Why they choose to be opposition ?
-
in the theory of singaporean evolution, only those who are preoccupied with economic survival wins. therefore, you keep having more and more people who are only interested in economic survival (or ladder)..out of curiosity, did the puppet media give the opposition its name?
-
Well, I suppose so.After the PAP won power in 1959, the press usually refers to the other parties as merely the Opposition.Originally posted by foxwalk:in the theory of singaporean evolution, only those who are preoccupied with economic survival wins. therefore, you keep having more and more people who are only interested in economic survival (or ladder)..out of curiosity, did the puppet media give the opposition its name? -
Dear pkchukiss,Originally posted by pkchukiss:Just yesterday, I had a heated debate with one of my friends on the opposition.
He argued that there was no need for an opposition because the PAP administration has taken great care of the country, and we should not rock the boat by introducing elements which will conflict with the PAP. He proposed that it would reduce the level of debate in the Parliament into a debacle of "chair throwing".
For statistical profiling purpose, may I know how old is your friend? Thanks.
Goh Meng Seng -
Without wanting to insult any Singaporean, and apologize before-hand if any offence is taken, let me say this, because it must be said. The average Singaporean is no longer "alive".
Yes he walks, works and speaks, but he has been stifled for so long, that his thought processes have changed. Let me give you an example. If I am a taxpayer, surely I have a right to ask why and how my money is being spent.
Americans ask their government where their tax dollars are being spent, since it is their money. Why then does it turn into a libel case merely because someone who is a taxpayer demanded to know this?
Now, when you tell an American about Dr. Chee's case, or Mr. Jeyaretnam's cases, they are shocked. They cannot understand why the Singapore leaders should have such delicate nerves for wanting to sue everybody who criticizes them.
The American would object to this. I am sure everyone in the free world would object to this. But in Singapore, the individual has learnt to accept this status quo without complaint. It is surprising. It goes against human nature. -
Precisely.We are not ourselves anymore.And when people are denied an outlet for expression, the rage only builds up.This pent-up rage and inabilty to be a real man transmits itself to either crime, or suicide.Originally posted by caramon:Without wanting to insult any Singaporean, and apologize before-hand if any offence is taken, let me say this, because it must be said. The average Singaporean is no longer "alive".
Yes he walks, works and speaks, but he has been stifled for so long, that his thought processes have changed. Let me give you an example. If I am a taxpayer, surely I have a right to ask why and how my money is being spent.
Americans ask their government where their tax dollars are being spent, since it is their money. Why then does it turn into a libel case merely because someone who is a taxpayer demanded to know this?
Now, when you tell an American about Dr. Chee's case, or Mr. Jeyaretnam's cases, they are shocked. They cannot understand why the Singapore leaders should have such delicate nerves for wanting to sue everybody who criticizes them.
The American would object to this. I am sure everyone in the free world would object to this. But in Singapore, the individual has learnt to accept this status quo without complaint. It is surprising. It goes against human nature.
There are increasing numbers who are getting very pissed off and sad on how this nation is going down the drain, and that the majority are so blinded by the theatre that they forget to see who the puppeteers are.Wake up man, this is your country and mine, let's not keep it under pretense anymore.
When CSJ speaks, no one listens.When he seeks help from international groups and presents our reality to them, people call him a liar and a traitor.I wonder whether those who condemn him have the guts to put aside his career and his family and walk the path and stand on the wall.He may not be very PR oriented and his speech often has lapses , but I dare say he has the fire and at least some passion for what he is doing.Refuse and boycott the slick advertising, how is some flashy campaign going to feed you when the chips are down?
Wake up.As they say in the army, "Wake up your bloody idea , you fuckers!" -
Chiam and Low are just puppets.Originally posted by crazy monkey:Well we have Chiam and Low wat. They are people who can qn policy without throwing chairs. With people like Chee around there will be shouting match sooner or later. He will be thrown out then complain about his right to speak blah blah blah ... ...
