y soll many anti-pap people here?
-
I wonder whther the Mini stars in the government got swiss bank accounts...hmmm
-
Well, standing for your opinions, if they don't toe the party line, we appear anti-PAP. Truth is, in every society, there's gonna be some anti-X and some anti-Y, this is not Utopia.
Most impt thing is to be PRO-SG...
LOL my first post...
-
Very true.If we couldn't care less about this place that we live in, we could very well SHUT UP.This is a fact that cannot be denied.Originally posted by SilentAssassin:Well, standing for your opinions, if they don't toe the party line, we appear anti-PAP. Truth is, in every society, there's gonna be some anti-X and some anti-Y, this is not Utopia.
Most impt thing is to be PRO-SG...
LOL my first post... -
Migrate... will be best solution, but not excellent one. coz people will still complain about politicians there...
Its all in your mind. -
Because there are no alternatives left.Originally posted by commonsense:y no choice leh? means what?
The opposition have had : Their candidate work the ground for years, then having the ward absorbed into a GRC that is nowwhere even near the ward (e.g. bradell);
The opposition have had : Their candidates sued till they are either bankrupt or fled the country. Tang Liang Hong for example, was sued for several million dollars for the act of waving a police report he made in front of reporters. JBJ Jeyaratnam is now reduced to pedalling his books at cityhall, shouting 'Know the truth!'.
The opposition have had : To face a partisan civil service, where supposedly neutral bodies cooperate closely with the PAP against the opposition. e.g. The IRAS, NUS admin agains Chee Soon Juan; The police where requests for public speaking by opposition were routinely denied; The AG Chambers even once twisted their interpretation of the law to protect the face of DPM/PMs etc.
Now, the opposition is almost destroyed. Lets say at this moment you suddenly decide that you are disillusioned with the PAP and wants another party to take over... where can you find such a party? -
Heroes like Chee Soon Juan? What the fuçk is wrong with you???Originally posted by 798:Uncles and Ah peks know how to curse the PAP, but when the MPs come to them, they shake the MPs' hands as if they see Gods.
Alas, when will we see heroes like chee soon chuan?
-
That's because the opposition are idiots. After so many set backs you'd think they'd learnt how to avoid getting sued. Instead of seeing more savvy potical strategies from them, they blindly keep falling into the same hole. The JB's, Chee's and Francis Seow's out there really need to learn from thir comrades who know how to play the game: the likes of Chiam See Tong and Low Thia Khiang.Originally posted by bumbleb:Because there are no alternatives left.
The opposition have had : Their candidate work the ground for years, then having the ward absorbed into a GRC that is nowwhere even near the ward (e.g. bradell);
The opposition have had : Their candidates sued till they are either bankrupt or fled the country. Tang Liang Hong for example, was sued for several million dollars for the act of waving a police report he made in front of reporters. JBJ Jeyaratnam is now reduced to pedalling his books at cityhall, shouting 'Know the truth!'.
The opposition have had : To face a partisan civil service, where supposedly neutral bodies cooperate closely with the PAP against the opposition. e.g. The IRAS, NUS admin agains Chee Soon Juan; The police where requests for public speaking by opposition were routinely denied; The AG Chambers even once twisted their interpretation of the law to protect the face of DPM/PMs etc.
Now, the opposition is almost destroyed. Lets say at this moment you suddenly decide that you are disillusioned with the PAP and wants another party to take over... where can you find such a party? -
I disagree. It have less to do with political savvy, but rather the extent in which the PAP views the threat, and the magnitude of the response in reaction.Originally posted by patriot:That's because the opposition are idiots. After so many set backs you'd think they'd learnt how to avoid getting sued. Instead of seeing more savvy potical strategies from them, they blindly keep falling into the same hole. The JB's, Chee's and Francis Seow's out there really need to learn from thir comrades who know how to play the game: the likes of Chiam See Tong and Low Thia Khiang.
Let's take Tang's case. He was about as credible as any other opposition candidate that have appeared thus far.
