Dear ndsef,Originally posted by ndsef:Is this similar to political propanganda over a broadcast medium, which I think is not allowed? hmm....![]()
GMS,Originally posted by goh meng seng:Dear ndsef,
If this post is "political propaganda" then I will assume you take offence of watching the TV and reading our local newspapers, isn't it?
Goh Meng Seng
Yea.. too many things are considered to be broadcast mediums, that's why nothing much can be said these days.Originally posted by ndsef:Is this similar to political propanganda over a broadcast medium, which I think is not allowed? hmm....![]()
Dear Mr Goh,Originally posted by goh meng seng:Dear ndsef,
If this post is "political propaganda" then I will assume you take offence of watching the TV and reading our local newspapers, isn't it?
Goh Meng Seng
Originally posted by pikamaster:GMS,
I'm afraid I'll have to concur that your post is extremely propagandistic in quite a few sections of it, and I'm not very impressed with it.
In fact, to be blunt, I was a little dissappointed that you seem to have subjected CiPRI under the WP. When you first told me about CiPRI, I had assumed it would remain an independent research body, and not get tied up in partisan strings, PAP, WP or SDA. But now, it seems...*sigh*. I feel strongly that having CiPRI "help" WP in GE erodes its credibility as an objective source of information, and henceforth you are actually opening the floodgates for it to be ruined by the Ruling Party. But then, as you are a Party man, I guess I shouldn't really complain...
the (sad) pikamaster
Talking politics in public is not propaganda, propaganda in www.dictionary.com means:Originally posted by loosefuse:Yea.. too many things are considered to be broadcast mediums, that's why nothing much can be said these days.
Talking about politics in public = propaganda..
Now talking in forums, according to you = propaganda..
What's next?
Talking about politics at home and neighbour overhears = propaganda?![]()
Originally posted by ndsef:Talking politics in public is not propaganda, propaganda in www.dictionary.com means:
(1) The systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information reflecting the views and interests of those advocating such a doctrine or cause.
(2)Material disseminated by the advocates or opponents of a doctrine or cause: wartime propaganda.
and most out of point...
(3) Propaganda Roman Catholic Church. A division of the Roman Curia that has authority in the matter of preaching the gospel, of establishing the Church in non-Christian countries, and of administering Church missions in territories where there is no properly organized hierarchy.
In this case, the promotion of any particular political party in a broadcast medium is considered propaganda. And YES it means PAP as well. At least they do not do that outright.
Originally posted by goh meng seng:Dear ndsef,
Maybe you did not understand, where did I "promote" WP in any sense? I didn't say "WP is the BEST" or "WP is GOOD"! I simply explain a concept which is applicable in situation for any countries, even if WP becomes the ruling party in future!
It is really interesting to note that you consider this as "outright" propaganda! hahaha.. maybe you didn't understand what is "outright" propaganda, CNA should re-screen its series of "Insight" on PAP ministers, then maybe you would know what is "outright" propaganda!
Goh Meng Seng
Oh really? But need license? And if something is said "wrongly" then lawsuits will fly? That's all right?Originally posted by ndsef:Talking politics in public is not propaganda, propaganda in www.dictionary.com means:
(1) The systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information reflecting the views and interests of those advocating such a doctrine or cause.
(2)Material disseminated by the advocates or opponents of a doctrine or cause: wartime propaganda.
and most out of point...
(3) Propaganda Roman Catholic Church. A division of the Roman Curia that has authority in the matter of preaching the gospel, of establishing the Church in non-Christian countries, and of administering Church missions in territories where there is no properly organized hierarchy.
In this case, the promotion of any particular political party in a broadcast medium is considered propaganda. And YES it means PAP as well. At least they do not do that outright.
GMS,Originally posted by goh meng seng:Dear Pikemaster,
I do not know how you conclude that CiPri is "under WP"; it is not. There is no organization structure for CiPri in WP. And the fact is most of the members aren't WP members, just social-political activists. Some of the members have contacted parties like SDP as well as NSP but so far, WP is willing to accept CiPri's "help". Sometimes, we do give some advices to NSP too but it is up to them to take it up.
CiPri's members have decided to "help" WP basically because all of us feel that it is only right for us to get something done in terms of building up the political system into a more balanced one. PAP doesn't need any strengthening but checks and balances. For other political parties, they are not that open to criticisms and ideas from CiPri members and only WP's leadership is interested in the concept that we have presented. We are just that small and with the limited human resources, we decided to help WP for this round to make a break through.
If you view this post as "propagandistic", that's too bad. This post is talking about in GENERAL, what People's Power is all about in the context of economic perspective. It could apply anywhere though I cited Singapore as my prime example.
