MP (Tampines GRC) Irene Ng's Iron-Fisted Reply
-
Many of us may not know this particular lady, seeing as how she is not a minister but stands in Tampines GRC.
Below is the original letter to the press by one David Cai:
23 March 2006
Straits Times Forum
Politics in S'pore suffers from an image problem
With the general election looming, the age-old concern about the citizenry's political apathy has resurfaced. Why is it that despite a better-educated population, political disengagement is still a problem?
Many attribute this to hedonism. The common perception is that Singaporeans are concerned only with bread- and-butter issues. Others blame it on the lack of political education since young.
However, there is one explanation which I believe is more compelling. And that is that politics and politicians of the Singapore Government suffer from an image problem.
The ruling party's style of governance has drawn its fair share of cynics. And it appears that the most acute cynicism has been directed towards the party's hardline management of political dissent.
Political speech in Singapore is, in the minds of many, fraught with unsanctioned but discernible OB markers. There seems to be a deep-seated mentality that speaking out against the Government is analogous to treading on a minefield - one miscalculated step and you could be joining the ranks of J.B. Jeyaretnam or Chee Soon Juan.
Further, with the economic prosperity Singapore enjoys, there is seemingly little to lose in insulating ourselves from politics and parting with our right to political free speech.
A more literate nation has done little to challenge or change the notion of an intolerant government and the illiberal politics it practises.
While it may be true that Singapore has been witnessing more open debates on government policies in the mass media, critics have commented that the terms and duration are still largely controlled by the Government.
One might ask, if there are indeed these cynics and critics, how could our population still be dubbed apolitical? Unfortunately, the cynics and critics constitute a minority.
Nevertheless, the input they provide commands serious attention. With a keen understanding of domestic politics and constitutional law, their analyses of internal political events are often incisive and insightful.
Although academics and political activists have been the most ardent bunch of cynics and critics, the universal (and relatively anonymous) nature of the Internet has provided great incentive for many others to turn to the online forum as an alternative media to publish their discordant political opinions.
Unless the Government takes greater steps to shed its totalitarian image, most cynics and critics will continue to feel marginalised, disenchanted and estranged from decision-making at the political level. Their conviction that more concrete forms of political participation are a futile exercise needs to be overturned so that the prestige of mainstream politics can be restored.
In order to improve such a negative image, laws need to be changed to construct a conducive environment in which people are allowed to practise their freedoms. In particular, laws which grant maximal discretion to the state in limiting civil and political rights need to be reviewed.
Only by diminishing the state's incursions on civil liberties and dispelling the fear of arbitrary legal sanctions can society possess the freedom to voice its opinions, form associations and engage actively with the politics of this country.
David Cai
Reference: Yawning Bread -
Here is the response from Ms Irene Ng:
25 March 2006
Straits Times Forum
S'pore political system far better than many others
In his letter, 'Politics in S'pore suffers from an image problem' (ST, March 23), Mr David Cai claims that the 'image problem' is due to the ruling party's 'hardline management of political dissent' that results in a 'deep-seated mentality that speaking out against the Government is analogous to treading on a minefield - one miscalculated step and you could be joining the ranks of J.B. Jeyaretnam or Chee Soon Juan'.
I am glad he felt free to speak up on this at length for The Straits Times. But the key issue is not the right to voice our views, which all of us enjoy, but the quality of the political system, the substance of the political debate and how decisions made can improve the lives of ordinary citizens.
Singapore has a hard-won international reputation for its high standard of integrity and competence in its politics. The PAP ensures this by insisting on honest, capable political leaders who fulfil their promises to the people. This has served Singapore and Singaporeans well.
In such a clean and transparent system, all allegations are investigated and lies refuted. Politicians who make scurrilous remarks must be able to back them up with facts. This applies both to the PAP as well as the opposition. This way, voters can decide better to whom they can entrust their future. Mr Cai forgets that Mr Chiam See Tong and Mr Low Thia Khiang have been in politics for over 20 years without suffering any consequences.
Our system is not perfect, but it is far better than the chaotic and dirty politics found in many other countries. Would Mr Cai prefer the political ferment in Thailand and the Philippines, where distrust of the ruling party's action and public conflict are ever present? Or the corruption of so many Asian countries, which have 'freer' political systems and media than Singapore?
The PAP Government and its MPs have gained the respect and trust of the people over the years. This is something special. In the United States and Britain - where political debates and scandals dominate - cynicism with the political system has become widespread, resulting in declining voter turn-outs in their general elections. Politicians rank lower than used-car salesmen in public esteem.
