On Sunday night’s edition of Talking Point, representatives from the ruling party and the Opposition speak to Deborah Soon and PN Balji the impact of the new electoral boundaries on their parties’ election strategies. The PAP was represented by MPs Indranee Rajah & Michael Palmer while the Opposition was represented by Goh Meng Seng (National Solidarity Party), Eric Tan (Workers’ Party), and Kenneth Jeyaretnam (Reform Party).
HELP keep the voice of TOC alive!
If you like this article, please consider a small donation to help theonlinecitizen.com stay alive. Please note that we can only accept donations from Singaporeans. Thank you for your assistance.Do you have a flair for writing? Volunteer with us. Email us your full name and contact details to theonlinecitizen@gmail.com
In part two at around 8min 40 sec Goh Meng Seng asks about Michael Palmer – “If he wins the election as a minority, wouldn’t that be a slap on PAP’s assertion that we need the GRC because a minority cannot win in the single seat?”
Pwahahahahahahahhaahaaaa!!!!! Look on Palmer’s face is priceless!!!
It always gives me the impression that PAP (in this case Palmer) like to argue about being able to shake hands and meet with the people, perfunctorily, as compared to the opposition party. Is that the main thing what the people wanted and looked forward to from the ruling party? or did he not think that Singaporeans expected more than just carrying babies and cutting ribbons every time the PAP candidates showed up.
Than INdra Singh mentioned about prodcutivity issues have been raised since the 1970s.. God forbid, 30 years after the ruling party has had their own sweet times did we see our productivity improved or has it worsened? People can see for themselves what has transpired since the day pap took power. The apple has nice shiny skin on the outside but the core of this nation(??) has rotted and fed to the worms. PAP think pouring honey can solve the problems?
I like the way Eric Tan (WP) put forward his points. He is steady, used simple logics and hit the PAP hard from the heart. I believe WP has already establised itself well as strong alternative parties by how their candidate presented himself.
There is a lot of hope for Singaporeans and Singapore that PAP might be toppled for the benefit of every citizens who have had enough of crap policies.
Balji’s performance was a stellar example of how SPH is so desperate to shore up its political masters, the PAP. His frantic efforts to debunk the use of the term “gerrymandering” and coming up with excuses for why the Election Committee does its redrawing of boundaries was pathetic to watch.
Imagine watching a soccer match with an obviously biased commentator; that is Balji’s role in the mainstream media.
Eric’s (WP) eloquence and coherence impresses.
I’m sorry to say, Michael Palmer and Kenneth J. were irritating and annoying in equal amounts with their condescending and arrogant expressions and body language.
Debra’s frantic moderation of the discussion to veer away from the thorny issue of why are GRCs relevant if a minority candidate is able to win in a SMC is another excellent example of how the MSM defends the ruling party.
Michael and Indranee’s answers make me want to either punch something or someone.
SDP is again not INVITED to PARTICIPATE in the CNA wayang debate. Why are Singapore Mainstream Media so SCARED of Dr CSJ and SDP? Unless they are really doing the morally right stuffs that PAP are peeing their pants just by talking to them. Any Program without SDP participation will be lacking the depth and breath of a good debate and the shamefulness of MSM.
Of all the speakers, Kenneth sticks out like a sore thumb. His very polished accent would make it difficult for him to gain enough ‘ground support’, even if he can speak well in parliament.
But I agree the Meng Seng’s point that if Michael wins as a minority ‘Eurasian’ in a SMC, then the purpose of GRCs has been contradicted, and they will need to all totally make way for SMCs in the next election.
This ‘live-debate’ between the ruling party and opposition needs to be a hallmark of our elections. Let us see the heads of all the parties slug it out live, like in the US/UK pre-election debate format. I want to see them earn their stripes as ‘true’ politicians who can stand-&-deliver under pressure.
I hope Singaporean voters are smart enough to vote people for their policies and abilities, rather than their accents.
I am impressed by WP. Notice how it sends out different people to this sort of events. For example, for TOC’s forum it sent Gerald Giam; for this show it sent Eric. It didn’t keep using Sylvia Lim, who already has plenty of exposure.
It shows two things: (1) WP has more than one talented person, and (2) the WP leadership is willing to give more members media exposure.