This piece is actually meant for "NATIONAL POLITICAL EDUCATION PROGRAM". Political awarness and acumen is lacking in Singapore's massive population as the process of de-politicisation carries on to take its toll on Singaporeans. Imagine that for citizens that could live for more than 30 years but couldn't vote at all! What does it mean to Singaporeans? Most have become depoliticised and apathetic in the end of the day. GE will only means more "little goodies" from PAP govt or just a good holiday for them!
Though the subject used is a slogan of Workers' Party, but it is very relevant to the political education process. PAP's propaganda machinery will NEVER tell you such things, where your power comes from, what it means to have "power" in the political system etc. They are only more concerned about whether they could WIN ALL SEATS back! We have to face the real situation right here.
Frankly speaking, sometimes when I gave some ideas to other political party like NSP, I risk tension from my own party within. It is a matter of balancing.
CiPri will work as it is intended and the concept that it is built upon still applies. We don't restrict our members to provide ideas to parties OTHER THAN WP and in fact, I encourage my members to do so in order to build up a network of loose alliance. The fact that I did not propose to put CiPri under WP means alot. It will always stay as it is, a platform for multi-party research engine, especially for the alternative parties.
Goh Meng Seng
So what if this is a propaganda? pap's propaganda is everywhere, or do people now take what pap says as truth and anythings from opposition are to be dismissed as propaganda? then I think pap has succeeded in brainwashing.Originally posted by ndsef:Is this similar to political propanganda over a broadcast medium, which I think is not allowed? hmm....![]()
agree, GMS should address the 6th question "how to prevent the Power from being abused?"Originally posted by tuition_city:Power to the People. But power without control is misuse of power. It applies to all people...and that includes the pap...they need their power to be controlled at times too... but i think this "power to the people" line..needs more refinement.. doesn't catch on with singaporeans...
Dear Gorby,Originally posted by gorby107:Mr Goh did you receive the private message that I PM to you a few weeks ago???? If so why you haven't reply yet???![]()
Thanks a lot
![]()
Ok I noted that and thanks a lotOriginally posted by goh meng seng:
Originally posted by pikamaster:GMS,
It does seem that we have had a little misunderstanding, and I agree that is partially my fault. I shall now take the time to defuse some of the rather ... err... infalmmatory statements I made in my previous post.
1) I'll accept that CiPRI is not under the organizational structure of WP. (*phew!*) However, I still believe it is important for CiPRI to keep itself objective, especially since it is supposed to be a research group. I supposed if you dropped the 'R' out of its name, then you could make it into an activist group like Amnesty International; and even AI maintains political neutrality. In doing research to explicitly help one party, whether WP, NSP or even PAP (if they are willing to accept help), the organization might run the problem of having to "hide info". Essentially, the NSP and WP are competing for seats in the political arena, so naturally information granted to each of these will be exclusive as each party will want to have an advantage over its rival. This diminishes the credibility of the research carried out by CiPRI since the research is clearly tilited to partisan ends.
Or... perhaps I have misunderstood the meanign of "'help'"?
2) Is CiPRI researching policies or is it researching political restructuring? Good policies are good policies whichever party-in-power implements them, and I do not think it is good for CiPRI to have a partisan slant.
3) Ok, most of the article is quite objective.
4) A national political education programme isn't the same as a national anti-PAP, pro-WP program. Keep that and in mind when assessing your articles' objectivity.
5) Haha... and the WP isn't concerned about winning back all the seats it has lost from the PAP in the past 30 years?
6) Of course you do. Unfortunately, such tension, or rather your compromise to it, I think will not help CiPRI much in the long-run.
7) Why can't CiPRI be a non-party research engine?
the (skeptical) pikamaster
Originally posted by BillyBong:Billybong,
[b]
The concept of “Power To The People” most probably come about from the French revolution that fought against monarchy rule. Monarchy rule is basically a despotic, autocratic rule. The characteristics of a Monarchy rule are somehow equivalent to a Monopolistic company. Both of them depend on the monopoly of power, be it in political power or market domination.
These monopolies would and COULD “exploit” the market to the fullest simply because there are no competition in the market. And most important of all, they are in control of goods and services that are a NECESSITY to the people. Good political governance is also a NECESSITY to a stable environment for people to live in. They derive their “power” basically because what they are providing is a “necessity” and they are the only ones who are providing these goods or services. If we view political governance as a kind of “services”, it is not difficult to understand the correlation between market monopolies and monopolies of political power. If the power of these monopolies are not curb, the people will suffer one way or another.
Of course, we could hope for “benign” monopolies just like ancient people always hope to have good Emperors or Monarch to take care of them, but these are rare exceptions from the historical perspective though it is not totally impossible.