According to the book, The Vanishing Voter, by Mr Thomas Patterson, a key reason for the voters' cynicism in the US is that political campaigns seem more like theatre or entertainment than something to be taken seriously. In Singapore, we take our politics seriously.
The PAP is not afraid of different views and, in fact, encourages this. When I was interviewed to be a PAP candidate for the last general election, I made it clear that I disagreed with some of the PAP's policies. Still, I was selected, and I still maintain these views.
Indeed, if the PAP wants to silence dissent, why should it introduce the Non-Constituency MP scheme to give opposition members at least three seats in Parliament? Because of this scheme, Mr Steve Chia, who lost in the last general election, could still enter Parliament as the 'best loser'.
All Singaporeans are free to voice their opinions and form associations and, indeed, are encouraged to engage actively in politics if they feel so inclined. However, we all have to play by the same rules and be held accountable for our words and actions.
If Mr Cai has specific laws that he would like changed, he should put forward his suggestions, and get either the PAP or opposition politicians to raise them in Parliament. Mr Cai could even consider putting these ideas to the people by contesting in the forthcoming elections himself. After all, this is a democracy.
Irene Ng (Miss)
Member of Parliament
Reference: Yawning Bread -
The following are some comments on Ms Irene Ng's letter which i somewhat relate to unreservingly.
She with the brass knuckles
Irene Ng, a Member of Parliament (MP) for the ruling People's Action Party (PAP), has somehow acquired a reputation as an unapologetic defender of the PAP style.
She demonstrated this again in a recent letter published in the Straits Times' Forum. That letter was in response to an earlier one by David Cai, titled "Politics in Singapore suffers from an image problem."
You can see both David Cai's letter and Irene Ng's response in the appendix.
David Cai said the "hardline management of political dissent" has given politics a bad name. With people who are comfortable in economic prosperity, it is only natural to insulate themselves from the "minefield" that is politics.
He pointed out that "laws need to be changed to construct a conducive environment in which people are allowed to practise their freedoms." It is necessary, as well, to dispel the "fear of arbitrary legal sanctions."
Irene Ng's tone in her reply was -– guess what? -– hardline. It was, in a way, chilling because she strenuously repeated rather vacuous arguments put up by PAP old-timers without her seeming ever to have paused to think about them. It is the almost born-again fervour with which she argues them that strikes you when you read what she wrote.
There were 7 points in her letter that bear closer analysis.
1. She said, "the key issue is not the right to voice our views, which all of us enjoy, but the quality of the political system, the substance of the political debate and how decisions made can improve the lives of ordinary citizens."
Effectively, she said the right of political expression is conditional. For political expression to be admitted, it has to meet the qualifying tests of (a) substantive quality and (b) whether or not it addresses economics.
In addition, she repositioned the debate into one about the "quality of the political system".
These quality tests act as entry barriers to political speech. Because they are vague and partly subjective, they are also easily configured and reconfigured to suit the incumbent executive.
It is hardly surprising too, that her definition of quality tests narrows the boundaries of political debate to an arena that the PAP is most comfortable with -– economics; ignoring areas where their record is weakest -– rights.
We should also note that bandying around the word "quality" dovetails with the PAP's election platform of offering "quality" candidates, which at the same time implies that other parties' candidates aren't "quality".
See this for what it is: electioneering speech that narrows our horizons rather than broaden them; that substitutes tarring for intelligent substance.
Continued on next post... -
2. Secondly, Irene Ng said, "Singapore has a hard-won international reputation for its high standard of integrity and competence in its politics."
This is where blind faith becomes evident. Admittedly, Singapore has a high reputation for economic administration, it being effective, rational and efficient. But our politics suffers a very bad reputation. We are well known for our constraints on liberties, for arbitrary rules regulating political activity and for the misuse of defamation suits.
We weren't rated 140 out of 167 in the Reporters Sans Frontieres' Press Freedom Index for nothing.
For a Member of Parliament to make such a bald assertion as Ng did, is nothing but a refusal to see reality, hardly a trait that sits well with "integrity" or "competence".
3. In relation to defamation suits, she said, "In such a clean and transparent system, all allegations are investigated and lies refuted."
This is too easy an argument. Nobody seriously says that scurrilous slander should be given free rein. However, there still remain the questions of whether the damages assessed by the courts should be as high as they are, and whether some judgments really stretch logic.
