Announcement:
Founder and Chief Editor of this website, Andrew Loh, has stepped down and will no longer be involved with the operations of The Online Citizen.
SDP responds to questions by Senior Report Zul Othman from TODAY. This is first published here.
The Singapore Democrats will be fielding a team of candidates of both new and familiar faces in the next general elections. The names and gender of the candidates will be announced at the appropriate juncture on this website.
(Left: SDP Rally during General Election 2006)
The number of candidates available to the opposition has always been a casualty of the climate of fear in Singapore. Given the autocratic nature of the political system Singaporeans have been fearful of joining the opposition.
So the question of the increased number of NCMP seats or single-seats is not as relevant as the fear factor inasfar as the ability of the opposition to attract candidates is concerned.
As to where and how many seats the SDP will be fielding, and whether in GRCs and/or SMCs, these questions will depend on the re-drawn boundaries and the number of GRCs and SMCs available in the next GE.
As such the SDP calls on the Government to release the electoral map without further delay. In the past the PAP has done this at the last minute. In one of the recent elections, the new boundaries were made known the day before elections was called.
This is a shameful practice which no confident ruling party would do and which no democratic system would accept. The PAP needs to stop all these shenanigans and reveal the boundaries immediately.
Chee Soon Juan
Secretary-General
Singapore Democratic Party
Questions from Mr Zul Othman:
1. PAP has identified potential candidates – what about the SDP?
2. Do you have fresh faces? How many?
3. Will they be contesting more seats than in the last GE, as PM said?
4. And if so, is it because of more potential candidates or, as PM suggested, the lure of more NCMP seats, single member wards and smaller GRCs?
5. Will the SDP be targeting more single member wards or the GRCs?
6. Any potential candidates you’d care to name? Would it be alright for us to contact them?
7. Will the SDP be fielding more women this time around?
8. How far down the recruitment chain are you?
@77) Debra Soong H K of the Bai and Bai until cannot on November 6th, 2009 1.17 pm
[[Because it is such a small tiny country (may be inappropriate terminology),
I ASK THAT THE ENTIRE CITIZENRY GET TO VOTE REGARDLESS OF WALKOVERS.
CHANGE THE VOTING SYSTEM NOW! ]]
What you are asking for is the proportional representative forms of parliamentary system, which I am a great proponent of. I am a firm believer of decoupling the management of estates with parliamentary duties.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportional_representation
A proportional representation would mean those who vote for a particular party would have representatives for themselves. As in the case now, the 33.3% of those who voted has no one to represent them, except for the 2 opposition MPs. And many do not even have the chance to vote, like myself.
However, I see this as “advanced dream”. The basics of having a balanced playing field is not even there and I do not have any illusion that PAP will change the playing field which is heavily skewed to their favour.
@93) Toolang on November 6th, 2009 8.46 pm
[[Even the last GE results where the party candidates were trounced and discarded by Singaporean voters convincingly as stated at #87 by smallvoice585 were similarly abused. The Singaporean voters had spoken during the last GE and this time round more or less you can expect the same results, if btan and the likes continue with their erratic rantings and abuses. ]]
This is a case of perspective. Where you see 3/4 glass empty, I see 1/4 glass full. (or whatever proportion there is)
Based on last GE results
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singapore_general_election_2006
SDP garnered 4.07% of those who voted. That means for every hundred person, 4 person supported SDP. That to me, does not indicate “discarded by voters” to me. At the very least, in 45,634 individuals have demonstrated their support (by way of voting) to SDP.
More importantly, I see 33.3% of those that voted supported the opposition. That means 1 in 3 person supported the opposition.
Bear in mind this is the result despite the fact that the odds are heavily stacked against the opposition.
Let me give you an analogy. Two runners compete in a 100m dash. One is clad in typical running gear with the latest technology in running shows and plenty of high quality training. The other is clad in medieval armor of a knight and just trained for a few days. The result is the first runner won by a few seconds. Who is the better runner?
