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
My thoughts and ratings:
1. Debra Soon – 1/10 Terrible host. Kept cutting the guests off and made several gaffes and faux pas that readers have rightly pointed out here.
2. Balji – 6/10 Gave constructive comments and appears to be an opposition sympathizer. Debra didn’t let him speak much though.
3. Michael Palmer – 4/10 Lacks conviction with his answers.
4. Eric Low – 9/10 Calm, concise and the one who impressed me the most. Augurs well for WP that even its treasurer is articulate and smart.
5. Kenneth J – 4/10 Not a good public speaker, lacks charisma and incoherent at times.
6. Goh Meng Seng – 7/10 Spoke and argues well.
7. Indranee Rajah – 5/10 Calm, spoke clearly and performed better than Michael Palmer but I doubt she would win in a proper debate with Eric or Meng Seng
I would like to pick up on a point made by “leow” above, because I feel that the only way that opposition parties will improve is to apply pressure on them to make those improvements. “leow” said, and not for the first time by any opposition supporter either:
“Why wouldn’t [the opposition parties] just change tactic for once and form a coalition to fight the PAP instead!”
The only explanation made thus far – ideological differences among them, and this was made previously by Sylvia Lim and now by Kenneth Jeyaratnam – to such a suggestion only has some grain of truth in it. But it is not enough to dismiss such suggestions entirely.
It is undeniably true that there is a degree of ideological diversity among the various opposition parties.
But are there not sufficient grounds already existing for far greater co-operation, if not a coalition, among opposition parties that should motivate the opposition parties towards that goal?
I would say there definitely is, and it goes well beyond the co-operation they have thus far extended to each other on avoiding three (or more) cornered contests, thus making the plea of “ideological differences” a shallow excuse.
Unless the opposition parties are so confident that there would be so dramatic an alteration on the political scene that their individual parties will make the exponential growth necessary in terms of their numbers, stature, and resources to form a future government, a coalition is not only a tactic but an absolute necessity towards the goal of forming a next government.
I have said this before, and I will say it again: Singaporeans derive confidence when they see even a glimmer of hope that unity among opposition parties exists. That confidence, if it reaches a certain level, would be sufficient to translate into enough votes for the opposition parties so that they form that next government.
Specifically, under the present circumstances, confidence in the opposition parties among Singaporeans would be boosted if they see that there is a core group comprising of individuals of ministerial calibre from the various opposition parties who work together, and are SEEN TO BE working together. That core group could become the cabinet of a future coalition government.
The individuals of ministerial calibre already exist, seperately in different parties.
But the their working together doesn’t exist, or isn’t seen to be existing.
No sign of working together, no confidence that the a cabinet formed by coalition will not collapse, no votes for the opposition parties.
It’s as simple as that.
Singaporeans who are being asked by the opposition parties to merely trust them without showing any signs why they should be trusted have every right to reject the opposition parties.
It’s about our lives, in the end.
Next ‘Talking Point” will be on Moles in the Opposition. KJ will give expert opinion.
Of all the parties, I guess worker’s party representative impresses me the most.2nd is NSP party and then followed by RP party. As usual, PAP MPs are fully of craps. They didnt state their own views, most of the time the PAP MPs state the govt views. Its totally unrelated. SPoreans watching the show, they will want to hear the own views from their own MPs, not rubbish.
As agreed, Dera Soon is totally out of place.. Maybe she is earning good money, so she looks down on the opposition parties.
But this show is a good start to Spore poltics
A good showing would be all the oppositions do a photoshot together and release a press statement that they will work together in parliament for the common people. PAP will shit on their pants for sure.
the govt is shameless. Their fellow pig declared that they meet their responsibilities.
What a shameless pig!
The questions are
1. medical fees increase by 30 percent
2. ft quality and numbers flooding into s’pore
3. what has the govt done to improve fertility which it has said that was a big long term problem? through ft importation? how has that solve the above problem?
then the pigs have not solve a long term problem.
it has neither solve short terms problems
so why are the pigs self paid so much?
in the past, Talking Point was the only thing poor Singaporeans had to a semblance of current affairs discussion.
in the past, people would have been taken in by Debra Soon’s manoeuvring.
in this post-Egypt age, Debra Soon, who has now climbed to the MD post, seems to be very weak in her arguments, taking us for fools.
all her interruptions, her obvious subservience when her ruling party wants to open mouth to speak on TV, her misuse of the word evolution, her slip of tongue when discussing that GRCs are getting better from 5 to 4 and that we need to slowly work on it to perhaps 3, 2 and back to square 1.