Workers Party is dead without JBJ. -
Retract statements?Why must one retract his or her statement when he/she thinks that they have done or say nothing wrong?Dont u find it ridiculous?Did our dear Lou Goh or Lou Lee "retract" their statement when ppl think that they have say or do something inappropriate?For example those stupid "Stayer or quitter" talk la,or Lou Goh once say after a general election that "chinese educated voters" did not vote for the PAP la,does he knows how many ppl he have offended?Did he retract his statement?Originally posted by yoongf:Let's not forget that Chee was given a chance to retract those statements that he made. Chee chose not to do so. Furthermore, when the lawsuit proceeded, no defence was put up.
It doesn't sound as if he was taken to task resulting from a one time spur of the moment emotional outburst.
The answer is NO,he continue to act like a big F**K!!!He n Lou Lee didnt retract any statement they have said,why should they want others to "take back their words" when they find it offended them?They are acting like a little spoil brats!!!Like the western sayings :"Some ppl can only grow old,but cannot grow up".I think Lou Goh n Lou Lee is typically this type of ppl. -
Well, the problem for Singapore is the dilemma that is facing S'poreans at this time now. As caramon have mentioned, S'pore's economy is not doing well at the moment. (Even I do not believe the 8.1% growth as China's one is like around 5~6%). However, the problem is that if we were to turn our support to the SDA, WP or SDP, ordinary S'poreans risk letting themselves sink further into the economic depression facing a lot of people. Well, we all know that Singapore's economy did well in the last century due to a government that is strong willed. Without our strong willed govt, I am afraid we will still be a Third World country.
So, we have to understand politics from the ordinary Singaporean point of view. What everybody want is something that can feed them and I am afraid politics is not something that can. If we were to turn our support to a untried and unproven govt, we risk losing everything that is already in place. As the chinese saying goes about taking a bell off a cat requires the help of the mouse who put it on in the first place. If the PAP govt were in power when the economy depression set in, it would be wise to let them be in power as they know best what went wrong with the economy. A good analogy would be that when a company is going bankrupt, it is not wise to change the financial controller as the job transition will inadvertently cause some of the records to be lost etc. Let the PAP restore the economy, before we start to think about politics.
Secondly, it's the image of the opposition parties that is being portrayed by the media or otherwise to the public. We all know that Potong Pasir and Hougang town councils receive very little funding and the conditions of their housing blocks are considerably poorer than the PAP-controlled ones. Although they did not raise the conservacy charges, LTK did mention that they saved for many years before they can manage to carry out upgrading in the precint. Singaporeans are practical. If this is what they are going to expect when they vote for other parties, most of them will just not vote. You can say that this is a case of discrimination by the PAP, then it's true and it's just too bad as this is the classic case of siege by the strong over the weak.
Thirdly, one of the reasons why the opposition is being perceived as weak is due to the fact that the party memberships are dwindling whereas the PAP always has a new batch of faces every couple of years. This is also partly because ppl are turned off by the prospect of being disadvantaged in their careers (CSJ WAS a lecturer.). If the future is going to be cast with doubts upon joining the opposition, S'poreans will not bother to join. Without new talents, the opposition will not have enough candidates to field for each GRC and thus ensuring that PAP walks over most of the time and wins the GE even before ballot boxes are set up.
Fourth, we must know the problem with the demographics of the electorate first. Ever since the Brits granted S'pore with self-rule in 1959, there are several parties which were of equal power and clout. However, why did only the PAP retain its clout? It's because the parties formed way back at 1959 are either communist-linked or they split up due to spats and squabbles. The older generation of the electorate are especially sensitive to communists and since most of the opposition parties of their generation are found to be communist-linked, they tend to associate the opposition parties with the communists and thus be turned away from voting for them. As for the younger generation, 2 characteristics are dominant, political apathy and strong material desire. For them, since they are born after the turbulent times, they tend to desire for material gains instead of something as ideological as politics. For them, its money above politics. They do not bother too deeply about politics and thus do not even want to jeopardise their quest for material well-being by voting for the opposition.