Before he joined the opposition he was decorated by our government with medals and awards. He was a member of the board for Hwa Chong, and heads various community initiatives in the CDAC.
After he joined the opposition he suddenly became an Anti-Christian Chinese Chauvanist, and a grave threat to our society. According to then PM Goh, that is.
When his rallies drew huge crowds the ruling party panicked, and you see not only the PM, but the two DPM as well join up against Tang in the Cheng San election. A media campaign began where Tang was painted as rabidly anti christian, and a complete chinese chauvanist - a curious point considering his daughter is a open christian, he mixs regularly with the other races to the extent that he can speak in both malay and indian.
During the Cheng San election, The DPMs stood in the electoral tents to watch the voters cast their vote in a obvious show of intimdation - flouting electoral laws stating clearly that only voters, candidates, and electoral officials are allowed in the tents.
When Goh Chok Tong etc launched personal attacks one after another on the character of Tang, Tang made a police report, and when reporters approached him he showed them the report he made.
Somehow or other, our impartial and independant judicary found that act one of grave defamation and awarded damages in the region of several million against Tang.
How would political savvy change anything?
When your opponents defame you publicly, and you defend yourself through the courts - the very act of announcing your defence is usable by our government as grave defamation.
At the end of the day, politics is a dirty game here in Singapore, same as anywhere else in the world.
The point I was making was, Singaporeans are reaping the seeds that we have sown.
By ignoring the persecution of the opposition, we allowed them to be destroyed.
And when credible candidates are destroyed while the masses watched in silence... who will dare to come out again? When things go bad, who can we turn to as an alternative now? -
hey patroit your father pap minister issit ?
-
When the flock of sheep refuse to cooperate with the sheepdogs, not only will the sheep be killed, but the sheepdog might die trying to force the sheep away from the wolves.
-
Your point is well put: objective and calm. I read every well-phrased word of it. And I agree with you to some extent. Especially about how the electorate is partially to blame for the demise of a significant opposition representation in parliament.Originally posted by bumbleb:I disagree. It have less to do with political savvy, but rather the extent in which the PAP views the threat, and the magnitude of the response in reaction.
Let's take Tang's case. He was about as credible as any other opposition candidate that have appeared thus far.
Before he joined the opposition he was decorated by our government with medals and awards. He was a member of the board for Hwa Chong, and heads various community initiatives in the CDAC.
After he joined the opposition he suddenly became an Anti-Christian Chinese Chauvanist, and a grave threat to our society. According to then PM Goh, that is.
When his rallies drew huge crowds the ruling party panicked, and you see not only the PM, but the two DPM as well join up against Tang in the Cheng San election. A media campaign began where Tang was painted as rabidly anti christian, and a complete chinese chauvanist - a curious point considering his daughter is a open christian, he mixs regularly with the other races to the extent that he can speak in both malay and indian.
During the Cheng San election, The DPMs stood in the electoral tents to watch the voters cast their vote in a obvious show of intimdation - flouting electoral laws stating clearly that only voters, candidates, and electoral officials are allowed in the tents.
When Goh Chok Tong etc launched personal attacks one after another on the character of Tang, Tang made a police report, and when reporters approached him he showed them the report he made.
Somehow or other, our impartial and independant judicary found that act one of grave defamation and awarded damages in the region of several million against Tang.
How would political savvy change anything?
When your opponents defame you publicly, and you defend yourself through the courts - the very act of announcing your defence is usable by our government as grave defamation.
At the end of the day, politics is a dirty game here in Singapore, same as anywhere else in the world.
The point I was making was, Singaporeans are reaping the seeds that we have sown.
By ignoring the persecution of the opposition, we allowed them to be destroyed.
And when credible candidates are destroyed while the masses watched in silence... who will dare to come out again? When things go bad, who can we turn to as an alternative now?