Fool. that is what i almost felt i was, but then i can read TOC, and now i feel better.
I watched the programme. Debra Soon should be sacked. She talk more than the panel and is downright rode and condescenting to members of the opposition parties.
Well said, Robox.
Election as far as I can see in Singapore, is all about the opposition!! not PAP. And at the same token, I do hope MM can do us a favor by not contesting or getting involve in the up coming election. Let’s see how good the PAP academics really are, as what have make up of them thus far.
We have yet to experience Singapore for a day without MM.
With due respect, Leow.
debra soon claims cna has CREDIBILITY…
you better vote and tell all, if so.
debra, i love you short skirt, too short for all to see and how to concentrate on the subject, lower please,
cameraman, pls use your professional expertise, pls…shoot the face and not the legs !!!
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?”
=====
yes, they will shift him off to some grc or make him the scrapgoat(lose an elcection in smc, what is the cost to pap, nothing, except, “i’m right, you see”)
evolution is not the correct word, we need a “REVOLUTION”,
the kind that BRINGS down, kick out, DESPOTS, DICTATORS, THIEVES, ROBBER BARONS….ETC ETC.
but then LOCALS are daft.
CNA IS GUTTERS POLITICKING GARBAGE, YOU HAVE BEEN BRAINWASHED.
To sum this talk up, it looks more like the well informed opposition party members are more suited to govern the country versus the two stooges PAP MP who looks more like dreamy opposition members.
Debra Soon’s paymasters are the Government, say what you like, so she knows which side her bread is kayaed. One can only hope that a new Government will open up enough windows so that a breath of fresh air will invigorate the media.Balji is on air in the absence of less brave/savvy media souls.
As for the minority representation in Parliement, if we accept such a need, then why not get the minority race groups to vote for their own minority representative. The candidates will be those that are the people’s choice, rather than what is being implemented under the GRC method, at the moment.
Who shall I vote for? The underdog, as is my usual practice, granted that I only voted once in the last 30 years. Why vote for the underdog? I believe that such a person will always work harder to serve the interests of society.
the show should be renamed ‘no point talking’…
B4 the end of part 1, Indranee Rajah explains all the positive points. Before anyone could rebut these points, Debra Soon cuts in to announce for a break. Then the topic is changed after the break.
The 3rd part, let Indranee Rajah explain that PAP’s policies on productivity, before KJ could rebut, she changed the topic.
She is a bloody obvious spokeswoman for PAP, and not a neutral host. She fights harder for the PAP then the 2 MPs themselves.
@Robox
I did go and read the Constitution and the relevant section (S39A(2)) refers to person belonging to Malay and Indian and other minority communities.
If you look at the definition of “person belonging to the Indian or other minority communities”, right at the end, there are the words “or any person who belongs to any minority community other than the Malay or Indian community”.
So while Eurasian is not specifically mentioned, it would be hard to say that they would not constitute a minority for GRC
Yes, nochancetovoteagain, you are right.
But with that settled, would you care to comment on my other statements?
Are Eurasians viewed in the same way as Indians, especially Tamil Hindus, and Malays?
I think that is the most pertinent issue here.
PAP MPs always seems to be able phrase it or reply in such a way that they are always perfect.
Which human does not get an impression that CNA hosts are supporting or helping to explain the boundary redrawing?
Maybe its just me lah. Singaporeans all feel and think like them.
Palmer,
its not just letting people see you and handshaking .
Can people ask you a question like :
ahemm…
1. How much is the construction cost for a 3 room flat ? To give you a break, Just provide ANY 1 construction price of a 3 room HDB flat in any place in singapore.
2. How much has been the Total Loss?
3. have you taken the MRT?
4. Do you like Mee Siam?
I am your fan and like to know would you be able to answer any of these commonsense questions that come to the minds of a commoner like mee?