The answer is, we don’t really know. At first glance, the first winner seems to be the better runner as he seemed to be more prepared and properly clad. But if the second runner had good preparations and without the weight to slow them down, he may give the winner a good run of his money and may even win the race.
Hope this analogy will make you understand.
Lastly, I have relooked at my replies to you thus far. Other than being sarcastic to your, in my view, nonsensical postings and drawing analogies to satire your reasoning, I have never been abusive to you. So please keep it civil if possible. What I would like to draw to your attention is the very system you seem to support in fact is detrimental to a free debate that should be the mainstay of our political sphere and ironically, you accuse myself and others of being “dictatorial” when it is the system that you support that is dictatorial.
At the end of the day, opposition supporters like myself subscribe to a system of “I may disagree with you, I will defend your right to speak those views”. But can you say the same about the system of PAP that you seemed to support?
btan, if it is at all feasible at your own personal level of comfort, you really should join an opposition party. You’ll be a huge asset just based on your intellect and political astuteness alone.
I of course don’t know you, so I don’t know whether you can deliver all that you have in your intellect in speech which is going to be very important politically. You can double your impact by also being better than the PAP’s good speechmakers: sign up with Toastmasters or something.
But apologies for the suggestion above if you already ARE a good speaker.
My suggestion is to keep engaging others under your current online moniker but never under your real name because there are many PAP vultures online who would be ready to pounce on you for the slightest, and conduct a smear campaign against you. Use this as your learning opportunity to increase your own streetsmartness and sharpwittedness.
And then if you do join an opposition party with your name known, you can raise your profile but this time with a greater sense of officiousness, decorum etc, by posting online but only occasionally.
Most of all, I think that you are just a very good person with your heart in the right place. Singapore needs you more than you may know.
btan,
[More importantly, I see 33.3% of those that voted supported the opposition. That means 1 in 3 person supported the opposition.]
You see 33.3% of those supported the opposition is basically flawed. In every GEs, there was 30% or thereabout of votes cast for the oppositions since the days immemorial. In other words, it is status quo. As I said before and I shall repeat it unequivocally that I am non-partisan and do not believe in any political party. I believe in Singaporeans and people who are honest and sincere who can good for the general populace. In fact, I appreciate your commitment to the opposition cause which I share to some extent but some of the points raised are too far flung from reality.
Dear 101) Robox on November 7th, 2009 5.11 am
It appears that you only realized the actual meaning of “credibility” after I told you so.
Unfortunately, you have poor reading skills because you further asked -
“Tell me exactly which of the SDP’s words, actions, or the policies it champions lacks credibility …”
I have already told you very plainly why in the 2nd paragraph of my post #87 which I reproduce here for your benefit:
“I hope you understand the word “credibility”. It means believable or worthy of acceptance. It is really quite simple. If SDP’s previous performance in the GE was poor, their credentials as a feasible political alternative are definitely not boosted by it. It is conceivable to deduce that if less people vote for them, they are deemed to be less worthy of acceptance – and therefore less credible.”
So, a party’s credibility is not validated by any specific word, action or policy of theirs, but by their actual performance in a GE! What more solid evidence can you find?
Dear 104) btan on November 7th, 2009 2.21 pm
Thank you for your brownie points. I will accept them humbly and sincerely.
However, I am much more confident of my powers of absorption than you think. I am well aware of SDP’s rationale for using civil disobedience tactics. But these reasons are too theoretical and had been successful only in selected historical cases. These are not good enough reasons for their endorsement and attempted implementation in Singapore.
One good measure of the feasibility of civil disobedience tactics in Singapore is the degree of actual mass participation in such actions in the past. I don’t think I need to tell you what had been the result – most people view their small-group actions as foolhardy or impulsive acts at best and and as not-so-entertaining clownish sideshows at worst. In case you again direct harsh language at me again, let me state that this is not my personal judgment but that of the common man.
By your own admission, you rightly disagree with civil disobedience activities in Singapore. The culture milieu in Singapore is such that such high-minded concepts will not be understood, much less induce mass participation.
I think SDP realizes this but, in their frustration and impotence, they are unable to rethink their strategy except to repeatedly conduct similar small-group actions.