In the next post is a Straits Times report of a defamation suit dismissed by a judge in Thailand. He said the Prime Minister as a public figure, had to be open to public discussion and criticism.
A mature electorate is usually able to see that in politics, sometimes allegations are exaggerated. With public figures, there are many other points of reference, all on the public record, for people to judge whether the allegations are well-founded or not. That is to say, a public person's reputation is more resistant to damage by wild allegations compared to that of a private person.
For private persons, it is in fact harder for bystanders to judge if allegations made against them are true or false, since private persons leave fewer marks on the public record. It could therefore be argued that, for the same libel, damage done to the reputation of a private person is more severe, because he is more vulnerable. Thus the argument that Singapore courts have used, that public persons deserve higher damages, should be quite the other way around.
But beyond the question of fairness, there is also the issue of harm done to Singapore's long-term interest by the PAP's use of defamation suits and their reliance on hefty damages. Far from convincing people that the allegations are false, and restoring the reputation of the plaintiffs, such court cases are seen as iron-fisted attempts to silence opposition. They merely augment the widespread fear of political participation. No society can be healthy in the long run if its people are too fearful to be politically engaged.
4. Then Ng denigrates the US and the UK in her attempt to praise the PAP and its MPs. "The PAP Government and its MPs," she said, "have gained the respect and trust of the people over the years. This is something special."
"In the United States and Britain -- where political debates and scandals dominate -- cynicism with the political system has become widespread, resulting in declining voter turn-outs in their general elections. Politicians rank lower than used-car salesmen in public esteem."
It's interesting how she used voter-turn-outs as indicators of political cynicism.
Conveniently for her, in Singapore, like in Australia, it is compulsory to vote, so we always have turnouts in the high nineties.
But the latest Straits Times' survey of voters aged 21 – 34 found that about 60% of them said they would not be disappointed if there was a walk-over in their constituency and they didn't get to vote. Do we seriously believe that these 60% would still bother to vote if there weren't any penalties for not voting? What would our voter turn-out then be like?
Would it then mean, per Irene Ng's logic, that Singapore's political system is even worse than the the US and Britain's, "where political debates and scandals dominate" (funny how debate is seen as a bad thing)? That politicians here rank lower than used-car salesmen too?
5. "Indeed, if the PAP wants to silence dissent, why should it introduce the Non-Constituency MP scheme to give opposition members at least three seats in Parliament?"
Does she take us all for fools? We all know that the PAP uses the argument that voters should elect a PAP candidate because "alternative views" will still be available in Parliament, either through a PAP MP who is allegedly "non-conformist" or through the guaranteed 3 seats for Non-Constituency MPs (NCMPs).
It takes no great intelligence to know that the legitimacy of NCMPs is rather less than that of fully elected MPs. The people see it that way and the PAP can simply dismiss NCMPs' views as "representing no constituency".
The NCMP scheme serves to improve the PAP's vote-share by making voting for the opposition redundant, thus marginalising dissent.
6. Next, she said, in politics, "we all have to play by the same rules."
Yes, but the issue that she sidesteps is that the rules are loaded.
For example, how are constituency boundaries drawn? Why is TV airtime for the PAP more than for other parties? Why are the MPs in PAP-held wards the "advisors" to the Citizens' Consultative Committees in those wards, but not the MPs in opposition-held wards?
7. And then she puts on her brass knuckles. "Mr Cai could even consider putting these ideas to the people by contesting in the forthcoming elections himself."
This is an old tactic long used by Lee Kuan Yew: A challenge to an electoral fist-fight, with the implication that if you decline to accept the challenge, then you're a coward and all that you have said have no merit. Politics is only for politicians. If you don't enter the electoral arena, you have no right to speak up.
But is this kind of attitude helpful to Singapore's political development?
In a time of an increasingly sophisticated electorate, Ng does us no favours by responding to David Cai in the manner that she has.
Source: Yawning Bread -
And just for further reference, a copy of the original Shin Corp court case is below:
16 March 2006
The Straits Times
Shin Corp case against media activist dismissed
Judge rules she has right to criticise public listed firm and public figure
By Nirmal Ghosh
THAILAND CORRESPONDENT
BANGKOK - A criminal court in Bangkok yesterday dismissed defamation charges by Shin Corp against media activist Supinya Klangnarong and her co-defendants from the Thai Post daily, saying she had the right to express her opinions about the company and the government.
