Press release by the Workers’ Party.
The Workers’ Party would like to thank all voters, members, friends, volunteers and supporters who have directly and indirectly helped us in our journey towards a First World Parliament in GE 2011!
Thank you, the voters of Aljunied GRC and Hougang SMC for giving us your support to vote our candidates into the 12th Parliament of the Republic of Singapore.
Thank you, the voters of East Coast GRC, Nee Soon GRC, Moulmein-Kallang GRC, Joo Chiat SMC, Punggol East SMC, and Sengkang West SMC for your support during GE 2011.
Thank you, members of the Workers’ Party for your selfless sacrifice, dedication and valued contribution all these years leading up to this historic moment.
Thank you, all citizens and netizens of Singapore who have come to support us during our 8 rallies during GE 2011 in person and in cyberspace.
Let us continue to strive together, as all citizens of Singapore, towards a First World Parliament.
The Workers’ Party
9 May 2011
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
first world citizens,
First world citizens won’t disparage another for their views. They won’t resort to rabble rousing by painting the others as wrongdoing devils and themselves as righteous angels. All I said is that I’m a realist who thinks the world isn’t so simple and yet you treat me like a sinner because you absolutely want to see me prostrate before the ideals of your supposed perfect way of life. That’s not check and balance. It’s pure intolerance.
alitheia,
Post-WWI Germany was difficult times for the people. In times like that, you need strong leaders, but the system didn’t help, especially the part about proportional representation. That splintered the rest against the rabble rousing NSDAP.
Killings and disorders was rife with a reasonable chunk due to Nazi influences. You may cringe at this, but if Hitler and his ring leaders had been neutralised early in their troublemaking, there might be a little less trouble. There were more than 10 failed atttempts on Hitler but all these happened after he was Chancellor. But I doubt taking Hitler out of the picture earlier would’ve changed the troubled situation of Germany, whether politically or socially.
I think accountability ie check and balance requires an objective thinking citizenry. Political competition may not help as seen in Germany’s case if the citizenry is not objective enough to see issues clearly but easily given to emotional influence from whichever party who chooses to whip that up.
cart-horse:
The best people to answer your question on Germany would be the German people.
Look at their Grundgesetz or Basic Law that was enacted after 1949 and ratified after German reunification. The key feature is a full and unequivocal commitment to human rights. Look at how the German polity also moved to strengthened the judiciary. Notice too how political parties can be abolished if they violate democratic principles enshrined in the Basic Law.
The German people – after the nightmare of Hitler – opted to strengthen democracy.
I am just as against demagogues as anyone else. But calling for accountability is not demagoguery – not by a long shot. Asking for greater checks and balances is not stirring or whipping up the mob.
A strong government is not one that rules by dictat but with accountability and responsibility.
Human beings – even the most enlightened first world citizens – are not Vulcans or Saints. We will always be fallible – susceptible to intimidation, bribery, selfishness, poor judgement etc.
Politicians – even the most enlightened ones – are rarely Mahatmas and we cannot afford to naively think that any will be.
In such imperfection, we owe it to ourselves and our children to establish a system that safeguards against both the mob and the autocrat. This is the democratic system of checks and balances, of an independent judiciary, an independent media, of civil society.
Despite our small size; despite our lack in so many areas, Singapore is in a good position to be a shining example of democracy. Indeed, I would posit that greater democratization will in fact be good for our economy and for building stronger economic foundations.
The answer is not less, but more democracy.
alitheia,
Rest assured, I’m not insinuating about you. Your comments are ok.
I feel the Allieds are more benign towards Germany after WWII and that played a part in the healing. I believe, apart from the Germans, they had a small part in Germany’s modern system.
Objective scepticism is a sign of maturity in citizens. It’s the best and ultimate check beyond the system. As Singaporeans, whichever side we tend, it’s a mark of our love to Singapore and our children to put ideas and remarks in perspective when they are blown over proportion.
cart-horse,
Are Mr. Lee Kuan Yew, Mr. Goh Chok Tong and PM Lee Hsien Loong first world citizens?
Did you lie or PM LHL lie (pledges a just and fair society)?
If you answer the above 2 questions, I will stop disparage (your word, not me) you. But do you have the courage?
Fellow Singaporeans,
Quote cart-horse “A first world parliament needs first world citizens first and foremost”.
Quote from 151004 “in a democratic society, since the citizens elect their leaders, the type of leaders elected will reflect the state of mind of their citizens”.
Quote from alitheia “Let me conclude though with a concurrence – we reap what we sow. I say we sow what is right and good for a society that is just and fair – as PM Lee has pledged.”
Obviously, it is illogical for cart-horse to say that in reality, first world citizens are not fair and just. Simply put, it is self fulfilling prophecy example!
cart-horse,
Your example of Hitler has the same logic as the YPAP Cheo Ming Shen, who said Mr. Lee Kuan Yew is equivalent of Nelson Mandela to Singaporeans.
Cheo Ming Shen = cart-horse?
first world,
I don’t understand what your obsession is about. I’ve my views and you’ve your ideas. We have different opinions about how things can be done, what’s viable and what the priorities are. I’ve put forth mine, and you’ve also said yours. There’re obviously some disagreements here and there. But that’s it.