However, I sort of disagree that if a large group of opposition MPs are voted into the Parliament, it will degenerate into the Taiwan situation. Well, if you see cases such as Britain and the US, we can see that actually 2 parties of equal clout and strength do not necessarily mean that the legislature body will degenerate into chaos. (Maybe this is the work of our govt, or is it not?)
All in all, Singapore has a unique political system that will not work elsewhere in the world. If you feel strongly about politics, go ahead and join whichever cause that appeals to you, but in the case that you are really undermined by the government, then there's always the emigrate option for you. (Remember that some countries require the "Good Citizen" certification).
Happy pondering and good night!
-
Ok - now i think you need to take a step back and look at it from another angle. Dr. Chee made a very serious mistake when he alleged that 17 billion dollars was lent to suharto. To my knowledge, that has not been proven. Neither has he retracted that very allegation. All his retractions were along the lines of "I never wanted to impute any dishonesty on Mr Goh's part". That clearly falls short of saying that his allegations were unfounded on evidence.Originally posted by drawer:Retract statements?Why must one retract his or her statement when he/she thinks that they have done or say nothing wrong?Dont u find it ridiculous?Did our dear Lou Goh or Lou Lee "retract" their statement when ppl think that they have say or do something inappropriate?For example those stupid "Stayer or quitter" talk la,or Lou Goh once say after a general election that "chinese educated voters" did not vote for the PAP la,does he knows how many ppl he have offended?Did he retract his statement?
The answer is NO,he continue to act like a big F**K!!!He n Lou Lee didnt retract any statement they have said,why should they want others to "take back their words" when they find it offended them?They are acting like a little spoil brats!!!Like the western sayings :"Some ppl can only grow old,but cannot grow up".I think Lou Goh n Lou Lee is typically this type of ppl.
That is clearly wrong and unethical. If he does not have prove of such serious allegations, he should be not trying to gain political capital of them. He should have consulted a lawyer before running his mouth off.
On Mr Goh's and Mr Lee's part, i personally feel that they were very very petty individuals. They, or rather their lawyers, demanded that Mr Chee Publish a retraction in 2 newspapers and also that Mr CHee pay them compensation. I do not know how much compensation they demanded, but Mr Chee offered no compensation. According to the Judgement, that was when Mr GOh and Mr. Lee decided to sue.
Now why do i think that they were petty? I do not think it is a secret that Mr Chee is not a rich person. IF they indeed knew that Mr Chee had no great financial means, why ask for compensation? Why not live and let live, and just demand that he make a public apology and a public retraction of his allegations? It is true that it was within their rights to ask for compensation, but why not be gracious and bite the bullet for the good of the country? I am not insinuating that They planned the whole thing, that they wanted Mr Chee out of the race. I am saying that they should have been more gracious. After all, it is my opinion that a healthy opposition is prerequisite to a healthy governemnt. Perhaps they think differently.
In short, what i am trying to say is that in my opinion, All three parties' behaviour were not of the highest standards. Mr Chee tried to gain political capital off ,AFAIK, unfounded allegations, The other two were not gracious enough to accept a retraction and an apology.
Now, drawer, from your argument above, you seem to imply that insults like "quitters" and and being "chinses educated"(?) are on par with allegations of mishandling 17 billion dollars. Come on now, how is that possible?
The former words largely dealt no harm except, perhaps, for injured feelings. The latter is specific, and is capable of destroying a persons credubility and reputation.
Now i agree that the entire situation is unfair; From what i know, Mr Goh (or was it Mr Lee?) made some statements that Mr chee wanted to sue for. So far no action has been taken because, AKAIK, Mr Chee lacks funds. Also, i think that the Judges awarded too much Damages. I mean Mr CHee has been slapped with damages of possibily 500 000 dollars!!! That is surely too much! Has so much damage actually been done to Mr Goh and Mr lee? In my opinion, definitely not! -
We are NOT Americans.Originally posted by caramon:Without wanting to insult any Singaporean, and apologize before-hand if any offence is taken, let me say this, because it must be said. The average Singaporean is no longer "alive".
