are missing the tangible issues at hand merely for the sake of trying to establish the non-partisan nature of a university society.
Terrified
Kent Ridge Ministerial Forum is like local TV drama full of censorship, predictable and bored to death. Students who were invited to such forum would rather sit in front of TV station and watch local wayang and munch some potatoe chips or be a crouched potato like those in the forum.
Online Shmonline
While judges must not only be impartial but be seen to be impartial, I’m amused by Shashikalah’s response that one event does not an organisation make. Generally, this may be true. However, in the Singapore context where we are full of self-censorship and complicit compliance, you must understand how your views on this page and your organization now appear to be. You may not have intended it but the final result is what we will look at, not what you wanted it to be.
While I can identify with your implied earnestness in wanting to do something to benefit PS students rather than nothing, these are interesting times we live in. The resentment felt on the ground and in many hearts is being translated into the many questions, rebuttals and put-downs you are finding on this page. Don’t take it to heart if you are sincere in your attempts to provide an impartial platform (however that goal is perceived). I’m sure that you will either succeed or you will discover the latent inertia experienced by anyone trying to push for anything which may not be in the PAP’s “best” interests.
However, I can assure you that, with the increased coverage and resources of non-MSM news services and forum pages covering our local scenes of interest, any hypocrisy on your part will most probably come out. If this happens, you may be treated to the same response felt by the boy who threw that red beach ball onto the soccer pitch during an EPL match recently.
I wish you the best of luck and look forward to events where members of the public would received sufficient notice and opportunity to attend.
Cheers!
Shashikalah
Response to Confused or doublespeak :
I think you have failed to understand how student socities work. The membership to any society is based purely in interest. Political Science is a discipline and we study issues related to politics. We are not groomed to be future politicians etc. As such, the NUS Political Science Society serves to boost the discipline and to improve the welfare of the students. A person who is interested in Political Science may be interested in PAP. There is no direct relationship between these two. Likewise, a student who is interested in PS may be interested in WP for example.
The private life if my exco members or the general members is not a concern here. What I am interested in is whether we can work together in doing some good for the PS majors. The forum was organised solely for educational purpose and the private life of the 2 exco members was not necessary in this. The society welcomes people from the opposition young peoples’ group to join us if there are none amongst us. We dont care about their political orientation.
Online Shmonline
@ 72) Julian Ho (Treasurer) on October 26th, 2009 5.22 pm
Hi Julian,
Please don’t be discouraged. If Sim Wong Hoo was put off everytime he met a government stooge who practiced NUTS (No U-Turn Syndrome), he’d have never come up with Creative Technologies.
As I wrote earlier, what you’re experiencing (unfortunately) is the result of repression of uncensored views and the mindset that is fighting to be heard. This same mindset is definitely tired of all things PAP, YP, elitist, millionaire ministerial and ‘Yes-Man’kind.
Work hard, keep thinking and never accept what you are given. Do try to arrange more events. Give the opportunity to grow your mind along with the credibility people will have for your political analysis, which will only grow when exposed to all aspects of the political spectrum.
PS – you said, “MIW was itself supposed to be a non political book detailing the rise of a political party. ” I have yet to come across any political book written by the people who can be impartial about the subject matter when the book would not have been printed otherwise. As I indicated earlier, what it was supposed to be and what it is are two different things. You’ll have to learn this differentiation quickly if you want to do well in political studies. Otherwise you’ll just be learning history.
Cheers!
dt-spankz
Julian, pls do not be disheartened. Political work is hard and arduous. It is not about sitting behind PCs and criticising without any action. In history and other countries, people actually die for politics.
Your society’s effort is admirable. I agree that what you guys done may allow opportunities for critics to accuse you of non-partisan, but personally I believe in being accomodating and encouraging to anything which raises political awareness. Please check my previous postings. Please, can we give these students a break? It’s a good step forward and yet so many people can’t wait to crush it.
Most imptly, your society has to exhibit the intention and concrete steps of organising more non-partisan forums inviting opposition members. i guess only actions can appease the critics, albeit momentarily.
In conclusion, just be prepared to tread the path with perseverence and courage when you get involved in politics. There’s bound to be persecution involved, no matter how perfect you may appear.