The case of Ms Supinya, 32, revolved around an interview with Thai Post in July 2003 in which she said that Shin Corp's revenue had increased substantially after Mr Thaksin became prime minister in 2001.
Mr Thaksin founded Shin Corp well before becoming prime minister. Just before taking power in 2001, he gave all his shares to family members, who sold their stakes to Temasek Holdings in January this year.
Shin Corp sued Ms Supinya and five newspaper executives and staff for defamation, demanding 400 million baht (S$16.5 million) in damages from the media activist.
Many believed Shin Corp was trying to intimidate critics, and the case attracted worldwide attention as a bellwether for press freedom and public debate here.
Ms Supinya drew support from thousands, including respected former Thai prime minister and diplomat Anand Panyarachun.
Judge Navachart Yamasamit, in his 2 1/2-page verdict read out to a packed courtroom, said Ms Supinya's criticism had been based on facts and research with no intent to injure the reputation of the company.
He said Shin Corp, as a public listed company owning national resources, and the Prime Minister as a public figure, had to be open to public discussion and criticism.
A month ago, Shin Corp had contacted Ms Supinya's lawyers offering to drop the case, but she refused, saying that would not allow her to prove her point in court as an advocate for media freedom. -
You can expect the new batch of PAP candidates to retort in similiar fashion in the future once they are assimilated into the party.
But I guess it's not an outcome that will come out as a surprise to you.
-
I don't know that she is the spoke woman for our government. Cool.... 
-
Originally posted by BillyBong:
WTF..?? Mama had told me never to tell lies since I was young... Guess everybody just ignore their mama on that...??
Here is the response from Ms Irene Ng:
25 March 2006
Straits Times Forum
[b]S'pore political system far better than many others
In his letter, 'Politics in S'pore suffers from an image problem' (ST, March 23), Mr David Cai claims that the 'image problem' is due to the ruling party's 'hardline management of political dissent' that results in a 'deep-seated mentality that speaking out against the Government is analogous to treading on a minefield - one miscalculated step and you could be joining the ranks of J.B. Jeyaretnam or Chee Soon Juan'.
I am glad he felt free to speak up on this at length for The Straits Times. But the key issue is not the right to voice our views, which all of us enjoy, but the quality of the political system, the substance of the political debate and how decisions made can improve the lives of ordinary citizens.
Singapore has a hard-won international reputation for its high standard of integrity and competence in its politics. [color=blue]The PAP ensures this by insisting on honest, capable political leaders who fulfil their promises to the people. This has served Singapore and Singaporeans well.
In such a clean and transparent system, all allegations are investigated and lies refuted. Politicians who make scurrilous remarks must be able to back them up with facts. This applies both to the PAP as well as the opposition. This way, voters can decide better to whom they can entrust their future. Mr Cai forgets that Mr Chiam See Tong and Mr Low Thia Khiang have been in politics for over 20 years without suffering any consequences.
Our system is not perfect, but it is far better than the chaotic and dirty politics found in many other countries. Would Mr Cai prefer the political ferment in Thailand and the Philippines, where distrust of the ruling party's action and public conflict are ever present? Or the corruption of so many Asian countries, which have 'freer' political systems and media than Singapore?
The PAP Government and its MPs have gained the respect and trust of the people over the years. This is something special. In the United States and Britain - where political debates and scandals dominate - cynicism with the political system has become widespread, resulting in declining voter turn-outs in their general elections. Politicians rank lower than used-car salesmen in public esteem.
According to the book, The Vanishing Voter, by Mr Thomas Patterson, a key reason for the voters' cynicism in the US is that political campaigns seem more like theatre or entertainment than something to be taken seriously. In Singapore, we take our politics seriously.
The PAP is not afraid of different views and, in fact, encourages this. When I was interviewed to be a PAP candidate for the last general election, I made it clear that I disagreed with some of the PAP's policies. Still, I was selected, and I still maintain these views.
Indeed, if the PAP wants to silence dissent, why should it introduce the Non-Constituency MP scheme to give opposition members at least three seats in Parliament? Because of this scheme, Mr Steve Chia, who lost in the last general election, could still enter Parliament as the 'best loser'.
All Singaporeans are free to voice their opinions and form associations and, indeed, are encouraged to engage actively in politics if they feel so inclined. However, we all have to play by the same rules and be held accountable for our words and actions.