In contrast, RP and NSP seem to always send their Secretary-Generals. Is there no more talent in their parties? Don’t tell me Goh Meng Seng is the most articulate person NSP could find?
Actually, the most condescending person in the show has got to be Deborah Soon. She sounded unpleasantly arrogant when she interrupted opposition members or tried to run roughshed when difficult issues were surfaced.
If I were staying in Punggol, I certainly wouldn’t vote for Palmer. He seemed to think that the most important thing for an MP is to remain visible in the eyes of the constituents either via new media or walking the ground.
I beg to differ. At this juncture, Singapore needs MPs who can speak up for the ordinary people on issues of national interests e.g. FT policy. We don’t need MPs who pretend to reach out to us, listen to us, shake our hands, carry our babies, and then vote to let in foreigners to replace us.
Vote wisely. This may be your last chance to make a difference for the future generations.
looking at indranee face make me vomit
this round old uncles, aunties and broad
section of voters will still vote incumbent out of fear. Unless the oppo.
know what they are doing, this is our last chance.
Micheal Palmer does not seem needing adaptibility during the GE contest.
Further Deborah was silly to say that Oppositions credibility was in question because of the recent RP’s tiff.
It was not a credibility issue, wrong word baby.
My goodness!!!! PAP indranee tried to speak on behalf of Egyptian by saying that if Mubarak “bribe” its people with progress package, their governtment need not have to topple. So she agreed PAP is doing to right thing to “give out” to the people, espcially in time like this (election period). Eric was quick to pick it up by saying that because of Opposition presence in parliament, PAP was willing to show “some kindness” to the people. However he also mentioned that more needs to be done and voting for opposition party will yield better prospect for the people. I fully agree.
Overall assessment of the talking point, PAP knows no shame.
I think of all the people WP’s Eric is the most impressive. He comes across as positive, articulate and patient – very different from the old taxi uncle bitching stance that other opposition parties always do.
Also agree with Jehov that WP seems to have built up a very srong team that does not revolve around one guy that hogs all the limelight. I notice the following in their press interaction:
1) Low Thia Kiang – WP representative, debates in parliament, anchor guy for Hougang
2) Sylvia Lim – WP representative, debates in parliament, participates in political functions and forums
3) Yaw Shin Leong – WP representative on organizational matters, appears in Wanbao & sometimes Zaobao & Straits Times
4) Gerald Giam – WP represntative to TOC opposition event
5) Eric Tan – WP representative to Channel News Asia’s Talking Point
6) Koh Choon Yong – Occassionaly signs off WP press releases or messages, sometimes appears in Straits Times commenting on youth internet matters
I might have left out some of the lesser known ones, but you get the idea.
In contrast, other parties like RP always KJ, SPP forever Chaim, SDP Chee siblings, SF Chia, NSP GMS <–(this one largi worse, as long as can hog limelight don't care what the topic is, UFO, mistress, sammyboy, tsunami, anything under the sun).
Deborah Soon: Worst moderator EVA! She is atrocious, simply too atrocious for words.
RP at this moment is rather low on ‘Star power’ due to the recent events in the party, and besides it’s barely two years old so give us time. We don’t have the pedigree of the other parties and hence fewer recognisable names. Even Kenneth Jeyaretnam is a newcomer to politics. Despite all these challenges we have shown ourselves to be a resilient party and despite facing numerous setbacks in our short history we have come back when people were writing us off as finished.
Success begets success, so we are positive about the outcome of the coming elections so we can attract even more members with ‘star power’. Who knows? Maybe next election we will field an A Team that would put all the others’ to shame! :)
It looks like we had 3 PAP and 3 opposition. No comments on Balji, while Deborah demonstrated clearly she is on PAP’s side.
She was extremely demeaning when she asked Goh Meng Seng if NSP have enough candidates. When GMS said “yes, you’ll be surprised”, her response was so sarcastic I felt she was deliberately trying to run NSP down and not taking NSP seriously. I don’t care who she is, MD or whatever, but as a moderator she did an awful job.
In the first part of the show I thought for a moment she might be working for EBRC. She seem to try very hard to explain on behalf of EBRC which she neither have the insight nor the responsibility to do so. What a wierd choice of moderator.