Confused or doublespeak
Julian Ho (#72) said:
“We are merely students, and i repeat, FULL time students who took a little time out from our busy schedules …”
Wow. That’s laying it on a bit thick, don’t you think? Students with “busy schedules”. You want we should all kneel down and kowtow to you in gratitude? One forum and your ego has already expanded, I see.
But back to the issue.
You were so busy that you only had time to invite not one, not two, but three PAP MPs to be on the panel? That’s really stretching credibility. I’d have thought that anyone wanting to have a truly non-partisan (or more accurately, multi-partisan) forum, would have invited say, one PAP MP, and leave the other two seats for members of other political parties.
Wouldn’t that be the sensible thing to do – if one were truly non-partisan?
So, I ask again: What went on behind the scenes? What were the considerations? And why were the academics only brought in at the last minute, according to Shihan’s report. This point is not disputed by Shashikalah or Julian.
Why were the academics only brought in at the last minute? And were students put-off by the partisan forum panel – hence the low turnout?
So, what’s going on? Smokescreen in action???
Confused or doublespeak
Shashikalah (#76),
” We dont care about their political orientation.”
Really? your action seems to contradict what you are saying.
Straight Talker
Hi Julian Ho (Treasurer) and PSSOC,
I would recommend that you do not organise future events with ’some singers, dancers for pre and post forum entertainment’.We are not looking for Singapore’s next Political Idol.This is serious business.
It’s been 30 years since the PAP has shared a platform with the Opposition Parties outside of parliament.There are no televised debates, joint forums,etc.
There is a certain lack of academic maturity of the department if they do not encourage discourse of a different view.This is troubling.It’s the Social Sciences.
The turnout for the forum was poor.That speaks volumes.Why attend when there are no new insights.The youth of today want to know what is in store for the future and not dwell on past success.
They need reaffirmance that their future lies in Singapore.I need reaffirmance that NUS is a world class institution.That its’ political science department is the best in this part of the world.
It’s disappointing to hear from you that ‘this experience has definitely put our (your) committee off in organizing any future forums’.
Why has it put you off?You will organize more events in the foreseeable future.Be it a dinner and dance at your future employers or a team building getaway.If that does not work to plan, are you going to just quit?
Or refine it and make it better?
Julian, we are living in different times from our parents.A lot is expected of us and you in society and the workplace.
They want us to be Cheaper,Better and Faster.
In return, we expect more from our leaders and the PAP.The PAP has to make Singapore an inclusive society.That means giving a platform for people who do not espouse similar beliefs.
Poster Janice had the audacity to suggest that I migrate.And I am not surprised why Singapore has the highest emigration rates among local borns in the world.It’s either the PAP or no way.
How do you build a nation then?
Confused or doublespeak
You guys come in here making accusations about TOC publishing a false report, then demanding an apology and then boasting about having “busy schedules”.
So, Shahikalah, yes political science students may not neccessarily be in interested in partisan politics. With your attitudes, I should hope not.
The important thing here is this: When you were organising the forum, did the question of inviting opposition members ever come up? If not, why not? Isn’t it an obvious question anyone would ask – let alone political science students whom, I presume, aren’t stupid?
And if so, why was the decision, apparently taken, not to invite them?
What were the reasons?
Who brought up the issue, if the issue was indeed brought up?
These are questions which answers will let us know if you’re truly as non-partisan as you claim to be.
So, what is it? Which is which?
Online Shmonline
Just in case anyone was curious about NUTS.
http://gameysf.wordpress.com/2006/08/15/what-is-nuts-by-mr-sim-wong-hoo-ceo-of-creative-technology/
Confused or doublespeak
One organisation in NUS selectively chooses questions for MM Lee to answer.
Another organisation in MUS selectively chooses PAP MPs to be on the panel for a forum.
Trying to distance one organisation from the other, really, is missing the woods for the trees.
Straight Talker
Hi PSSOC,
Is the Project Director of the Event Kimberly Trump?
What is Kimberly Trump’s role in the exco? She is a YPAP member and so is Abner Koh.What is Abner Koh’s role in this event? They have organised events for YPAP and have experience.
Did Kimberly Trump moot for the organisation of this event?
Who was Project Director of the Kent Ridge Forum Event? How many of the Exco in the Political Association are YPAP members?
Are there similar political clubs in NTU,SMU and SIM?What are they?