History has proven that monopolies never really remain dominant in the face of real competition. In the case of an increasing number GLC firms, unless they innovate and 'entreprenate', their continued reliance on govt support will lead to their ultimate demise.
There is no need to 'act' against such monopolies. Instead there should be a preference to adopt a 'wait and see' policy. Some monopolies may indeed prove their worth i.e. wal-mart, IBM etc. They have proven that diversifying their products and improving themselves earn customer satisfaction, especially when consumers are flooded with choice. In any case, there will always be competitors ready to bite at the first mistake these giants make.
The reason for people to have “POWER” is basically because they need the “BARGAINING POWER” to balance the monopolies’ power. If they do not have this bargaining power, their needs would be neglected and the products and services will be overpriced.
Demonstration or expression of strong objections or dislike is an important way to get the better deal for citizensÂ’ at large. The recent Eight White elephants saga is one fine example. Although I think it is a non-issue but look at it this way, at least such demonstration of dissatisfaction has force LTA to react and do something. However, the stiffening laws have prohibited SingaporeansÂ’ right to make strong demonstration of demands or objections to various issues. However, those who put up the white elephants are deemed as law breakers under current laws though they are exercising their power to demand better deal from the LTA and transport provider.
PAP has claimed that they are “opening up” and there are many ways for people to feedback. However from my perspective, if such “opening up” doesn’t bring value to voters’ bargaining power in the political system, it is not very meaningful at all. We may not want people to break laws and go on unlawful acts but I think there are good considerations to be made on the right to demonstrate (as guarantee by our constitution but administratively deprived by the ruling party) basically because it involves the bargaining power of the people. Hong Kong has provided an ASIAN example whereby LAWFUL demonstrations do not disrupt economic activities nor chase away foreign investors.
Thus when the reporters who interviewed us ask what do we think about the “open society”, my answer is pretty simple: the ultimate test of openness is whether PAP would give us (the citizens) back the right to demonstrate lawfully in Singapore. Ironically, if law and order is really the main concerns, why would PAP willing to allow foreigners to demonstrate in Singapore when IMF meeting is going to be held in 2006?
Street demonstration is only one important avenue of peopleÂ’s power. Freedom of expressions in any forms is also very important. Active participation in political discussion and discourse is one way of exerting peopleÂ’s power. Artistic deliberations of social phenomenon and political concerns are one important ways also. Of course, attending feedback sessions either with ruling party or alternative parties are important. However many people who have attended government sponsored feedback sessions are disillusioned and we should seriously ask why.
Given all the recent furore of seditious remarks etc, i'd think any mention of the word demonstration' would be viewed as an attempt to incite public disorder. I do agree that to some extent, if left unchecked, companies have a tendency to exploit workers or at the least squeeze them unethically. That is for MOM and NTUC to monitor and if necessary take appropriate action.
On the other hands, by giving power to irresponsible unions, they in turn would have the tendency to abuse their power. No one wants a similar situation to French Unions. To this end, i only see demonstrations as a waste of resources and manhours, especially if they are over meagre and negotiable issues.
So far, the only demonstration SG has seen was the one sanctioned by the late Ong Teng Cheong in the 1980s, and most critics including locals believed it was the RIGHT action at that time, despite the protests of the ruling party.
[/b]
GMS,Originally posted by goh meng seng:Dear Pikamaster,
Objectivity is a matter of perspective. You could still be objective while giving advice to various political parties. For example, if one policy is the best or second best solution, we would just advice so not to go against it. This is OBJECTIVITY in play while whether the political party took the advice is another matter altogether.
I do not think credibility depends on who you help or associate with; credibility depends on what you say or the advice that you give. They are two different thing.
No matter what, at the end of the day, somebody has to make the stand, partisan or otherwise. Objectivity doesn't mean that you don't make a stand. If it happens to be opposite to the ruling party's stand, so be it. Partisan or not depends whether other political parties took up the stand recommended. These are two different things altogether.
For example, PAP govt consult some research institutes in Singapore too; would these research institutes' credibility suffers just because PAP makes its partisan stand with the advice given by them? Of course not!
The aim of the policy research is to achieve betterment of Singapore which unfortunately, has to go through the political process to exert changes. You could do all the research you want, talk all the talk you want but at the end of the day, real work and changes could only be done through the political process. We have to be realistic about that.
I do not see the need to "restrict" the boundaries or areas of interest in thinking or researching. If our political system needs to be changed for the betterment of our future generations in our view, so we make our stand. If it just happen to contradict PAP's policy made, so be it. This is REAL OBJECTIVITY, without FEAR or Favour.
Goh Meng Seng