Palmer said “…you can’t compete with China and India…”
I disagree with this pessimistic view.
European countries, true 1st world countries, can compete and that is why they are there.
What singapore lacks is Innovation , Creativity and World Class Companies that are not funded or run by GLCs but by individual self-made entreprenuers.
If singapore workforce has the higher Productivity and Skills, there is no need to say that we cannot compete with them.
European workers are not paid so low salaries.
I think Palmer needs to clarify on his statement.
We should say Singapore Can Compete with China and India without having to follow their low-wage strategy.
Another thing. Productivity was mentioned by PAP long ago. Well, many countries also have productivity strategies. Having mentioned Productivity long long ago, does not mean anything if the implementation is not reached the goals or solved the problem.
I also mentioned that authoritarian regimes will not last forever. But anyone can mention that right? Tunisia, Egypt and Libya.
I can also say I want world peace. So, if there is world peace, is it due to me?
Debra Soon said CNA is credible, just because they allowed the slit in the traditional cheongsum to go higher.
I would say, she’s incredible, allowing herself to dress the PAP in public, wool over cheongsum.
Someone later will try guitar strings, keep it up Debra.
Palmer, Indranee and any PAP supporter,
Why Citizen Employment rate not published?
Singaporeans,
Why you dun want to know?
Singapore,
why u so unique?
Dear 1st world,
i agree with u generally on the china, india part, just to add,
not that the europeans can compete with china & india, they DO not have to compete with china & india cost wise.
if u built BMWs there is no need to compete with china cars, it is only if u built Protons u might need to compete with china cars.
n if u persist in making low value goods, u r condemed to compete with others who also make low value goods.
we, are not creating enough value.
Now they say they want to increase people’s income by 30% in 10 years. Let us say that the people had started rejoicing. The joy will naturally translate into votes and further translate into megabucks for them. Suppose after 10 years that 30% objective did not materialise, who is going to step forward and take resposibility? Just like the Swiss standard? Who is going to return his 10 yrs’ worth of income which was obtained based on a projection, proven to be unattainable?
No Gerrymandering?
Indranee Rajah said ‘you want more SMC, PAP gave you 12″.
PAP “gave”, there you go, Electorate boundary committee IS the PAP
Right from the horse’s mouth
@GABRIEL:
“As for the minority representation in Parliament, if we accept such a need, then why not get the minority race groups to vote for their own minority representative.”
I would aver that there IS in fact a need to guarantee ethnic minority representation. Those who think otherwise are woefully ignorant of the true ground sentiment, or in denial of it. In the case of opposition parties and their individual members who wish to do away with the guarantee, it begs the question of how good as our representatives in Parliament they could be if they are so divorced from the reality on the ground.
Ever since GRCs were introduced, every party that has contested in SMCs has only ever fielded ethnic Chinese candidates.
Why?
The answer is obvious: All the parties know only too well that fielding an Indian or Malay candidate in an SMC, especially against a Chinese one IS risky. (Now imagine the chances of an already disadvantaged opposition Indian or Malay candidate contesting against a Chinese PAP one.)
They all know, but the opposition parties in particular are not telling; they are being dishonest to themselves and to the people whom they are canvassing for votes.
Yet, do I blame them for avoiding such a risk? Not in the least: Every party contests to win, not lose. What then does this mean in the eventuality that GRCs are completely abolished? Well, keep a lookout in the contests in the 12 SMCs at the next elections to see the GRC-free future even more clearly than it should be right now.
Ah, you say, but what about JB Jeyaratnam, the ONLY person everyone cites as if to suggest that his was not an isolated (and exceptional) electoral outcome but represents some kind of norm. (I have another explanation, and that is that opposition supporters tend to care less about a candidate’s ethnic background only in times that are politically exceptional such as it was in the 1980s as well as the current period. But this is not a pattern that exists normally.)
It’s unforgivable when opposition parties themselves, even ethnic minorities among them, adopt the stand of doing away with that guarantee. In their anxiety to get rid of GRCs so that their power ambitions can more easily materialize, they betray their true inclinations: the usual blatant disregard with which ethnic minorities are treated in Singapore politics. Worst of all, they don’t even make a pretense of considering the alternatives available to them even when they have been aired.