Confused or doublespeak
And oh, by the way, spare me the lame defence of Men In White being a non-partisan, non-political book. For goodness’ sake, you guys are suppose to be the cream of the crop, intelligent people, from a premier tertiary institution (well, some would disagree on this but you get my drift.)
For your benefit, lets recall who worked on the MIW book and who the publisher is:
1. “Commissioned and published by SPH (Singapore Press Holding)”
2. “Men in White … [project was] headed by former SPH editor-in-chief Cheong Yip Seng, and subsequently, after Mr Cheong’s retirement, by Straits Times editor Han Fook Kwang.
The book was written by three Straits Times journalists, Sonny Yap, Richard Lim and Leong Weng Kam …
And oh, SPH is headed by former deputy prime minister, Tony Tan.
And of course, owned by Temasek Holdings.
Come on, guys. You guys are suppose to be political science students and suppose to be intelligent university students.
Now, please don’t assume we are all as dumb as you are.
Hello Miss Shashikalah,
From your name i can tell that your ancestors came from India, the largest functioning democracy in the world. Therefore IMHO you have much higher standards to adhere to. Being the president of this society and the organiser of this event you have to be very fair and impartial to remain relevant.
You might be surrounded by PAPies in your PS society, but you have to move forward like your ancestors (Gandhi, Nehru, Buddha) — fearlessly.
Straight Talker
Thanks Shihan for covering the event.
I would like to know whether the Opposition Youth Groups were actually invited for this event.Could TOC clarify this? I am also disturbed that the YPAP initially was willing to sponsor the food and refreshments for this event.
The tact of the academics were the saving graces for the YPAP.If an NMP was invited to be on the panel, why not an ordinary member of the opposition? Or political detainees from Operation Coldstore and Operation Spectrum?
Was this event open to the public?Didn’t the organisers ask attendees to bring their matriculation cards and NRIC?Was this event advertised outside of the NUS PS and YPAP sphere? Was TOC or Temasek Review notified? How about Singapore Press Holdings benchmarks XiaXue or Stomp?
I have an inkling feeling that the PAP is desperate to engage the university students as this is their vote bank for the coming elections.Have they actually tried to engage the public in a Q&A?
Why is it only the students (18-25 years old) are allowed to address the PAP?Why not TAX PAYING adults?
You don’t see the PAP hosting events for young adults or Singaporeans in their 30s to 50s.Are they afraid to answer questions if it is not stage managed?It is easy to manipulate people who have not worked.Soon these road shows will only be accessible to Secondary School Students.
And if and when Secondary Students get bold, the PAP will only engage Primary School students.
Democracy is truly dead in Singapore.And the Political Science Faculty exacerbates the situation.
XiiAoGeNgEnX
Hi everyone, I hope the time for bashing the PSSoc is over. Come on, they’re a bunch of students who are the exception of the new generation. They are committed to being politically active, and contributing to grassroots activities to help the citizens of Singapore.
I don’t think it’s reasonable and fair to demand that for every event, there should be an exact mirror. (one Opposition for every PAP present) Neither is it reasonable to expect full disclosure from any organization on the political leanings of all their members, as this is a private affair.
My encouragement to the PSSoc is this: Do take this series of attacks in your stride. All political parties will experience criticisms, and some of them might be unfair. Perhaps now your Political Science majors understand a bit more about what Singapore politicians and public figures have to go through.
Loyola
88,
If a society chooses to have an invite-only event, there’s nothing wrong with it. If a society chooses to organise an event for a specific audience in mind, there’s also nothing wrong with it.
Confused or doublespeak
A statement from PSS at last. See? TOC is not biased or unfair. It has published the PSS statement in full (with grammar mistakes included ad verbatiim!!)
But Shashikalah, I have to say you’re talking through both sides of your mouth. I would point out all the holes in your statement but I will spare you the embarassment and point out just one. The most glaring, obvious one.
You said, in your statement:
“Young PAP was invited to participate as audience…”
HARLOW! WAKEY WAKEY!! KNOCK KNOCK, ANYBODY THERE???
You had THREE Young PAP members as PANELLISTS!!!!
So, obviously and contrary to what you said, the Young PAP was invited not just as audience!!
Oh dear oh dear….