If Mr Cai has specific laws that he would like changed, he should put forward his suggestions, and get either the PAP or opposition politicians to raise them in Parliament. Mr Cai could even consider putting these ideas to the people by contesting in the forthcoming elections himself. After all, this is a democracy.
Irene Ng (Miss)
Member of Parliament [/color]
Reference: Yawning Bread[/b]
And Singapore's politic is SEEMINGLY not as UGLY as other countries because they did quite a pretty good job in 'covering up'.... Nowadays it's just like the story of 'The king without his clothes on..." A naked man giving his speech on stage, where everybody else can obviously see he's NAKED and doesn't understand much of the weird language he's speaking in... -
Sorry, my post was broken by an 'intrusion'....
To ADD, Singapore's simply too small to be able to afford a CHAOTIC political scenery.... Our leaders probably KNEW it all along and is just playing with 'fire'... They're focusing mainly with 'external relationships' in the past while probably adapting a "I die, you die with me" mentality... OR it could also be that they're ready to just leave with the 'jackpot' anytime... Such a plan WORKS.. MOST of the time... Especially when you're talking about INTERNATIONAL LEVEL...
Only recently have you seen much more interest in handling the 'interest' of the people within the country... My GUESS would be because it's getting more and more UNSTABLE GLOBALLY.... Even if they decide to leave Singapore, nowhere would seem much safer than here at the current chaotic rate...
And it's well-known that Singapore doesn't have its own natural resources EXECPT for its global location and people... That's why in order to make Singapore more VALUABLE... Foreign talents could be taken in (of course there're also other political reasons behind..) to BETTER the ASSET of Singapore... And without holding a 'convincing' control over the citizens of Singapore and having their morale drops well too fast... Singapore would just LOST its value way TOO SOON....
It's quite unlikely that they would wanna put so much time and effort on a country like that, in which they won't have much to gain in return..? -
The sweeping and general response from Irene Ng prompts only more speculation that the well-rehearsed answer was probably not provided from the personal conscience, but from a well-oiled machine intent on providing the same propaganda it has sprouted for years and labasting any who dare to speak up or criticise high-handed actions, less the rounding up and shooting of dissidents (in jest only).
If Ms Irene Ng truly believes what she says, then she is either blindly rejecting reality or fiercely holding on to what's left of a crumbling mentality.
The last paragraph of challenging David Cai to contesting elections was simply a loser's tactic, when one cannot compete intellectually, they wave their political trump card to brush your comments aside. -
aiyah, dunnoe larh, everybody got different view de ma right?...Miss Irene Ng has her point while Mr Cai has his own point...
haha -
If you haven't realised by now, David Cai has an OPINION which IRENE NG not only put to the sword but aggressively chided him for being short-sighted and critical.Originally posted by hiphop2009:aiyah, dunnoe larh, everybody got different view de ma right?...Miss Irene Ng has her point while Mr Cai has his own point...
haha
Irene Ng on the other hand had NO OPINION, merely the same old rhetoric which we have heard once too often.
It seems this 'iron lady' will not accept nor permit 'non-conformist' views and criticisms from the people, yet they actively promote pseudo-alternative PAP candidates to provide the well-rehearsed impression that the Ruling party themselves will provide the alternative views; thus in short, if you're not a politician, screw you and your comments. -
[color=orange[b]]
[color=orange]Ooi ! Ooi!... why all suddenly step backward!!!.....hal! have to talk leh..? what my own, that bosi role mah. eeee like that ....draft.leh..Ok lor ok lor...talk lor.... -
Irene Ng also challenged WP chairman Sylvia Lim asking her what is her vision in the ST Forum not lomg ago. If Irene Ng were to challege Sylvia Lim one to one, I think Ng will lose because, she dont have her own idea and opinion, hers is a borrowed one from the PAP, that means all PAP wear the same trousers, what vision does Ng have, she hides behind the minister in the GRC, that was a walk over if i am not wrong, Sylvia is a lawyer and i think she can win if there is a contest between this 2 ladiesOriginally posted by BillyBong:If you haven't realised by now, David Cai has an OPINION which IRENE NG not only put to the sword but aggressively chided him for being short-sighted and critical.
Irene Ng on the other hand had NO OPINION, merely the same old rhetoric which we have heard once too often.
It seems this 'iron lady' will not accept nor permit 'non-conformist' views and criticisms from the people, yet they actively promote pseudo-alternative PAP candidates to provide the well-rehearsed impression that the Ruling party themselves will provide the alternative views; thus in short, if you're not a politician, screw you and your comments. -
The fall of Hougang & Potong Pasir will be the crumbling of democracy in Singapore.