When an unsuccessful ploy is relentlessly pursued, it becomes “attention grabbing”. Why? Because it serves no other purpose!
To smallvoice585 on November 8th, 2009 1.20 am:
Just admit it: The only thing that you have done by linking the SDP’s alleged lack of credibility and their vote share is to try and establish a false causal link between the two. But like I said twice now, your job as Lee Kuan Yew’s agent is a very simple one – absolutely no analysis necessary – and as a simpleton, you are indeed suited as LeE Kuan Yew’s agent.
Thus, I will not tax all of your two brain cells with a professional, multi-factorial analysis because that would be out of your grasp even after two billion lifetimes.
Finally – yes, this is my final note to you on this thread – I am actually glad that you are not an SDP supporter. Ironically, the simpleton approach to political analysis in its infinite stupidity is a form of quality control as well.
I’m sure that the SDP wishes only for quality within its ranks, even from its support base.
smallvoice585, I have been reading your exchanges here with much hilarity.
I am sure you will NOT be perturbed by accusations of being LKY’s agent because such accusations are quite common. And in fact, it remind of Godwin’s Law.
Maybe you are familiar with it already, otherwise you can read it here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law)
I quote: “As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1. The term Godwin’s law can also refer to the tradition that whoever makes such a comparison is said to “lose” the debate.”
There is a tendency by some to compare LKY to the main character of this law, for reasons unknown to me.
I suppose the “final note” given to you is an apt conclusion to your discussion based on the Godwin’s Law. Please accept my congratulation.
Hi smallvoice585,
With respect to you, i must say that your views on local politics are quite disconcerting, i mean, they have ruffled quite a few feathers on TOC
Although you are entitled to your views, i must say that i much prefer your arguments when you were debating with people like Arix, rwkc etc on issues like Religion, gay-rights etc a couple of months back
However, dont be discouraged; people (you, me) can change
Nothing is cast in stone, especially views
“Although you are entitled to your views, i must say that i much prefer your arguments when you were debating with people like Arix, rwkc etc on issues like Religion, gay-rights etc a couple of months back”
Yes, just the police. When matter nothing to do with politics, the police can execute with fairness and justice but dealing with political issue, the police left their value and principle behind and just execute from instruction from higher order.
Same particular trait can be identified with some here. They can speak intelligently with “higher debate” perspective but when it comes to politics, they resort to, as some describe, simpleton analysis.
To 116) Robox on November 9th, 2009 5.38 am
Are you referring to this post? 114) Budamaxx1952 on November 8th, 2009 5.27 pm.
I was wondering if you were speaking from experience as this post 83) Budamaxx1952 on November 6th, 2009 2.56 pm praised your “astounding posts” and “intelligence”.
Just wondering.
To Ohnani on November 9th, 2009 9.11 am:
Re: “To 116) Robox on November 9th, 2009 5.38 am…Are you referring to this post? 114) Budamaxx1952 on November 8th, 2009 5.27 pm.”
Certainly not. I’m referring to #113, BryanT’s post.
If you do follow the SDP website, BryanT is the one who alleges – with absolutely no substantiation, since no substatiation is ever necessary when you fight on the PAP’s side – that the SDP is fighting for unfettered rights but is himself now whining that he doesn’t get unfetterd rights to abuse the freedom of speech on the privately funded SDP’s website.
BryanT is all over cyberspace now fighting his fascist cause.
Yes, this does in fact come from my experience.
Actually, smallvoice585 makes better arguments than BryanT.
Donaldson on November 9th, 2009 10.45 am:
Re: “Actually, smallvoice585 makes better arguments than BryanT.”
Yes he DID – though I don’t agree that he DOES, if the present tense is used to suggest habitualness.
And then again, smallvoice585 DID only after he was severely challenged. but as I said, Lee Kuan Yew’s agents never feel a need to substantiate when they fight on behalf of their Master.
Dear 113) BryanT on November 8th, 2009 4.36 pm
Thank you very much for your concern. I think you know that my psychological and intellectual constitution are made of much sterner stuff than to be rattled by desperate name-calling. In fact, I’m quite entertained by it.