Confused or doublespeak
And Shashikalah, your statement answers none of the important questions, such as:
When you were organising the forum, did the question of inviting opposition members ever come up? If not, why not? Isn’t it an obvious question anyone would ask – let alone political science students whom, I presume, aren’t stupid?
And if so, why was the decision, apparently taken, not to invite them?
What were the reasons?
Who brought up the issue, if the issue was indeed brought up?
These are questions which answers will let us know if you’re truly as non-partisan as you claim to be.
So, what is it? Which is which?
Stage Managed Part 2
There is this forum.The Kent Ridge Forum.Even the Charlie Rose interview is susceptible.Stage managing,propoganda and living in denial.
The Grassroots Advisers and the Lift Upgrading Program.The rising price of Public Housing.The PR vs FT debate.The MULTI BILLION DOLLARS LOSS of Temasek and GIC. Sheng Siong and the Wet Markets.Cheaper,Better and Faster.Terrorist limping away.
How they tried to smoke one and all with Ris Low.Look at the papers, its 70% advertisements.Even the TV shows are mindnumbing.Polo Boys,Phua Chu Kang.They are trying to dumb down Singaporeans and distract them from the real issues.They are trying to obfuscate their failures.
POLITICS OF DISTRACTION
Looks like the PAP is in damage control.The SPH media is working overtime.Front page is a football result.Trying to placate the Starhub to Singtel switch.Western Adventure Park connector, cycle in polluted weather or boost HDB prices?Always about trade and climate change in Regional Summits.
Reminding Singaporeans that the Opposition in Malaysia is failing.There is more commentary on the failings in Malaysia than the ineptness of the PAP.Story about Cable Cars.Asking people to go to the Buddhist Free Clinic instead.Why not Government Subsidised Hospitals and Polyclinics?
Donaldson
It is good that the academics stepped in to de-politicise the forum. Since the forum is no longer a political event, please stop mudslinging the PSSOC.
What is deemed too little by the pro-Opposition crowd is deemed too much by the pro-PAP crowd. Damn if you do, damn if you don’t.
Loyola
95,
questioning the statement is not what your initial aim was.. wasn’t it..
anyway, donaldson summed it up very well..
Confused or doublespeak
I think the president of the society should be more than able to handle such queries.
So, there is no need to lend her your skirts to hide under.
Confused or doublespeak
98),
Of course not. Simply because the statement wasn’t issues then.
DUH!!
Confused or doublespeak
Excuse the typo. (“issued”, not “issues”)
There were no statements for me to question then.
Doubel DUH!!
Shashikalah
I would like to thank everyone who has supported the society a big thanks. Now that the statement is out, you guys know the truth regarding the event. The whole issue seems like you guys just used us as a scapegoat to vent your frustrations. However, I feel that it is inappropriate to call us dumb, stupid and such without knowing things properly. Also, questions regarding the planning, the people involved etc is certainly rather personal. Some of the questions are just repeated again and again. It is inappropriate and rather irritating to keep answering the same questions over and over again.
I have always been proud to be a Singaporean but now, I am rethinking. If you were to look at the topic, it reflects the interest of the common people- people like you and I. Is Singapore=PAP? was chosen as many including I feel that PAP’s hegemony is overwhelming. We had an open discussion to allow the public and student mass to question the MPs and challenge them. You guys were to serve as the oppositions. Instead, we have been criticised with no concrete evidences and were even talked badly. All these type of comments are disgusting and stressful.
This is the last comment from the Society. We will not entertain anymore more criticisms and comments.
Shihan
I thought the forum went rather well in fact. Though the young PAP representatives stuck to the party line most of the time, the academics balanced it out. I remember Dr. Wong being vehemently opposed to the GRC system, because it didn’t make for fair political competition.
Also, I would urge readers not to condemn NUS or the political science students in general as there are numerous other societies doing good work.
Let’s look forward to the next event organised by the society. Who knows, they might make it an all-opposition + NMP event. ;-)
Confused or doublespeak
Shashikalah,
Unfortunately, that’s the kind of response which we would expect from the PAP – “This is my view, I have been through a lot, and I am answered all questions and will not entertain further questions.”
In short, a cop-out.
You have not answered any of my questions at all.
Sad to see PAP-type behaviour from tertiary students. SIGH. S.I.G.H.