Instead of settling on that, you choose to call me a liar and a coward. Now, you’re even trying to make wild guesses about me. What’s that about? Are you going to stalk me? Well, you can go ahead to confront whoever you think I am if you want, since it doesn’t really affect me. Whatever feud you had with anybody is between the two of you. But pardon me being frank here, the way I see it you’re basically harassing someone.
You (say you) honour equality. What is the essence of equality between the two of us? I’m entitled to my views, right? Without having to suffer your harrassment, right? Instead of that, you’re behaving otherwise by using harsh labels and threats of harrassment. So, in the end, do you really honour ideals of the pledge yourself, specifically equality?
If you can’t honour equality between two individuals in a private discussion, I wonder how you can even talk about equality among the population with all sorts of opinions.
Anyway, that’s reality. People disagree. And when they do, you can practise your ideals of equality by respecting this disagreement.
Do you understand what I’m saying?
cart-horse,
What are your answers?
cart-horse,
I like to call a spade a spade. You are a liar and a coward. You are typical evil man when confronted with evidences of wrong doings, you will blame everyone except yourself.
A wild guess is a wild guess. Nothing more and nothing less.
Infamous inequality speech from BG Yeo “You must make distinctions – what is high, what is low, what is above, what is below – and then within this, we can have a debate, we can have a discussion,”
first world,
Now, are you in a quandary between ideals and reality now?
Ideals can guide us in the broader schemes but there’re always pragmatic decisions to be made in practice. Where is the line? That’s reality.
I applaud your fervent wish to honour your ideals like equality. But sad to say, you’ve already unknowingly drawn a very unreasonable line mentally. And you disparage and intend to harass me based on that imaginary line in your mind.
Come on, what I said is fair and moderate. I don’t think anyone will say that my ideas are too radical like nudism or anarchist. I’m just saying we must be realistic and objective.
So, aren’t you drawing the line too near your side of the spectrum? Is your line too “unequal”? Are you going to criminalise all those on the other side of your mental line?
Ideals are perfect. Reality isn’t. How much do you accept of each? What are the considerations and consequences in relation to our limitations? They’ll collide at some point and you’ll need to draw the line. That’s pragmatism.
first world,
You can quote as many sentences as you like, but you’re just quoting out of context.
Firstly, out of historical context, example the audience that the sentence was actually meant for, the occasion, the mood, the circumstances.
Second, out of the present context now. What has all your different quotes sprinkled here and there has to do with what we’re talking here?
Obviously, you’re out to harass, to take down opponents. Not to discuss. That’s how the Weimar parliament failed. Every group is trying to take down the rest. They weren’t discussing issues in the interests of the people. They just want to trip the others and make them fall.
Please examine how well you’re practising the pledge. Take a close look. You’ve actually drawn many lines yourself. As I highlighted, the lines seems to defeat the very ideal you’re trying to practise.
cart-horse,
Are Mr. Lee Kuan Yew, Mr. Goh Chok Tong and PM Lee Hsien Loong first world citizens?
Did you lie or PM LHL lie (pledges a just and fair society)?
If asking you question is considered inequal to you, I don’t know what to say.
cart-horse,
You are so one-sided in your argument. All my quotes (including quoting you!) are considered by you as out of context. Whereas your quoting of “Hitler” case is not. ROFL.
first world,
Ok. You want me to answer 2 specific questions.
It’s only fair to speak for myself.
Similarly, I’ll only speak for myself. I put my heart in the pledge. But that doesn’t mean I must lie to say that there’ll be no difficult situations where I must exercise judgement.
For example, should I tolerate you seemingly try to identify and so to harass me just for our differences in views? At some point, I must draw a line. I hope you understand this dilemma.
Well, I’m very sure you aren’t happy with the answers. But please don’t take that out on anyone you imagine that I am. Please exercise your due judgement in this personal conflict of yours between ideal and practice.
cart-horse,
Hahahahaha ………..
You call that answers?
You put your heart in the pledge without believing justice and equality exist in reality. Hahaha ……….
Thanks for your joke.
Q1 : Are Mr. Lee Kuan Yew, Mr. Goh Chok Tong and PM Lee Hsien Loong first world citizens?
Cart-horse said “First world citizens won’t disparage another for their views. They won’t resort to rabble rousing by painting the others as wrongdoing devils and themselves as righteous angels.”
Q2 : Did cart-horse lie or PM LHL lie (pledges a just and fair society)?
Cart-horse does not believe just and fair exist in reality.
first world,
It’s ok. You can pretend. That’s fine with me. I know that you know what I’m saying.
Most importantly, other reasonable people know what I’m saying. Alitheia knows enough to carry a great discussion.
Just try your best to honour the pledge. Be mindful of the lines you’ve drawn unconsciously. You’re not perfect, though you try, but just don’t harass people because you are intolerant of their views. That’s defeating the very ideal you’re advocating.
Good luck.
cart-horse,
I will never pretend like you did pretend to answer my questions.
Good luck.