Thanks to all who said positive things about my arguments. But I must appeal to netizens here not to be concerned about their superiority or inferiority in relation to others. Such trivialities should not distract us from our real mission which is the elevation of the debate between opposing views that are vigorously expounded and passionately felt.
I also encourage people who disagree with me not to relent but to reinforce their arguments with more cogency and to inform their advocacy with more knowledge and evidence. That way, hopefully, they can demolish my arguments more legitimately.
“When an unsuccessful ploy is relentlessly pursued, it becomes “attention grabbing”. Why? Because it serves no other purpose!”
it takes lots of hard work for one to move a mountain and there is no guarantee that one will finish doing it in his lifetime – but it takes someone to move the first rock and show the others that the first rock, second rock or the third rock can indeed be moved. while at the same time it is easier to see from the current frame of time that the big mountain is still there and it may take a lot of other people to finish the work.
@108) Robox on November 7th, 2009 3.28 pm
Thanks for your compliments, however, to be a good politicians, in my opinion, one has to possess two qualities.
1.) One has to want to serve
2.) One has to have the capability to serve
On both counts, I do not qualify. What I can do is to give my vocal support to those who qualified, in my eyes, the above two points.
To me, all PAP MPs failed on the first point. Once, a long time ago, some of the old guards possessed these two points but the newer cohorts no longer possess this.
As for the opposition, I recognise some do not possess the second quality (in fact many Singaporeans erroneously thought ALL opposition lacks the second criteria), but many do possess both and in those few, I give my full support, regardless of which party they come from. That much I can do.
I will also continue to push for the support of an opposition alliance, which I feel is the best way to break the PAP hegemony. Unfortunately, without first hand knowledge of the inner workings of various opposition parties, I do not know what is the real obstacle towards that alliance. I can at best speculate.
@122) smallvoice585 on November 9th, 2009 5.49 pm
No one really has the final answer to the effectiveness of civil disobedience in Singapore. Even though I disagree with this strategy, it is still after all, my opinion. I had urged SDP to adopt a different strategy, especially those that proved to work for WP and SPP (which really is old SDP, whereas the current SDP is “new SDP”), but they are the one doing the hardwork, hence their own counsel they will keep.
It is really easy to dish out advice in the comfort of our home in relative anonymity but there are real people out there risking their way of life to champion for our cause. At the end of the day, we can give advice but it would be churlish of us to hurl at them our abuses or give them our scorn if they do not follow our advice.
Whether our dear Mr Toolang wish to admit or not, over 300,000 Singaporean voters voted for them, and if we were to extrapolate this percentage to the entire population, that will be more than 1 million people.
One million or more people has no corresponding representation in parliament. This mutated proportion is something everyone should be concerned about, nevermind about the strategies of individual opposition parties.
In another time and another age, this taxation without representation had spurred greater reaction than what we have now.
At the end of the day, everyone has to do their part.
btan,
There is already a benchmark that 30% of the voters will vote for the oppositions come what may. If a political party cannot even secure this benchmark in a GE and still want to shout at the top for everyone to hear with all its idiosyncracies and theatrical shows to amuse us, do you think it deserves the voters’ support, let alone a united opposition camp?
To 126) Toolang on November 10th, 2009 10.38 am
There is already a benchmark that 30% of the voters will vote for the oppositions come what may. If a political party cannot even secure this benchmark in a GE and still want to shout at the top for everyone to hear with all its idiosyncracies and theatrical shows to amuse us, do you think it deserves the voters’ support, let alone a united opposition camp?
>> In my opinion, voting CSJ into the Parliment is an appealing proposal now.
>> Firstly, he’s bold enough to pursue and ask critical questions that so many people wants to know; such as Temasek losses, Influx foreigners, HDB losses… etc.
>> Secondly, he will hound the MPs to work harder for their salaries; like his engagement with George Yeo over the internet; and his perseverance is what is lacking in the opposition camp right now.
>> Thirdly, if PAP tries so hard to keep him out, maybe it’s time to send him in.