We must not let that happen.
FREEDOM PREVAILS! -
sorry billybong, i am posting some online letters from Straits times forums sent in by singaporeans in reply to the letter by Irene Ng..
don't know whether this is the right thread to post but anyway
Isn't it the govt's responsibility to upgrade housing estates for all S'poreans?
I refer to Member of Parliament Miss Ireng Ng's letter "S'pore political system far better than many others" (ST, March 25).
Does Singapore's political system encourage people to be active in politics?
Debate in Parliament is far from robust. PAP MPs don't really challenge government policies
Isn't it the govt's responsibility to upgrade housing estates for all S'poreans?
She said "our system is not perfect, but it is far better than the chaotic and dirty politics found in many other countries." She also mentioned that the Non-Constituency MP scheme was introduced to give opposition members at least three seats in Parliament.
While some detractors of the PAP claim that the NCMP scheme was introduced to reduce the incentive for Singaporeans to vote for the opposition, I applaud it.
The result of the upcoming elections seems a foregone conclusion. Without some affirmative action, we may be left with no opposition MPs in Parliament.
I have two questions for Miss Ng. First, she said that when she was selected by the PAP to stand in the last general election, she disagreed with some of the PAP's policies and she still maintains these views.
I am curious. What are these views? What has she done about them since she was elected?
Second, I was curious to note that in the newspaper commentary "Hougang's Low may be 'heart' to beat", it was reported that government grants for upgrading in Hougang came to about $111 per household in 2004-05. In contrast, the corresponding grants in neighbouring Aljunied Town Council was $560 per household for the same period.
Perhaps Miss Ng may wish to comment on the puzzling statistics. Is it not the government's responsibility to upgrade the environment for all Singaporeans equally since the upgrading is paid for with taxpayers' monies?
Every time there is a general election, new metaphors are invented. Perhaps elections are like an en-bloc sale. If you want a piece of the pie, the majority of the residents must vote for it.
While I agree with Miss Ng that our political system isn't bad and there is sufficient freedom of speech, I also believe that politics in Singapore suffers from an image problem, and for good reason.
Ben Leong Wing Lup
Massachusetts, United States -
Debate in Parliament is far from robust. PAP MPs don't really challenge government policies
Member of Parliament Irene Ng believes that Singapore's political system is far better than many others (ST, March 25). Her comparison does not take into account the fact that as a small country, Singapore is far more amenable to government control.
The authoritarian style of our government that operates successfully here does not necessarily work in larger countries. What is happening in Thailand now is a good example.
Things like incorruptible government and bureaucracy, banning demonstrations, crime control and implementation of national policies are far more difficult in other countries because of their bigger size and population.
Singapore also has political weaknesses. There is a need to avoid political smugness that blinds us to them. The building of an orderly society which Miss Ng has pointed out should not be the end. Sound socio-economic policies are also needed.
For this, she said Singaporeans are free to give their views to the government or join the opposition to offer alternatives. But that precisely points to a major weakness in our political system.
Minister Lim Boon Heng said the PAP government looks for people with strong views and convictions to become MPs.
While I do not question the calibre of PAP MPs, what I do not accept is this - debate in Parliament is far from robust. Usually, only a handful of short questions are posed by MPs to the minister. Sometimes these questions are not incisive or pertinent. Does this constitute robust debate?
This phenomenon is likely a result of the short time allotted to MPs, and PAP MPs are also constrained by party loyalty. Therefore, PAP MPs do not really challenge government policies in a strong manner. Without the challenge, where is the debate in the true sense of the word?
It looks to me that the processes in Parliament are such that the authoritarian rather than democratic way of doing things is more the order of the day.
The atmosphere in our Parliament has settled down to the academic calm of a lecture hall. The situation makes a parody of "parliamentary debates". I do not think we have a better political system than some countries where MPs feel so strongly about issues and policies that they, to their ignominy, sometimes turn violent in Parliament.
A recent ST survey shows that there is little political consciousness in our young generation. This is another political weakness.
This is caused by the government's de-politicisation of the people in which politics are merely about bread-and-butter issues pertaining to oneself and the family.
When people just look selfishly after their own interests, would this speak well of our political system?
I am sure Miss Ng, as an MP who regularly meets the people with requests or even demands from the government, understands better what this means or could mean for our nation.