Andrew Chuah
26/10/09
Hi JW-Noted your posting #30. I don’t play the racial card and as I said, we who are posting our two cents worth, are the “barking” minority and the silent majority are the ones who will play the racial cards especially the majority Singaporean Chinese. The conviction of the Christian couple is justified as they failed to respect the religious belief of other races and all religions teace us good things regards of Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Hindusim, Taoisim etc. A very good example is my former only brother whom I cut all ties, is a member of international drugs syndicate who made millions and donating millions to his church yearly and to me this is bullshit and two days ago, I blasted both my parents who -,justified his action and my dad who is also a Christian pastor said Jesus Christ has forgiven him (yet he continues what he is doing).Another good example is former Singapore Methodist Bishop who was overpaid and I wonder whether he refunded this over payment. I am all for a good,credibe, strong and constructive Opposition in our Parliament.
We as Ordinary Singaporean citizens must know how to respect fellow citizens and their religious beliefs as all regions teach us good things.
Confused or doublespeak
Shashikalah said: “We will not entertain anymore more criticisms and comments.”
And she also said: “Also, questions regarding the planning, the people involved etc is certainly rather personal.”
With that, the door is shut. Questions regarding planning is “personal”?? You mean the “answers” are personal. Tsk tsk tsk. I expect better english from the president of a political society.
So, with that, we do not know if the question of inviting opposition parties were ever raised – BECAUSE IT IS PERSONAL AND SHASHIKALAH CANNOT DUVULGE THIS!
And we do not know why, if the question was raised, it was decided that no opposition would be invited – BECAUSE IT IS PERSONAL AND SHASHIKALAH CANNOT DIVULGE THIS!
If ever there was something which would qualify as ridiculous, this would be it.
I shudder to think if ever the day comes when you become an MP or a minister.
Your behaviour reminds us all of one named Ho Ching and Temasek.
james
democracy dies when we can’t maintain a civil and respectful debate without resorting to flaming and personal attacks.
this is a maiden event organised by a student society that just got its bearings after taking office, let’s give them the benefit of the doubt and not judge by this one event. can we blame our youth for being politically apathetic when we’re going to throw stones like this everytime they stand up and voice out?
Confused or doublespeak
Shashikalah said:
“I have always been proud to be a Singaporean but now, I am rethinking.”
And this is the President of the National university of Singapore Political Science Society talking.
In the face of criticisms (and not invalid ones), she might no longer be proud of being a Singaporean. I guess she must like that commercial very much, that one which says, “Hear only the good stuff.”
So sad.
Straight Talker
Hi Confused or doublespeak,
I think you are going a bit too far for personally attacking the young lady.She is the President yes, but she is the Deputy Director of the event.She may be unduly influenced by her Exco members.
Is the YPAP member Kimberly Trump the Director of the Event?Who is the person who mooted the ideain the first place?
If you look at the facebook event page there is also a Abner Koh who is another member of YPAP.These two YPAP members organise events for YPAP.Don’t forget that the PSS Exco has two YPAP members.
Could it be possible that the 2 YPAP members in the Exco together with Kimberly Trump and Abner Koh put pressure on the President to host this event?
The President was probably an unwilling participant.It is not easy to turn down an event where you manage to get 3 MPs attending on your maiden event.That is very commendable.
All these guys are young.They have never worked.The adults in this charade, the Academics and the Panelists should have known better.
The problem is the YPAP members in the Exco and the Academics who oversee the club.They are doing a great disservice to the students.
The President, I repeat, is being made a scapegoat.So please lay off her.She already stated that she is not a member of YPAP and she already has clarified that she will not join YPAP.That says a lot especially in Singapore.
By not aligning with the YPAP, she has already lost opportunities.She is bringing balance into the community.So we have to respect her for that.
So Shashikalah, if you are reading this, don’t be disheartened.I may have posed some very difficult questions but they were towards the organisers who are refusing to take responsibility and also your teachers whom refuse to acknowledge them as lecturers or professors.They are treating Singaporeans like Secondary School students.This is a forum held at an Institute of Higher Learning, not a social studies lecture catered for 13-14 year olds.
So PSS Exco, don’t let your President down in future events.It’s a big responsibility and I believe she has carried herself very well here despite the criticism.
All the best Shashikalah.You can only grow stronger from this.