(cont…)
(…cont)
In the above post, I referred to ‘the alternatives [to GRCs] available’ while at the same time guaranteeing ethnic minority representation. This post will air that alternative. Again. I would love to see if any opposition party members care enough for ethnic minorities whose votes they want so much that they would jump into the discussion of this suggestion.
The goal of abolishing GRCs while at the same time guranteeing ethnic minority representation can be achieved by designating certain wards so that they can be contested by Indian candidates only or Malay ones only.
A similar provision is already practised in India with regards to their 30% guarantee of women’s representation. In the Canadian province of BC, 10% of seats are similarly reserved for LGBTs and the disabled. (I don’t know what the breakdown is.) There are likely other such examples that I don’t know about.
Indeed, if Singapore were to implement the CEDAW recommendations of guranteeing 30% representation by women – Singapore has already signed up to CEDAW – it is exactly this provision that would have to be implemented in our electoral system.
There are many advantages to this over any other system:
1. If, in an SMC designated for contest only by Indians, say, the voters in that SMC CANNOT vote for or against any candidate because of his/her race; this goes a long way towards eliminating thinking along the lines of race – racism and communalism – by making voters focus on the issues rather than the race of the candidate/s.
2. Using the same example as above of a ward designated for contest only by Indians, both Indian candidates, being in the numerical minority, CANNOT AFFORD TO PANDER ONLY TO THEIR ETHNIC GROUP; to stand the best chance, the two (or more) candidates MUST woo the votes of the other two ethnic communities, the majority. Again this means that even the candidates themselves must focus on wider issues – there is no place for communalism in such a setup.
Now, tell me does this sound like the “tokenism”, “affirmative action” and “getting a free ride” that those who are ever ready to dismiss this suggestion insinuate? (Somehow, never is “tokenism” ever insinuated whenever we talk about guaranteeing WOMEN’S representation; that must surely underscore the hostile ethnic relations that exist, and only augments my point.) Not in the least; indeed, the quality of ethnic minority candidates can only see improvement as a result of this.
This is an article by Reform Party member, an ethnic minority one at that, Rajiv Chaudry, arguing that ‘the [PAP] government did not offer any emperical evidence that minority candidates were in any way disadvantaged or had had difficulty in being elected’.
http://sonofadud.com/guest-spot/
In my opinion, Rajiv Chaudry is merely attempting to take his readers for a ride.
These are the figures that he should have provided if he had wished his assertions to be irrefutable:
He needed to have shown that:
a) the vote share earned by ethnic minority PAP candidates contesting in SMCs (to be broken down further to Indian and Malay candidates) are more or less identical to the vote share earned by ethnic Chinese PAP candidates; and,
b) the vote share earned by ethnic minority opposition party candidates contesting in SMCs (to be broken down further to Indian and Malay opposition) are more or less identical to the vote share earned by ethnic Chinese opposition candidates.
He also needs to explain why is it, after the introduction of GRCs, have all the SMCs – sav ethe ones contested by JB Jeyaratnam – only ever been contested (and needlesss to say, won) by individuals who are ethnic Chinese?
If the Reform Party believes that there should be no guaranteed ethnic minority representation, may we expect them to walk the talk and field only ethnic minority candidates in the SMCs – particularly with Chinese PAP candidates as their opponents – at the next elections to prove their point that ethnic minority candidates are in no way disadvantaged at the polls?
Indeed, all opposition parties should come forward with similar proof since no opposition party has yet to throw their support behind the guarantee of ethnic minority representation in Parliament.
Singaporeans have never experienced another ruling party.
Singaporeans have no experience being a citizen of western style democracy.
Singaporeans lack political awareness and participation. They are greenhorns.
Imagine, if this were UK, would their intellectuals have sat there and accepted the influx without Questioning, Debate and Public Referendum?
This proves singapore Intellectuals are not the type of intellectuals found in western 1st world democracies.
Stop avoiding the fact.
Stop ignoring who you are.
There is a problem and its called your mental.
A Psychological Problem requires a Psychological Strategy to Cure.
A PhD can be weak psychologically.
Psychology is the Archiles tendon.