Chia Hern Keng -
In such a clean and transparent system, all allegations are investigated and lies refuted.
20 or 15 yrs ago, YES, one of the cleanest.... but now....
Just joining the rank of neighbour.... only that comparing to a herd of black sheep... it seems grey. But never as white as before.
oh, btw.... with the "high->super" salary and benefits...... becoming an MP is the fastest way to join the million dollar club. -
quote " When lies are told often, it becomes the truth" similar,when the "truths" are told too often, it becomes a lie.
-
Originally posted by dotaro:The fall of Hougang & Potong Pasir will be the crumbling of democracy in Singapore.
We must not let that happen.
FREEDOM PREVAILS! If you wanted things to happen your way, do your parts. -
Irene Ng was touted by the Ruling Political Party as a gem with the experience from her birth country that was subjected to ruinous abuses by the government and the disorganised system that allowed corruption at every level of society.
Her birthplace - Indonesia.
For one who has come over to Singapore as a PR and to become a Citizen, we can probably understand her ardent embrace of a totally different environment that Singapore offered.
It is only unfortunate that while immersed into the denseness of Singapore Politics, she can no longer see ahead through the thick growth, nor find her path through, and can hardly differentiate the tree from the forest.
Being only a Citizen for such a short period, is she qualified to speak of our Singapore System ?
It is a pity that she prefer the characteristic arrogant, condescending and dismissive attitude of the Ruling Political Party towards others who hold them to the same strong critical light; and will resort to befuddle the issues by debating the issues in an off-tangent manner that directs one to their own version of the Singapore Reality.
Is she living in the Singapore that she dream that she is living ?
Does she believe that the Singapore Parliament is superior to the British Parliament or the US Congress - in which the respective Countries have an ALTERNATIVE POLITICAL PARTY that is READY and CAPABLE to take over the reins of Government when the other one falters.
Their system has been left intact through generations of continuous politics, which can hardly be the same in Singapore - when we can only depend on a SINGLE PARTY that continuously DISMANTLE THE SYSTEM by RE-WRITING THE SINGAPORE CONSTITUTION to entrench the Single Party Rule, and suppress all forms of vibrant Opposition Politics by LOYAL SINGAPOREANS.
Can the Singapore Political System be superior to the British or US Political System ? -
O My God...another paratrooper... -
Personally, what I have to say?Originally posted by BillyBong:If you haven't realised by now, David Cai has an OPINION which IRENE NG not only put to the sword but aggressively chided him for being short-sighted and critical.
Irene Ng on the other hand had NO OPINION, merely the same old rhetoric which we have heard once too often.
It seems this 'iron lady' will not accept nor permit 'non-conformist' views and criticisms from the people, yet they actively promote pseudo-alternative PAP candidates to provide the well-rehearsed impression that the Ruling party themselves will provide the alternative views; thus in short, if you're not a politician, screw you and your comments.
"If you are a politician, screw you and your affected rhetoric.You do not possess a monopoly on comments, and no one granted you or your party the right to solely decide what is good for the nation."
I find it highly amusing that they can say the above statements when people already find it a huge joke and dismiss it totally as the workings of a machinery.
How many of us have been part of a wayang show in NS?We know better than to be taken in by smoke bombs. -
Politics is not merely municipal in nature, however, all bread and butter issues have their origin in national policies.
The engagement of pressing international issues relating to Singapore translates into national policymaking, thus becoming the small little pieces which the PAP have allowed citizens to engage, to give them a sense of ownership and a stake in the process, when in fact, the effects are limited to a negligible thrust around the GRC and below in range. -
Well, David Cai was not the first, Catherine and others had tasted the bitter medicine. You can talk for all you want but keep the opinion to yourself if it does not conform to their ideas.Originally posted by BillyBong:If you haven't realised by now, David Cai has an OPINION which IRENE NG not only put to the sword but aggressively chided him for being short-sighted and critical.
Irene Ng on the other hand had NO OPINION, merely the same old rhetoric which we have heard once too often.
It seems this 'iron lady' will not accept nor permit 'non-conformist' views and criticisms from the people, yet they actively promote pseudo-alternative PAP candidates to provide the well-rehearsed impression that the Ruling party themselves will provide the alternative views; thus in short, if you're not a politician, screw you and your comments.
Otherwise join politics to be politicians to air your views. of course they are talking about you joining the oppositions coz they have no room for opposing ideas.