Ironically, your appreciation of a well thought-out and non-abusive argument is exactly what the likes of JB, Chee and Seow failed to grasp. If only they could have controlled themselves in public discourse and not be carried away to the extent of saying some pretty stupid (perhaps not factually wrong all the time, but certainly stupid) things that just begged for a lawsuit, perhaps they would still have a political career. It is a case of trying to win a battle but ending up losing the war. It's a lack of wisdom that can in vulgar terms be described as stupidity.
The opposition politicians who know how to pick their battles are the ones who are still in the game. When David is fighting a political behemoth 10 times the size of Goliath, it's no longer about trying to win every fight that comes your way; it's about playing the game right so at the end of the day, you still have a tomorrow to fight for the longterm cause of having a viable opposition. And believe, it is a very longterm cause. They can ill afford to lose any more troops to lawsuits which result from stupid words and behavior.
I look forward to another well-thought out, calm and objective rebuttal. That's political discourse. -
Forgive me for hogging the thread with two consecutive posts, but I'd just like to address that particular point.Originally posted by bumbleb:I disagree. It have less to do with political savvy, but rather the extent in which the PAP views the threat, and the magnitude of the response in reaction.
It is perfectlly natural for an institution to defend itself when it see s a threat. Fortress PAP is no different. If they see a horde of babarians (which is an accurate term to discribe the behavior of a certain oppostion politician) coming to attack their fort, their walls are only gonna get higher and thicker and their boulders are only gonna get heavier and more formidable. And in the political landcape in Singapore, the towers of Fortress PAP are very high and their boulders are extremely heavy.
So if an individual is unhappy with the way the PAP runs Singapore and wants to do something about it besides b*itch about it at kopi tiams and Internet forums, then he'd better think seriously about his approach. Would he want to attack the fort from the outside or affect change from the inside? He'd have to ask himself which would be more effective. -
Problem being how to avoid being co-opted and turned into one of them, while you're inside.Change within a party rank is no substitute for a competitive playing field.Originally posted by patriot:Forgive me for hogging the thread with two consecutive posts, but I'd just like to address that particular point.
It is perfectlly natural for an institution to defend itself when it see s a threat. Fortress PAP is no different. If they see a horde of babarians (which is an accurate term to discribe the behavior of a certain oppostion politician) coming to attack their fort, their walls are only gonna get higher and thicker and their boulders are only gonna get heavier and more formidable. And in the political landcape in Singapore, the towers of Fortress PAP are very high and their boulders are extremely heavy.
So if an individual is unhappy with the way the PAP runs Singapore and wants to do something about it besides b*itch about it at kopi tiams and Internet forums, then he'd better think seriously about his approach. Would he want to attack the fort from the outside or affect change from the inside? He'd have to ask himself which would be more effective. -
So you're saying that having an opposition for the sake of an opposition is better than having meaningful, effective leadership?Originally posted by LazerLordz:Problem being how to avoid being co-opted and turned into one of them, while you're inside.Change within a party rank is no substitute for a competitive playing field. -
No it isn't... but first we need the meaningful, effective leadership you mentioned.Originally posted by patriot:So you're saying that having an opposition for the sake of an opposition is better than having meaningful, effective leadership?
What we have currently is a political party running unchallenged with many, many, MANY questionable policies and practices. -
So...Originally posted by Bloop...:No it isn't... but first we need the meaningful, effective leadership you mentioned.
What we have currently is a political party running unchallenged with many, many, MANY questionable policies and practices.
Solution #1: Have a viable opposition to keep PAP in check.
Solution #2: Effect an internal change within PAP by bringing in people with fresh ideas.
An opposition can only be effective in keeping the ruling party in check if it is credibly viable. Our opposition CANNOT fulfil this function because
1) The PAP is a giant sophisticated talent-grabbing machine; no way is it gonna let the best people go to the opposition.
2) Which means that unless the opposition is able to out-do the PAP in talent-scouting, it will forever have a credibility problem.