Recall Waco of USA where mass suicide committed by a cult consisting of highly educated people also. IQ is not everything. Psychology is the dominating factor.
How many can understand this?
To change singapore, Egpyt , Tunisia domino effect will have no effect. It would take at least 1 or 2 miracles.
Who disagrees how unique singaporeans are?
This is the most crucial part that Reform Party member Rajiv Chaudry left out in the dubious statistics he extolled in his article, the link to which I posted above.
“By 1968, there were no opposition members of parliament and it was 13 years before an opposition party won a single seat during the Anson by-election of 1981.”
If you look at the statistics that he posted, it was a tabulation of SUCCESSFUL electoral outcomes, almost exclusively the PAP’s, since the year 1968, after the PAP had already decimated the then opposition with its media control, its disinformation campaigns on “communists” and their alleged proclivity towards violence amounting to terrorism, etc.
Not entirely different from the situation now.
In other words, just like it is today, the PAP doesn’t stand too great a risk by fielding an ethnic minority candidate. The PAP can field a donkey and that donkey will get elected just because it contests under the PAP banner.
And the donkeys HAVE already been elected under the PAP’s banner.
So how does Rajiv Chaudry’s stats prove that ethnic minorities functioning in a level playing field afforded by the system his party is fighting to achieve can stand an equal chance compared with their ethnic Chinese colleagues?
All Rajiv Chaudry has proven here is that he, under his party’s auspices, is willing to fudge statistics and falsify arguments based on those fudged stats to promote his party’s objectives.
That being the case, what difference does it make to vote for the PAP?
To Robox
Not truth that minority candidates can’t win the SMC.
Opposition has only a few minority candidates, hence those minorities will only compete in GRC.
Before GRC was introduced, didn’t PAP minority candidates win in SMC too? S. Rajaratnam, ex DPM is a minority.
I will vote base on the candiate’s quality, regardless of race, language or religion. How about you?
To Robox
Any PAP minority candidates loss in election?
Does it mean a minority presidential candidate will loss to a Chinese presidentail candidate?
Why no requirement on the race of the presidential candidates to be rotated each term if we are convinced that Singaporeans are racist?
More than 12 hours after I posted my comments, similar to some that I posted here, on Kenneth {“The RP stands for transparency and accountability”)Jeyaratnam’s blog with Rajiv Chaudry as guest writer.
Still not published.
Yes, Singaporeans. Vote wisely. If you want to replace the PAP, make sure that the replacement is a better one than the PAP and not merely an imitation of it.
i agree with the netizen who said “No Point Talking”…so true when Deborah Soon was openly biased in favour of the PAP reps.
in doing what she did, Deborah has helped viewers to see first hand for themselves and understand better why Spore’s MSM is ranked a lowly 136th to 154th…sadly, it also explains why we have kangaroos in our justice system. how not to when these buggers think and behave like her, right?
i am inclined to agree with many of TOC readers’ comments and i wish to add that both Michael Palmer and Indranee Rajah are essentially PAP stooges who got into parliament thru the GRC system. i surmise these 2 stooges were picked to represent PAP on “Talking Point” simply because both are practising lawyers.
however, it back-fired and it turned out to be a farce because being articulate means little without substance.
the gerrymandering coupled with the way ‘Talking Point’ was hosted only served to reinforce my belief that the incumbents are nothing but a bunch of cheats, cowards and liars.
it also explains why we will never see PM Lee or any of his ministars step up to the plate for an open debate with the OPP…not even with citizens.
There is Ahmad Mattar at Brickworks where I used to live.
Robox,
Even if it is an imitation, it would be better. If PAP is ‘bad’, and imitations are usually less accomplished than originals, so the imitation will actually be less bad. i.e an improvement.
Price of cigarette, food & drink has increased again. Siow liao la.. Budget money havent take yet..
Two important points: first: how many of those on the register are native born Singaporeans? what percentage? My guess is not more than half. All these new citizens just because the PAP loves its power so much?
Second: Michael Palmer and Indranee Rajah now say people vote according to how good a candidate is and not race. Good. Then GRCs are unnecessary. I just want Michael Palmer to confirm now that if he loses he isn’t going to change his tune and say its all about race.