Yes he walks, works and speaks, but he has been stifled for so long, that his thought processes have changed. Let me give you an example. If I am a taxpayer, surely I have a right to ask why and how my money is being spent.
Americans ask their government where their tax dollars are being spent, since it is their money. Why then does it turn into a libel case merely because someone who is a taxpayer demanded to know this?
Now, when you tell an American about Dr. Chee's case, or Mr. Jeyaretnam's cases, they are shocked. They cannot understand why the Singapore leaders should have such delicate nerves for wanting to sue everybody who criticizes them.
The American would object to this. I am sure everyone in the free world would object to this. But in Singapore, the individual has learnt to accept this status quo without complaint. It is surprising. It goes against human nature.
-
Understanding is one thing, this situation cannot be allowed to propagate at the expense of civil rights and basic subsistence and job creation.If a man has to suffer for his individual right to support another party, then the system has to be changed.Originally posted by Gazette05:Well, the problem for Singapore is the dilemma that is facing S'poreans at this time now. As caramon have mentioned, S'pore's economy is not doing well at the moment. (Even I do not believe the 8.1% growth as China's one is like around 5~6%). However, the problem is that if we were to turn our support to the SDA, WP or SDP, ordinary S'poreans risk letting themselves sink further into the economic depression facing a lot of people. Well, we all know that Singapore's economy did well in the last century due to a government that is strong willed. Without our strong willed govt, I am afraid we will still be a Third World country.
So, we have to understand politics from the ordinary Singaporean point of view. What everybody want is something that can feed them and I am afraid politics is not something that can. If we were to turn our support to a untried and unproven govt, we risk losing everything that is already in place. As the chinese saying goes about taking a bell off a cat requires the help of the mouse who put it on in the first place. If the PAP govt were in power when the economy depression set in, it would be wise to let them be in power as they know best what went wrong with the economy. A good analogy would be that when a company is going bankrupt, it is not wise to change the financial controller as the job transition will inadvertently cause some of the records to be lost etc. Let the PAP restore the economy, before we start to think about politics.
Secondly, it's the image of the opposition parties that is being portrayed by the media or otherwise to the public. We all know that Potong Pasir and Hougang town councils receive very little funding and the conditions of their housing blocks are considerably poorer than the PAP-controlled ones. Although they did not raise the conservacy charges, LTK did mention that they saved for many years before they can manage to carry out upgrading in the precint. Singaporeans are practical. If this is what they are going to expect when they vote for other parties, most of them will just not vote. You can say that this is a case of discrimination by the PAP, then it's true and it's just too bad as this is the classic case of siege by the strong over the weak.
Thirdly, one of the reasons why the opposition is being perceived as weak is due to the fact that the party memberships are dwindling whereas the PAP always has a new batch of faces every couple of years. This is also partly because ppl are turned off by the prospect of being disadvantaged in their careers (CSJ WAS a lecturer.). If the future is going to be cast with doubts upon joining the opposition, S'poreans will not bother to join. Without new talents, the opposition will not have enough candidates to field for each GRC and thus ensuring that PAP walks over most of the time and wins the GE even before ballot boxes are set up.
Fourth, we must know the problem with the demographics of the electorate first. Ever since the Brits granted S'pore with self-rule in 1959, there are several parties which were of equal power and clout. However, why did only the PAP retain its clout? It's because the parties formed way back at 1959 are either communist-linked or they split up due to spats and squabbles. The older generation of the electorate are especially sensitive to communists and since most of the opposition parties of their generation are found to be communist-linked, they tend to associate the opposition parties with the communists and thus be turned away from voting for them. As for the younger generation, 2 characteristics are dominant, political apathy and strong material desire. For them, since they are born after the turbulent times, they tend to desire for material gains instead of something as ideological as politics. For them, its money above politics. They do not bother too deeply about politics and thus do not even want to jeopardise their quest for material well-being by voting for the opposition.
However, I sort of disagree that if a large group of opposition MPs are voted into the Parliament, it will degenerate into the Taiwan situation. Well, if you see cases such as Britain and the US, we can see that actually 2 parties of equal clout and strength do not necessarily mean that the legislature body will degenerate into chaos. (Maybe this is the work of our govt, or is it not?)