I give this round to the Opposition. All three reps performed well. Newbie Kenneth looked like he needed more exposure to sharpen up but I’m sure he will catch up. Eric and Meng Seng were impressive. They were relaxed, knew their stuff and looked like could think on their feet. Indranee and Michael are going to be out of their depths in the hustings and rallies in the weeks ahead. Too used to the easy life in Parliament, they have to buck up if they are going to connect with the electorate. They may have done good work on the ground and at meet-the-people sessions. But this is not enough. A good leader/politician must also be able to rally people to their cause. Otherwise, they might as well be backroom people and do work behind the scene.
But I agree the Meng Seng’s point that if Michael wins as a minority ‘Eurasian’ in a SMC, then the purpose of GRCs has been contradicted, and they will need to all totally make way for SMCs in the next election.
I hate this show format. It really is just a bunch of “talking points” – very superficial sound-bites with no substance, because the participants don’t really have time to flesh out their arguments in detail.
We need proper election debates where the speakers are given more time to present their arguments and rebut each other.
Urgh that Debra keeps acting as if she were a PAP apologist.
“But you have to agree that the system is improving right??? 5.4 members per GRC become 5, it is an evolution right???”
“Let’s not take this as an opportunity to rubbish the whole electoral system, we should just work with the system we have!”
Please lah. Stop trying to make the Opposition sound unreasonable for trashing the GRC system.
Also, notice the way the seating is arranged such that whichever way the speakers start, it will end with a PAP MP. So they will always have the last say.
That Debra Soon is pro-PAP is evidence way back in previous elections and how she interview people.
TOC you need to have your own talking point and election interviewers to counter balance the biase MSM!
Let me give my two-cents worth.
It is gratifying that Mr Eric Tan, Treasurer of the Workers’ Party, reiterates that the WP is opposed to the GRC. The GRC, alongside the idea once mooted of “some men two votes”, came about because the PAP wanted to make it difficult for an opposition to emerge. Of course, the PAP camouflaged it in many ways, including the argument that it was to ensure minority representation in parliament. This major change to our constitution – which until then was one based exclusively on single-member seats – was foisted on Singapore without as much as a referendum. One of the many fait accomplis that PAP was able to accomplish with its parliamentary majority.
Not surprisingly, Deborah Soon pre-empted any discussion of this issue on grounds that it would be traversing previous ground. Poor Mr Eric Tan could only nod. It would be better if he had reiterated that the Workers’ Party ramains committed to removing this abomination called the GRC one day when it comes into power.
The consolation came from the dig by Mr Goh Meng Seng of the National Solidarity Party at Mr Michael Palmer that should he win in Punggol East this time, it would belie the PAP long-standing claim that without GRCs minority candidates cannot get into parliament.
Let me continue with my two-cents worth.
Mr Kenneth Jeyaretnam gave a poor showing when it comes to demonstrating his grasp of specifics. All I hear is “change”. He is proving to be as ambiguous as his late father. I hope this broad call for change does not conceal a lack of arguments pertaining to jobs, housing, cost of living – issues dear to Singaporeans – with which to combat the PAP at the coming polls.
I have to admit that my estimate of Mr Goh Meng Seng of the National Solidarity Party has gone up one notch. His call to the return to the way things were done prior to 1959 – where the committee tasked to draw/redraw electoral boundaries had involved opposition as well as incumbents – is worth considering. I shall not not hold my breath for the PAP to agree to this suggestion.
probably,it would have been a more effective and meaningful and useful forum to gather solid feedback and good ideas if the political parties including the PAPies were to come and participate in our discussions here?
i watched the CNA prgramme.
too many interjections when the oppo were trying to CONTRIBUTE but too much air-tiem given to ms rajah and mr palmer for echoing their masters’ opinions?
we need a real forum,not a television show?
In Part 3 at about the 10 min 20 second mark, Indree said,”The cost of slowing the mmigration means not enough labour which then means its going to affect your productivity and your growth.”
According to Wikipedia, “Productivity is a measure of output from a production process, per unit of input. For example, labor productivity is typically measured as a ratio of output per labor-hour, an input.”
Adding more immigrats will add to total output but how does it increase productivity? Unless she means that the new immigrants have higher productivity than Singaporeans and the current batch of FT? If that is the case then the productivity council had done a bad job over the last 30 years and/or the present lots of FTs are not up to the mark.