Andrew Chuah
26/10/09
Shashikalah is the President of NUS Political Science Society and haas forgotten that she must also toe the line so long as she is a student of NUS, besides President of NUS Political Science Society, unlike universities in HK, Macau, Australia, New Zealand. PerhAPS she has awaken from her sleep.
Regards
Andrew
Straight Talker
Hi Shashikalah,
No point asking anymore as I know I would not get an aswer. I take back what I said and sincerely apologize to you if I have offended the society or yourself. Like I said, it is a good experience and you will grow stronger. But my apologies. However, I reserved my right to ask these questions. Looking back at my messages, i would also apologize to Kimberely and the organizers. However, i standby what I wrote. Sorry to all.
Shashikalah
In response to Confused or doublespeak:
I am writing this as a fellow Singaporean and not as a NUS student or the President of a Society.
My thoughts were in no way a reflection of PSSOC. I am not one who believes in listening to just the ‘good stuff’. In fact, I welcome all your criticisms. Arent Singaporeans suppose to be nice and supportive of one another? Here (in this discussion forum), however, Singaporeans have been unreasonably attacking a student group that is innocent and has just started taking baby steps. Using inappropriate terms such as stupid and dumb is not acceptable and is offensive. A foreigner who sees these will certainly not have a good impression of our society. How then can a proud Singaporean remain proud?
Despite this incident, I am still proud to be a Singaporean. But one thing that I have realised is that some Singaporeans do not make use of opportunities given to them (in this the forum that we organised). Instead, it seems that they take every opportunity to demoralise people. It would have been better if you guys had instead tried to voice out your unhappiness regarding the political structure to the appropriate authorities. You would have at least made a change!
Shihan
108) Insider
You have every right to make these accusations, though being anonymous does diminish your integrity somewhat. Similarly, I have every right to dispute these allegations because whatever you said simply isn’t true.
Firstly, I did consult the people in the department regarding the event. How else do you think I found out that it was initially sponsored by the Young PAP? Dr. Nardin, as you can see in his statement, has backed up this statement. The only thing worse than defending a deceitful act (since the event was marketed as a non-partisan event, but with 3 PAP MPs. Do you really think we’re stupid?) is conducting a smear campaign on a report that has published nothing but the truth.
Secondly, I did not mention the PSAA anywhere in this article. You may want to re-read it. I also didn’t mention that KRMF was organised by PSSOC. I doubt the organisers, organising a big event for the first time (as they have admitted) would be up for the task anyway.
Thirdly, I still stand by my stance that without the last minute inclusion of the PS professors, the event was heavily partisan. I don’t know why you are trying to argue against something that is so blatantly obvious.
Fourthly, I am not in WP, or any opposition party at that. Some readers have also accused me of being a member of Reform Party. As a writer of TOC, I have to maintain a non-partisan stance and I will only report on the facts as I see it.
Lastly, I am not anti-PAP, nor pro-PAP. I report on politics which encompasses a plurality of parties and views. You may want to re-read the article again because I do regard the young PAP favourably. And if you do not know, I am a big fan of our foreign affairs ministry and I think they have done a terrific job over the years. Unfortunately this has also led to others accusing me of being pro-PAP.
I leave it up to the readers to decide what’s ethical and what’s not.
PS Lover
Shihan, I think the whole thing started due to your claim that the forum was YP sponsored. You said that you did your research prior to the event and that you did realise that it was initially supposed to YP sponsored. This is where you have to note. The word is ‘initially’. I was there at the forum and the society actually had a ppt presentation in which they had clearly stated that the organised were ‘NUS PS Department’ and ‘Office of Alumni Relation’. Since you did not see YP’s name there, you should have understood that the society made a change. And if you were unhappy or suspicious about it, you should have approached the organisers and not should not have written as you wanted.
Straight Talker
To 107)Straight Talker on October 26th, 2009 11.26 pm
Is there a reason why you chose my nick and decided to post an apology?Why would I want to apologise to Kimberly and the organisers? Stop twisting and putting words in my mouth.
My questions have not been answered.Could it be possible that the 2 YPAP members in the Exco together with YPAP members Kimberly Trump and Abner Koh put pressure on the President to host this event?