>> Fourth, if he’s as bad as you think of, it surely won’t be a threat to the current regime. First class team must have no problem handling just one CSJ.
I have no problem for any opposition member to be elected into Parliament to ask and challenge the existing protocols which is healthy and beneficial for all of us. First and foremost, the candidate must get his priority right so that the majority of Singaporeans can accept and vote for him. No point of shouting at the top of his voice and throwning tantrum and putting up a show at every opportunity for us to watch. Bear in mind that election result is based on the first-past-the-post basis, if the majority of voters can support his ideas and proposals. I do not think bad of any candidates and on the contrary, I admire their courage to come out in public to challenge the status quo. I only disagree with their tactics, antics, idiosycracies, etc, which cannot stand the scrutiny. Anyway, the law forbids a bankrupt to stand for election unless one clears his debt. This is the price one has to pay if one is not careful and shoot from all directions. In the end, all voters are the losers as we are deprived of a person’s courage and talent to speak for all of us.
@126) Toolang on November 10th, 2009 10.38 am
The benchmark is your own standard. And when you judge according to that standard, of course it seemed they lack credibility. Just like if I decide the passing mark is 60 out of 100, someone who scored 59 would have failed.
Personally, I don’t think being opposition automatically gets you votes. Otherwise, there will be no candidates that will lose their deposits, which is a fact in the past election.
Rather, I see it as this way. 30% to 35% is normal performance, 15% to 30% is poor performance. 35% to 45% is good performance. 45% to 50% means ready to win. Less than 15% means the candidate should give up. Of course over 50% means they win.
So therein lies the difference between your views and mine. Our benchmark is different.
As for SDP making “noise”, have you ever absorbed their message? Have you critically read through their ideas? If your answer is yes, then you should state why their ideas is wrong.
Sometimes I feel that those who are bitter at SDP are former supporters who felt “betrayed” by SDP’s key persons being arrested and in the case of CSJ, disqualified as candidate. In that case, I should remind these people who is the REAL cause? SDP or PAP?
Voting is never a secret in Sg lol.
I hates elections cos only a few lucky ones can actually vote. Those who vote against the PAP always will find their ward redraw elsewhere if the majority vote against. Why do u think the elect team been doing? doing nothing for four years?
Come on, make voting secret by removing the location id leh…
If no one in a GRC, and if PAP vote fall below 50%, they must share it with the opposition to make things fairer.
The opposition will have better luckyif they contest in a never contest before ward or if the PAP promises not to touch those wards and left it alone as a single ward.
Sg really needs people representation. We r living in fire and water now, it taxes increase every year…waolao…cannot tahan anymore and 40s once they lose their jobs, game over!
Will the high and mighty take notice pls!
btan,
The benchmark of 30% opposition votes is the Singapore standard over many GEs, definitely not mine. If I understand your reasoning correctly: 30% to 35% is normal performance, 15% to 30% is poor performance. 35% to 45% is good performance. 45% to 50% means ready to win. Therefore, the party that got less than 30% in the last GE is a poor performer. Am I correct? I am sure you have many excuses for the poor performance. My view is that the voters do not agree or support the tactics all along and translated into votes. Why then continue to pursue such tactics to date instead of changing course and learn from the more successful? We don’t need rocket science to change course and follow the more successful candidates’ tactics.
I do not subscribe to your view that being opposition automatically does not get you votes as others had proven it. The opposition had even been invited to appear in last Sunday’s Talking Point to epouse her view. There were many reasons why candidates lost their deposits in the past election.
There is no different in the Singapore benchmark set by the voters all these years unless of course you want to set your own benchmark for others to follow.
Whether one absorbs the message and agree or not, the votes received during the GE is the final arbiter. There is no right or wrong idea in politics. It is whether you agree or disagree with the idea floated. In other words, put to the vote and let the majority decide in GE. No point of arguing until the cows come home when the voters have the final say.
@131) Toolang on November 12th, 2009 11.44 am
The fact that you easily dismiss the multiple obstacles contributing to the lack of winning of opposition as excuses shows you have not think critically.
