Catherine Lim's illusion of political control
-
I REFER to the Review article, 'A dash of tolerance and a big helping of smart power' (ST, Dec 7), by Dr Catherine Lim.
It was frustrating reading her oft-repeated thesis of an imagined 'Great Divide', first mooted in 1994, or 'disconnect' between the PAP Government and the people that therefore necessitates the Government to impose 'tight (political) control' in order to remain in power. Frustrating, because she offered no new evidence to support her arguments.
With the General Election in May this year giving a decisive 67 per cent victory to the PAP Government, the people of Singapore had categorically disagreed, again, with Dr Lim's understanding of their true feelings towards the Government.
Even Dr Lim admitted that Singaporeans have 'an unquestioning trust in and total dependence on the Government to continue to give them a good life'. She resented this by branding as 'politically naïve' the vast number of Singaporeans who provided tremendous political support to the PAP Government by returning it to power repeatedly over the last 40 years.
Prior to the May election, the economy grew by 8.4 per cent and 6.4 per cent in 2004 and 2005 respectively, while unemployment dropped to 2.5 per cent last December.
I am therefore baffled by her logic that Singaporeans should have a distrusting, more critical and sceptical attitude towards an incorruptible government whose policies have created jobs and provided affordable housing, education and medical services as well as social peace and stability.
The PAP-people relationship has a solid, unbreakable unity of purpose and commitment to the national interests of survival and sustainable economic prosperity.
I would like to suggest that the relative absence of open and widespread political dissent in Singapore is the result of good government, instead of some sinister covert network of political controls.
More young people stood as candidates in the 2006 General Election, and also joined various political parties since.
The Straits Times Forum page, its Review section, and the many blog sites also reflect a great diversity of views from Singaporeans.
It is difficult to reconcile Dr Lim's lamentation about the lack of political freedom with her two-page article appearing in the main pages of our major English newspaper, after her speech to a government-linked think-tank!
Dr Lim's numerous speeches provide the most conclusive rebuttal of her thesis on the lack of tolerance of political dissent in Singapore.
Michael Heng Swee Hai
ST Forum
If this article is a representative of the mindset of the majority, it is interesting to note that many would simply take figures at face value from the govt and use them on a whim.
Economic and unemployment figures for years have always shown improvements nearer general elections. Such growths have always been made public to create the impression of improvement.
What Michael Heng is doing is claiming 'one' contradicts the other, without actually analysing the accuracy of 'one'. -
I nearly fell off my chair when I read this letter this morning. This idiot doesn't have a clue what's going on and didn't bother to check.
Even our PAP is admitting that they ARE OUT OF TOUCH with the ground, that they NEED TO CONNECT more with the young and lower income or risk loosing their support.
Hell, even LYK said this during an interview overseas. Didn't this guy subscribe to the papers or is he practicing selective reading. -
Perhaps the minority who are against the policies of the government tend to be the young and idealistic, as well as the poor and poorly educated.
-
the poorly educated do not visit online forums and post in fluent english....but rather it's the majority who are not willing to rock their own boat...Originally posted by oxford mushroom:Perhaps the minority who are against the policies of the government tend to be the young and idealistic, as well as the poor and poorly educated. -
When 66% of the voters are deemed to have given their vote to the ruling party, does it provide a true indication of the entire population, or is merely a reflection of those who voted?Originally posted by oxford mushroom:Perhaps the minority who are against the policies of the government tend to be the young and idealistic, as well as the poor and poorly educated.
Was a vote count conducted in the various GRCs that were uncontested? Time and again, the ruling party will publish whatever statistics suit their needs, without bothering about accuracy of their data.
This 66% is simply a perceived 'illusion', the lie that the ruling party will accept so long as staying in denial keeps them in power. None have the guts to actually try and bridge the gap between the peasants and those living in ivory towers.
Their post-65 Hip Hop item is a pathetic attempt to grasp the mindset of the younger generation bordering on an insult, believing that a 'wayang kulit' can decidely influence the next generation.
And unlike skewed sweeping comments from supposedly learnt 'doctors', the young and idealistic, as well as the poor and poorly educated do give credit where it's due. -
the well-to-do will never vote against the govt.