All in all, Singapore has a unique political system that will not work elsewhere in the world. If you feel strongly about politics, go ahead and join whichever cause that appeals to you, but in the case that you are really undermined by the government, then there's always the emigrate option for you. (Remember that some countries require the "Good Citizen" certification).
Happy pondering and good night! -
When you talk abt opposition, ppl like chee are jokers and will always bring not only to the opposition but also taint the image of singaporeans aboard.
wat we need are ppl who are willing to serve and offer alternative practical solutions to the problems. As long as the opposition fail to attract good talent, we will always only have chiam. -
We need more passionate yet sensible people to run the show, guys and gals who can show that they have an interest in ensuring this nation does not go down the drain because a protectionist mindset prevents alternative policies from being implemented.
-
How true. Opposition cannot produce good quality candidates still expect ppl to support them.Originally posted by blur_blur:When you talk abt opposition, ppl like chee are jokers and will always bring not only to the opposition but also taint the image of singaporeans aboard.
wat we need are ppl who are willing to serve and offer alternative practical solutions to the problems. As long as the opposition fail to attract good talent, we will always only have chiam. -
I am in doubt that the sinagpore's oppositions are genuine.Originally posted by crazy monkey:How true. Opposition cannot produce good quality candidates still expect ppl to support them.
Exp. Chee shouted at Lau Goh at the polling station. I thought about it later, even if the people had appointed a gangster instead of Chee. Will that gangster shout at Lau Goh??????
Not forgeting that Chee is professional, I can't believe he acted like that.
Lastly, I felt the whole thing was just a showtime to us Siongaporen.
I hate it. I hate it. I hate it. I hate it. I hate it. I hate it. I hate it. I hate it. I hate it. I hate it. I hate it. I hate it. I hate it. I hate it. I hate it. I hate it. -
lwflee,as ur post is too long,i am not quoting ur post,sorry about that.But i agree with some of ur point,like Lou Goh n Lou Lee has ask for too much from Mr Chee case.But as whether Mr Chee has really misbehave,i think it will be subjective.Mr Chee is not the first opposition party members to be sued,Teng Liang Hong n some other opposition party members has been sued for defamation before as well.To find fault on the person whom u dislike when u are more "superior" or at an "advantage" is very easy.If everyone here act like Lou Goh or Lou Lee,a little remarks from the ppl whom we dislike n we take it so seriously n go to sue them,i think our judges will be very "busy"!!![]
As for the "stayer n quitter" part n the rest,yes,i admit it make minimal hurt to the ppl.But what i am trying to say is that everyone has talk bad about others before,either openly or behind closed door,but if we were to take things so seriously,then we will make alot of enemy by the end of the day!!!And in this case,Lou Goh n Lou Lee has obviously show us a very bad example here!!! -
Fully agree with you. That's why fewer people would dare to join oppositions!!!! MonstersOriginally posted by drawer:lwflee,as ur post is too long,i am not quoting ur post,sorry about that.But i agree with some of ur point,like Lou Goh n Lou Lee has ask for too much from Mr Chee case.But as whether Mr Chee has really misbehave,i think it will be subjective.Mr Chee is not the first opposition party members to be sued,Teng Liang Hong n some other opposition party members has been sued for defamation before as well.To find fault on the person whom u dislike when u are more "superior" or at an "advantage" is very easy.If everyone here act like Lou Goh or Lou Lee,a little remarks from the ppl whom we dislike n we take it so seriously n go to sue them,i think our judges will be very "busy"!!![]
As for the "stayer n quitter" part n the rest,yes,i admit it make minimal hurt to the ppl.But what i am trying to say is that everyone has talk bad about others before,either openly or behind closed door,but if we were to take things so seriously,then we will make alot of enemy by the end of the day!!!And in this case,Lou Goh n Lou Lee has obviously show us a very bad example here!!! -
Still got low but tats all they have. Even steve chia cannot make it.Originally posted by blur_blur:When you talk abt opposition, ppl like chee are jokers and will always bring not only to the opposition but also taint the image of singaporeans aboard.
wat we need are ppl who are willing to serve and offer alternative practical solutions to the problems. As long as the opposition fail to attract good talent, we will always only have chiam. -
The rumors swirling ard that if u served in opposition, you will find that your career will come to a halt due to certain 'intervention'.