I have already given you numerous analogies but it seems you are difficult to be enlightened.
One day, when you yourself experienced unfair practices done against you, perhaps you will understand. Right now, anyone who performs poorly in your eyes are just losers who have nothing but excuses.
Again, as I said before, I hope you are not a boss or someone in authority. I really pity anyone who has to suffer your judgmental outlook.
How do you expect life in this imperfect world without obstacles? If the other opposition members can get elected into Parliament, including NCMP, I see no reason why you cannot. Some gaps must be amiss somewhere. Perhaps, you long that your opponents would pity you because of your poor performance and allow you some handicaps in the next GE. Any Singaporean parent will know that if a child performs poorly in an examination, tuition from public/private teachers or ‘sifu’ is one of the natural choices, besides changing the methodology of study. Do you ever humble yourself or display humility to learn from the more successful opposition members or ‘sifu’ and changing the methodology of campaigning? Todate there were 5 opposition seniors who had been elected into Parliament with the same set of obstacles mentioned by you. I am pretty sure they are willing to tutor and dispense advice to any opposition candidates who seek their wise counsel. Please think positive what works and what does not work to win votes. Also, learn from the experienced and more successful opposition members. Whining and harping on the obstacles will not win you votes. The obstacles will be there and not disappear. Get real!
133) Toolang on November 13th, 2009 1.25 am
You are so right again.
Why do these whiners want a level playing field instead of thinking of ways to circumvent obstacles?
It’s this type of can-do attitude that marks all great nations.
Although i have a problem with one example you shared earlier. If a child performs poorly in an examination, can get tuition or ‘sifu’ and such. But what if such a child performs excellently in the exams but is in direct competition with the son of the university dean, who barely passed, for the last place in the uni but loses the place because of connections. Or in real life cases where chinese students in malaysia cannot enter the course of study they want just because they are not bumiputra? What is the strategy here if there is only one university? (read one govt)
Because the example you shared can be put in this way. The opposition is the student who does poorly. He can perform better by conducting more meet the people sessions, walk around meeting the residents, generally building his support base, learning from successful opposition, changing the methodology of campaigning etc – akin to the student getting better results because of tuition.
But come election time, where he is campaigning is suddenly redrawn on the electoral map to include 2 PAP strongholds where majority are known to be PAP supporters. And now the majority are PAP voters and he loses. – akin to unfair practises causing the performing student to lose his uni place.
What is the strategy here? How do i get real?
Insight please oh God of Strategy.
Ohnani,
Godwin’s Law condemns such posting and does not deserve any reply!
Toolang,
I must be blind because after reading through what i wrote 3 times i fail to see where i mentioned Hitler.
Either i did mention Hitler by not mentioning Hitler or you are sadly mistaken.
Please impart your wisdom.
Toolang,
Or perhaps you meant the other less well known Godwin’s law against rational reply.
In a case where someone makes a rational argument that you cannot accept and cannot find a reply to but yet is still indignant so you throw out this accusatory phrase hoping to end the argument which exposes the holes in your own – Less well known (By a huge margin)Godwin’s law
Did you mean this Godwin?
Is this the case?
Ohnani,
You have dandruff!
Hi Toolang,
My last reply to you. I still have hope you can pause and think out of the box.
Please try not to be confused between obstacles and unfair practices.
Losing a soccer match because the players are poorly trained, it was raining and the field was wet, these are obstacles.
Losing a soccer match because the referee was very obviously biased against the losing team, that is unfair practices. No amount of “good strategy” can overcome that. That the losing team score maybe one goal despite the referee’s biase does not invalidate the fact that the referee is biase.
Similarly, when you see one or two opposition MPs in parliament ONLY, you should be questioning why only so few, what’s wrong with the rules. Not thinking : the rules must be fair to allow one or two MPs to enter parliament.
Please tell me which democratic country redraw their electoral boundaries in the last minute?
@139
btan, i cant tell you which democratic country redraws their electoral boundaries. i have not done much research on this field.
But i can tell you which democratic city does the above. =D