Let me give my final instalment.
Mr P N Balji’s characterisation of the recent gerrymandering as “some intriguing redrawing” has only made the work of the committee responsible sound even more obscene. The opposition should thank Mr Balji. Wonder if he is going to be commentator for long.
Finally, can the cameraman do something about his angling of Deborah Soon. With her short skirt and constant moving of her legs, one may be mislled into thinking that she is doing a Sharon Stone. I wasn’t aware that the objective of Media Corp is to titillate the hetero-men of Singapore.
I feel that PN Balji is an opposition sympathiser while Debra Soon knows nothing about politics, especially Singapore politics, and she only knows how to be a lousy host.
Perhaps I feel the show is opposition-oriented because three oppositions sit together and at the centre while the 2 PAP members took the corners each, a lack of unity within PAP?
GRC is a sham!
Deborah Soon is an annoying hostess. Someone please tell her to be more gracious and allow the guests to finish what they are saying before she butts in. This woman doesn’t seem to have the capacity to hold her thoughts in her head for a while; she has to blab it all out as soon as it comes to her mind.
Balji can’t string a sentence without including at least 10 “erm” and “uhhh”. This guy totally shatters the Myth Of The Smooth Talking Indian. Stay out of television and stick to writing for the newspapers.
Indranee was classy and made relevant points at the right juncture; perhaps Deborah should learn from her.
Michael Palmer was defensive and paternalistic in the way he explained his point of view. Needs to modify his tone to sound less arrogant. Seems as though he is trying to win a debate not by the merits of his arguments, but by putting on an obnoxious I-am-right tone. Take a leaf out of Indranee’s book.
Goh Meng Seng, Kenneth and Eric were the most thought-provoking guests.
Indranee Rajah says in the interview that more SMCs result in more opportunities for contest.
This directly implies that formerly, the fewer SMCs reduced the opportunities the Opposition had for contest.
Now why did they reduce the opportunities in 2006? Were they afraid that the Son’s first election would turn out badly if they did not help out like this?
And since Rajah admits finally that the opportunities will increase with this move, why does her party not increase more opportunity by having 15 SMCs, or 20 SMCs, or make Singapore a normal country with 87 SMCs and equal opportunity for contest?
This, we have to ask Rajah, since it was she who admitted this undeniable fact, that more SMCs increase the opportunities for contest.
Soon said that it is “evolution in the process” when your average GRC goes from 5, down to 4.
Being Managing Director of CNA, i find it hard to believe that her sentence didn’t read “evolution in process, you start with all single members, then you make it 5, then now 4″
Well, she didn’t say that, because when you go from 1 to 5, then to 4, this is not the right use of the word evolution.
By using the word “evolution” she inadvertently let slip that her instinctive idea of what is “good evolution” is to go from 5, to 4, and then to 3 2 1. which brings us back to our Original Singapore, where we all had single member constituencies.
her job is now at stake, because she let slip that we are evolving BACK to where we started, which is not what her ultimate bosses want heard on national television.
she did hold herself back in that sentence, quickly enough, and shifted the talking to Balji. so maybe that will save her this job.
SDP is a great party. I believe the party has lots of material people that the PAP and their dogs are so scare of the SDP.
Not even dare to face them and debate with them. See how pathetic is PAP and their dogs. They can never win SDP in their thoughts and intelligence.
Terribly moderated. The moderator kept interrupting and cutting off the opposition speakers, especially when they were about to amplify on a crucial point.
A sham talk-show. Like so many other things under this government, this was another wayang.
Indranee Rajah’s responses were shallow and supercilious, showing poor understanding of issues such as productivity. If the PAP and the NPB had been aware of the need for raising productivity, why have Singaporeans wages been heading south this past decade?
And why cut off the opposition when the talk turned to the GRC?
Time we had a really free media. And a moderator who listens, rather than talks so much.
Debra Soon and her ilk are a disgrace to CNA. Thanks to this talk show and the laughable BlogTV series, CNA discredits MSM as mouthpieces of the government.
This is an opportunity for alternative media to present itself as the true voice of the grassroots.