With all these stories, who dare to serve in the opposition? -
This is so true and I absolutely agree with the part about using a microscopic lense to view the opposition parties just because they are not wearing white shirts and pants...In that sense, we are becoming myopic in our views of the opposition's place in Singapore, which subsequently reduces our understanding of their strategic vision, not exercising our rights for a better say in contributing to diverse and open discussion, and just live the day under a false sense of 'democracy'.
Humans are fallible and we all have our own strengths and weaknesses. And I always remind myself to look at the opposition members as individuals who dare to speak up and give a 'voice'. In consistently criticizing Chee's credibility or how he secretly tape records conversations, misbehaved in rallies is to allow these personality traits to cloud the bigger picture. Yes, he may not be a good leader or orator and this is because this chap is an academic. He is one individual of a whole, and if even this one support is being struck off, you obviously have nothing left. It is similar to assessing what ideas a worker brings to the workfloor, how he or she expects to do and change things, than the fact that he wore white socks with black shoes. And if everybody starts to prejudice on these 'personal errors' and image is all that we look for, are we not deceiving ourselves? One should instead look at the purpose of having a non-PAP entity instead of the individual. Bullying is more prevalent in today's world. Are there any real differences between high handled/civilized bullying compared to straight talking uncouth bullying? In fact, more professionals or PR consultants should join and contribute to a more 'corporatized' outfit much like how the ruling party is being run. That being said, does an organization having many 'more good years' without any external stifle or competition serve its purpose or see the bigger reality? Such a monopoly only becomes complacent and saddled with too much administravias (infightings maybe), it looks inward and becomes insular to the public. Given time, it regresses to the life cycle's decay phase.
And the arguments in the newspapers put forth by the ruling party against the 'oppositions' are usually quoted out of context and ridiculed. Do we always get to read or see the full transcripts or just revel in snippets? How can one make an informed decision? What about blunders made or said by members of the ruling party? I believe the media or those in control should review their practices to encourage more young voters to be engaged. You cannot just tell off some univerisity kids to post their opinions on the Internet and say, okay lets set up a mailing list, go for some political outings by the beach, watch a movie, and wish them good luck in whatever their strive is for an alternative voice. What a clever dismissal. For one thing, the information exchange online cannot be controlled and more importantly, they will not be taken as seriously vis a vis those from the traditional channels which still functions mainly as prejudiced propaganda machines. At most, you will just have particular high hits to some fragmented web or blog sites, if that is all, being visited out of boredom. Isnt that the same as opening your front door during Chinese New Year and having the guests by the gate but not into the house, afraid that thay may dirty the floor or topple the antiques inside?Originally posted by drawer:lwflee,as ur post is too long,i am not quoting ur post,sorry about that.But i agree with some of ur point,like Lou Goh n Lou Lee has ask for too much from Mr Chee case.But as whether Mr Chee has really misbehave,i think it will be subjective.Mr Chee is not the first opposition party members to be sued,Teng Liang Hong n some other opposition party members has been sued for defamation before as well.To find fault on the person whom u dislike when u are more "superior" or at an "advantage" is very easy.If everyone here act like Lou Goh or Lou Lee,a little remarks from the ppl whom we dislike n we take it so seriously n go to sue them,i think our judges will be very "busy"!!![]
As for the "stayer n quitter" part n the rest,yes,i admit it make minimal hurt to the ppl.But what i am trying to say is that everyone has talk bad about others before,either openly or behind closed door,but if we were to take things so seriously,then we will make alot of enemy by the end of the day!!!And in this case,Lou Goh n Lou Lee has obviously show us a very bad example here!!!