Therefore, if what we ultimately want is sound policies and good governance, simply having an opposition is not going to achieve it. The most effective pressure for the PAP to change can only come from the inside, not from the outside. Having opposition for opposition's sake is both immature and futile. -
That Low and Chiam are still in the parliament could be attributed to their tenacity and skill in balancing on the thin line of voicing opposition to PAP policies, while not crossing any overly sensitive boundaries (OB markers) resulting in the revoking of whatever scant tolerance that is in place for them.Originally posted by patriot:The opposition politicians who know how to pick their battles are the ones who are still in the game. When David is fighting a political behemoth 10 times the size of Goliath, it's no longer about trying to win every fight that comes your way; it's about playing the game right so at the end of the day, you still have a tomorrow to fight for the longterm cause of having a viable opposition. And believe, it is a very longterm cause. They can ill afford to lose any more troops to lawsuits which result from stupid words and behavior.
But what did they achieve beyond their struggling survival? At the end of the day, their presence serves only to give credence to the facade of Singaporean democracy. Their influence in the parliament is essentially nothing.
This, is the reason why the kids gloves are on when the PAP deals with the two – even the ex-PM chips in a praise or two for them occasionally, in recognition for them knowing of their proper place.
The full ferocity of the PAP fell upon the likes of Seow, Tang, and Chee (at the beginning of his career) because they represented a possible threat. They are not only persons of intelligence – more importantly they are charismatic speakers. Most important of all – they have ambition and seek to produce that which is taboo – not just a niche in the parliament, but a real, effective political alternative to the PAP.
It’s not just about picking battles, it’s about what one represents and strives to be. To capture the hearts of the people it is not enough that one hides in shadows, and debate occasionally when there are ‘safe’ battles to engage.
While I do respect the two for their efforts and the sacrifices they made, it is still my firm belief that neither Low nor Chiam have what it takes to capture the imagination of the people.
They do not inspire, they do not captivate. They lack the essential qualities to become an alternative leader, and it is because of this that they are never subjected to the venom and the scale of the attacks that was directed at the three. -
I agree that it is completely normal for the PAP to retaliate against challengers.Originally posted by patriot:It is perfectlly natural for an institution to defend itself when it see s a threat. Fortress PAP is no different. If they see a horde of babarians (which is an accurate term to discribe the behavior of a certain oppostion politician) coming to attack their fort, their walls are only gonna get higher and thicker and their boulders are only gonna get heavier and more formidable. And in the political landcape in Singapore, the towers of Fortress PAP are very high and their boulders are extremely heavy.
That which was alarming, was the extent and the severity which rules are bent to achieve political domination. That which was shocking, was the willingness to bent the rules at the drop of a hat.
Observers of the process of equating the party with the nation might feel uneasy. Observers of the practice of equating national resources as party resources might be worried. Observers, who noticed that accountability of the party existing only within the party and not the people, might question the impartiality and dependability of the PAPÂ’s system of self-checks.
In other words, what which is worrying is not the fact that the PAP fights back when challenged.
That which is worrying is the methods that were used.So if an individual is unhappy with the way the PAP runs Singapore and wants to do something about it besides b*itch about it at kopi tiams and Internet forums, then he'd better think seriously about his approach. Would he want to attack the fort from the outside or affect change from the inside? He'd have to ask himself which would be more effective.
Change from the inside?
What I feel is desperately needed, is not so much a change to the PAP, but a change to the political equation here.
By and large, the PAP is a good team that has done a great job of building up Singapore into what it is today. They have a system of meritocracy that while not being perfect is still a good functional model where ability are recognized and rewarded. They have a system of governance that is mostly corruption free, and very efficient.
What I feel that is very important for Singapore is an independent party (or more) functioning both as a check and balance, as well as a political alternative.
Why an independent audit? There is a very good reason why corporations are subjected to frequent audits by external, independent auditors – self checks have a long history of failure in the face of the human trait of protecting self interests.