I’m sorry but time and time again Kenneth has proven himself to be an uncharismatic rookie who gives himself more credit that he deserves. He thinks it’s his birth right to claim in a seat in parliament because he’s a Jeyaretnam and has a degree from Cambridge. I’ve read his thoughts on minimum wage, etc and he doesn’t seem to be able to provide a perceptive analysis to policy issues like how bloggers Leong Sze Hian or Alex Au can. On the people skills side, he can’t connect with people on the ground like Chiam See Tong or Low Tia Kiang and the recent resignations have demonstrated that he can’t even get along with his own party members. The sooner we look to other opposition members are future leaders of the opposition the better.
With regards to Debora’s comment on :
“But you have to agree that the system is improving right??? 5.4 members per GRC become 5, it is an evolution right???”
“Let’s not take this as an opportunity to rubbish the whole electoral system, we should just work with the system we have!”
1) It is not evolution – as the election system is due for overhaul long ago. It is only a tiny step towards the right direction, long overdue !
2) The current electoral system is indeed RUBBISH. Why in heaven should we work with the system with have ? It is biased and favour the current ruling party. This is one of the many ‘legalised’ corruptions under them.
The GRC is one of the causes of the downfall in the quality of the MPs in parliament.
Goh Meng Seng is quite impressive. He has good ideas and when he gets into parliament, the overpaid PAP MPs and ministers would have to work harder.
i don’t think Indranee’s example on Egypt was a good idea,
&, the way she jumped out to ‘rescue’ Palmer was not a good idea as well, it gave me the impression that Palmer was not able to defend himself, additionally, it does not seem to be polite to interrupt when the question was obviously not addressed to you.
Kenneth Jeyaretnam’s performance is resonable for a newbie, reform party has a problem, the party is very young and the election is very near, meaning to say, no time.
WP had time to build up over many years & many elections and it shows, KJ needs a more stringent talent selection process & ensure ideological compatibility within the party, fast expansion isn’t necessarily a good thing.
but it’s a good thing, better learn the lessons early rather than late.
Goh Meng Seng has some interesting points to make as always; i am not advocating using big words like HIGHFALUTIN to help all of us improve on our vocabulary, but his oratorical delivery could be more fluid.
KJ – using a watered down queens’s english, might not be easy for some ppl to understand, a politician’s speech should be optimized to reach out to as many voters as possible, the lowest possible common denominator for the language ability of the voters should be considered.
eric tan – it was a surprise, he exceeded my expectation.
fight, fight, fight…
if PAP is that confident, then Election Department dun need to change boundaries, let all political parties know how & why it makes all its decision. dun need a pro-PAP host under a pro-PAP media to present the show.
the truth is that PAP screwed up too many times, from wasting taxpayer’s $$ on YOG, inflating defence budget unrealistically, not investing enough on its own citizens by alleviating the rising cost of living which ultimately impacted personal decisions to get married & have kids.
why does the host keep probing the alternative parties on election strategies? she should declare her support (for her party of choice), before the show even started. then let viewers see the program from her perspective.
:D
Eric Tan for me, was really impressive..he talked with eloquence. Goh Meng Seng brought up several points which would serve to be key issues. The best part was when Eric debunked Indranee when he higlighted the PAP’s lack of forsight. Michael on the other hand smacks of sheer pompous lawyer bs. Kenneth Jeyarathnam..quite honestly seemed abit lost in there…I’m not so sure…if he has the ability to hold the attention of a crowd…much less a room with 5 people in it.
the talkshow host is annoying, she keeps taunting the oppo leaders: you got this? can you do this anot? etcetc. so zhuai. someone should ask her back- u can do if you were oppo? u can anot?
but KJ made a good point that even netizens here need to listen and wake up: oppo is not one single entity. opposition parties fight for different, what they think is better ways of governing Singapore and if they cooperate, it is a strategy to win seats. even if they manage to form a coalition government it will have to compromise with one another’s party idea.
stop shoehorning the election into a PAP-vs-opposition reality show just because you don’t like PAP. kping online and complaining abt voting is the easy way out that any lazy discontent ppl can do. it’s irresponsible, when opposition leaders are cracking their brains trying to make a good challenge to PAP. all you do here is the equivalent of showing moral support, ie eye power.
and that is why the election boundaries (and getting to know them ahead of time) are so important: opposition parties need to get their point across and win the trust of the electorate and that takes time- a point that i think the show interrupted.