Was the Men in White book sold at the event?Why were the MPs offering their autographs when the 2 of them are in Parliament because of a WALKOVER.Even the YPAP Chairman got into parliament through the GRC.What have these P65 MPs contributed of significance to the PAP?
Nice try 107)Straight Talker.Maybe you should go into the fake goods business.But when you get caught, don’t bother apologizing.
Need to be reasonable
Shihan, you yourself said that professors were invited as a last minute arrangement. Even Professor Terry Nardin admited this. Even if this was done at the last min, it was still made. So how could you claim that these arrangement were done as a remedy to the Kent Ridge Ministeral Forum? You even said that the organisers were biased in choosing the panel. Did you even talk to them regarding it? Whether they approached the opposition or scholars. Even though it was a last min thingy, it does not pull out from the option that they did try to make it an academic forum. The question here is not about if the arrangement was not made, it may have been partisan but to look at what was presented to you and judge for that. Shihan, you made the society seem as partisan when you said that the panelists were carefully selected. Have you attended any of their previous events to come to that conclusion or even make it seem as such? If you have never attended any of their events or even know what they have done, I would say that you are being biased.
I also attended the society’s PS Luncheon that was organised prior to forum. The exco was introduced during the luncheon. Abner is not a part of the executive committee and Kimberly is the society’s Vice-President. Pls get your facts right before you guys talk.
theonlinecitizen
To “Insider-Ivan”, “Justina Tan”, “Bryan Teo”, “Philip Chan”, “MaryAnn_1988″,
All the above nicks have the same IP addresses and all of the comments by them are directed at Shihan in a very personal manner – including bringing her personal life into the comments.
This is utterly disgraceful. And if whoever you are is a student of NUS or a member of the NUSPSS, you should be utterly ashamed of yourself.
Andrew Loh
theonlinecitizen
To “insider”,
Your threat to Shihan is taken very seriously and we will act accordingly.
Andrew Loh
say yes is to play safe - singapore style
The conclusion from all the responses just simply put it that many of the people are getting very frustrated with local politics and get very irritated when they see and hear their names. Looks to be overwhelming and revolting.
Robox
To all:
I am a political science graduate, though I thank my lucky stars that I wasn’t subjected to the corrupted and toxic, made-for-Singapore-by-the PAP version of the discipline that I hear my poor Singapore-educated colleagues have to endure. In POLI 201 – “Introduction to Political Science” – the very first prerequisite for all other political science courses, we were introduced to the academic definition of “public”, a very fundamental concept in political science since political science is also a study of everything that is in the public interest. It would seem that my Singapore-educated peers have not got that far even after three years of a political science education. Suffice it to say, I’m not surprised.
The reason that I bring the above up is that we seem to have forgotten, a peculiarly Singapore habit I might add, that the NUS, including the organizers of the forum NUS PS Department and Office of Alumni Relation, is a public institution funded by all Singapore taxpayers. As such the interests of ALL Singaporeans must be served, if not at any one event organized under the auspices of the NUS, then over the course of its existence as an institution. Those interests – if we are talking about political interests – can only be served by including the entire spectrum that exists in Singapore. The Opposition is not one party but several; all of them should be represented at one time or another for the chief reason that they represent the political interests not only of the student body but the Singapore electorate at large. The tuition fees that Singaporeans have contracted to subsidize the students with is an insurance that those same students will use their education to serve the ENTIRE Singapore public upon their graduation without favour.
Both the sponsors and the organizers, NUSPSS have been negligent on each and every count.
Just what were the organizers thinking when they initially created a platform only for PAP MPs – as if the PAP is hurting so badly from a severe lack of a platform for itself after having muscled out all others who are not in perfect allignment with their fascist ideology – and then included three academics but only as an afterthought?
If as treasurer of NUSPSS Julian Ho says, that this experience has put off the society from organizing any future forum, then I say that this is indeed music to my ears.
If “organizing” forums is an exercise in partisanship towards the PAP only at all times, then we might just be better off with no political forums at all; I’m sure the traditional media will pick up on any slack.
No PAP. No members of The Opposition. That sounds far more like the level playing field that we – taxpayers whose interests have been in a state of permanent neglect – have been clamouring for.
That’s equality.
theonlinecitizen
This thread is now closed for comments.
Thanks , Shi Han. the truth is yet to come when the old man is gone