As for the cultivation of a political alternative, it is again a fact of history that there has never been a perfect government that remained good forever. Sadly, the odds are very much against one ever appearing.
The presence of a political alternative gives the people the true democratic power that we now lack – the ability to choose the stewards to run our country, the ability to seize back power and transfer it – when a party performs badly and loses the faith of the people.
The cultivation of a political alternative is a labor requiring the will and the support of the people. Even then, it will take time. To hope for a political alternative to spring out miraculously from nothing when things go bad – It's a lack of wisdom that can in vulgar terms be described as stupidity. -
Point 2 represents what's rotten with the sysem today.Sounds too much like one party rule if you ask me, a benevolent dictatorship to be blunt.Originally posted by patriot:So...
Solution #1: Have a viable opposition to keep PAP in check.
Solution #2: Effect an internal change within PAP by bringing in people with fresh ideas.
An opposition can only be effective in keeping the ruling party in check if it is credibly viable. Our opposition CANNOT fulfil this function because
1) The PAP is a giant sophisticated talent-grabbing machine; no way is it gonna let the best people go to the opposition.
2) Which means that unless the opposition is able to out-do the PAP in talent-scouting, it will forever have a credibility problem.
Therefore, if what we ultimately want is sound policies and good governance, simply having an opposition is not going to achieve it. The most effective pressure for the PAP to change can only come from the inside, not from the outside. Having opposition for opposition's sake is both immature and futile.
That will only serve to make even more complacent as a nation.Forever depending on one party to get the job done, and it will further the hubris that we already see.
Humility sometimes needs to be produced from a kick in the behind. -
Part I - Real talents have gone due to migration at the rate of thousands per annum.
Part II - Political self-enlightenment within the same party of the kind needed to address current problems e.g. lack of entrepreneurs, political apathy and high-costs created by one-party rule is wishful thinking as it rarely happened within the same party.
Basic party philosophy - antagonistic, egoistic, elitist, presumptuous and admitting no mistakes and giving no leeways to oppositions - will not change.
No sign that the press will be freed or more open for the time being. Credible oppositions will be put down as before.
So Part II will not happen yet - for a long long time. -
You hit the nail on the head, brother! Like a recent forum writer in the ST put so well: We Singaporeans depend on the PAP to do everything for us! Even to the extent of weakening its own position and get itself out of power. Sheesh. That's just ridiculous.Originally posted by LazerLordz:That will only serve to make even more complacent as a nation.Forever depending on one party to get the job done, and it will further the hubris that we already see. -
You hit the nail on the head, brother! A recent post in the ST forum put it so eloquently: We depend on the PAP to do everything for us! Even to the extent of expecting it to weaken its own position and get itself out of power. Sheesh. That's just ridiculous. PAP has no obligation whatsoever to "give chance" to the opposition.Originally posted by LazerLordz:That will only serve to make even more complacent as a nation.Forever depending on one party to get the job done, and it will further the hubris that we already see. -
Now we have highlighted the problem, it's time to see if there are a few good men to give us some alternatives.This isn't child's play, but a seruious matter concerning our nation's future and those who should be concerned, are looking at it in a totally wrong angle, obstructed by the clouds surrounding the ivory towers.Originally posted by patriot:You hit the nail on the head, brother! A recent post in the ST forum put it so eloquently: We depend on the PAP to do everything for us! Even to the extent of expecting it to weaken its own position and get itself out of power. Sheesh. That's just ridiculous. PAP has no obligation whatsoever to "give chance" to the opposition. -
HAHAHHAHAHAHAHAOriginally posted by Bloop...:What does that make you? The bastard son?
-
Speaking of PAP weakening itself, imagine this: a few mavericks and luminaries band together in their alternative thinking within PAP. Soon they are more and more vocal in their comments and alternative opinions in parliament.
One day this group splinters to form another political party, leaving a big hole in the party, competing directly against PAP. It joins forces with backbencher/strong-but-not-clowny WP/SDP/etc members to form a solid alternative party against PAP.