Why is Deborah more aggressive and pro-active in attacking the opposition and defending PAP than the 2 PAP MPs?
What is really her role in this program?
There have been several comments here on what the commenters here seem to be characterizing as a ‘brilliant’ point by Goh Meng Seng regarding Michael Palmer and minority race representation.
First, the guarantee of minority race represenation does not apply to those who are officially categorized as Eurasians, but only to Indians and Malays.
Read the Constitution.
But Michael Palmer is just as uninformed if he couldn’t respond with exactly what I have just pointed out.
The second point, a more contentious one, is that Goh Meng Seng, those who have commented here on the issue, most other Singaporeans, and in all likelihood, Michael Palmer himself, are in a severe state of denial or just plain ignorant if they are unable to see that there are “privileged ethnic minorities” as well all as “disadvantaged ethnic minorities”. (In my opinion, the constitutional provisions guaranteeing Indian and Malay representation comes close to recognizing that distinction.)
To all those I have implicated in the above paragraph, please be honest (with yourselves to begin with) and ask yourselves if you truly TREAT and THINK OF the following groups of people in EXACTLY the same way as you do Indians, especially Tamil Hindus, and Malays:
1. Caucasians;
2. Eurasians, paticularly those with Western names and surnames;
3. Mixed race Indians eg. Indian-Chinese such as Indranee Rajah, Vivian Balakhrishnan, Indian-Caucasian such as Kenneth Jeyaratnam, etc;
4. Indians who are Christians, especially those with Christian names and/or surnames eg. James Gomez, Vincent Wijeysingha, Kenneth Jeyaratnam, etc;
5. Indians with Indian names but who are not Tamil Hindus eg. Davinder Singh, Vikram Nair, etc. (From my own reading of comments by many non-Indians, many Singaporeans do seem to know instinctively that Rengasamy s/o Karthigesan does not belong in this group.)
And I haven’t even gone into any analysis involving individuals’ accents, people’s peception of those accents, and the chances of those who have the favoured accents relative to those who don’t.
it seems that by WP argument, the boundaries are redrawn for the sake of redrawing them, to favour incumbents. Continue to vote them in, who knows, they can change it to 10 member GRCs!
Deborah Soon – poor performance, lacked the finesse to get the job done without showing anything about oneself.
PN Balji – i pity him, he tried to be fair to both opposition & government by trying to ‘balance out’ what Deborah Soon was trying to do,
unfortunately he was often caught out when Deborah Soon ‘utilize’ him to play an ‘interrupt’ , that explains why he was caught searching for words to say.
if a guest is talking abt something and the host abruptly cut him off and redirect a totally different question to me, obviously i cannot follow up.
PAP is not that foolproof, its the opposition that’s way beyond comprehension. Why wouldn’t they just change tactic for once and form a coalition to fight the PAP instead!!
Dream on,Kenneth,that is if you can even get elected in the first place, forget about the formation of a coalition later.
I would like to have opposition in parlaiment, but there’s a 50/50 chance that i will let another Singaporean vote for the oppostion.GET IT?
Do oppositions really know those issues at hand? Don’t just scratch the surface of the issue, dig it!! for eg, just on the FT issue alone, can PAP please provide some dignity to our fellow Singaporean? Imagine yourself having served the country and a father who’s family depended on the job and you are being appraised by a FT boss. And your 4 other colleagues so happens to be FTs from the same origin as the appraising boss. Those good, qualified, certified PAP people created this mess, go ask them! Why discriminate Singaporean, no safeguard?
Hate to say these, stop the ideology craps.I think PN Balji would make a better opposition candidate. A little down to earth thinking would be nice, as today policy maker are really just a bunch of academics.
If Debra had set this up to make the PAP look good, her plan had definitely back-fired. Not only did we see the sparkling side of the opposition, Goh Meng Seng and Eric Tan in particular, but also the lame side of an MD of ChannelNewsAsia.
By the way, why is she wearing a short skirt to an occasion like this?. If it was meant to be a distraction, I can only say it was an eyesore.
All eyes now is for WP to capture at least one big GRC, 1 small GRC and several SMCs. I wonder which town would be lucky to have them there to contest PAP. I hope WP come to my town.