-
Some older folks that voted the 66% were afraid of them finding out that they voted the other party.
-
Ok, is this the same dude that is teaching in one of the local uni
His name is very familiar
-
You're wrong.Originally posted by dragg:the well-to-do will never vote against the govt.
-
michael heng n he was one of the module leader. alot of final-year students hate him to the core as he like to force students wasting so much time to concentrate on his module, causing them to neglect their other modules n fyp.
i hope someone can jam him back!
-
I have only 1 thing to say,that is this Michael is a PAP secret police.
-
Fully agreed!!!Originally posted by countdracula:the poorly educated do not visit online forums and post in fluent english....but rather it's the majority who are not willing to rock their own boat...
we r stupid but made a million oreli!!!
Like him,O fox still hve 2 carry balls 2 make a living!!!!!
-
Originally posted by BillyBong:
Very well said le!!!
When 66% of the voters are deemed to have given their vote to the ruling party, does it provide a [b]true indication of the entire population, or is merely a reflection of those who voted?
Was a vote count conducted in the various GRCs that were uncontested? Time and again, the ruling party will publish whatever statistics suit their needs, without bothering about accuracy of their data.
This 66% is simply a perceived 'illusion', the lie that the ruling party will accept so long as staying in denial keeps them in power. None have the guts to actually try and bridge the gap between the peasants and those living in ivory towers.
Their post-65 Hip Hop item is a pathetic attempt to grasp the mindset of the younger generation bordering on an insult, believing that a 'wayang kulit' can decidely influence the next generation.
And unlike skewed sweeping comments from supposedly learnt 'doctors', the young and idealistic, as well as the poor and poorly educated do give credit where it's due.
[/b]
R u Gods????? -
Originally posted by BillyBong:
From the way he posts...i think he's more of a quak. Real doctors won't be so bo liao to post rubbish in sgforums.
When 66% of the voters are deemed to have given their vote to the ruling party, does it provide a true indication of the entire population, or is merely a reflection of those who voted?
Was a vote count conducted in the various GRCs that were uncontested? Time and again, the ruling party will publish whatever statistics suit their needs, without bothering about accuracy of their data.
This 66% is simply a perceived 'illusion', the lie that the ruling party will accept so long as staying in denial keeps them in power. None have the guts to actually try and bridge the gap between the peasants and those living in ivory towers.
Their post-65 Hip Hop item is a pathetic attempt to grasp the mindset of the younger generation bordering on an insult, believing that a 'wayang kulit' can decidely influence the next generation.
And unlike skewed sweeping comments from supposedly learnt 'doctors', the young and idealistic, as well as the poor and poorly educated do give credit where it's due.
-
hmm
-
She is a real Doc dont use $ 2 buy want like OF!!!!!self proclaimed only PSLE garuate!!!!sorry wrong word!!!!Originally posted by Skibi:From the way he posts...i think he's more of a quak. Real doctors won't be so bo liao to post rubbish in sgforums. -
by the way, most students call him meatball as he is fat n disgusting.
-
She or he????Originally posted by 798:by the way, most students call him meatball as he is fat n disgusting.
i thought she is a Doc ,the teacher who teachs me how 2 speak Queen English!!! -
R u talking about me????
Very fat like a pig!!!!
My name is sieow 2!!!!! -
I think whoever this guy is who replied to Catherine Lim ought to get himself a reality check.. as a politician, one can thrive on rhethoric and numbers, as a leader, it is what that sticks on the ground that matters - Yes, the poor and the poorly educated, the young and idealistic.
-
michael meatball heng.Originally posted by foomwee88:She or he????
i thought she is a Doc ,the teacher who teachs me how 2 speak Queen English!!! -
hat by
It is pathetic that a supposedly well educated Singaporean will find the present monopolistic political control to be an illusion.Originally posted by BillyBong:I REFER to the Review article, 'A dash of tolerance and a big helping of smart power' (ST, Dec 7), by Dr Catherine Lim.
It was frustrating reading her oft-repeated thesis of an imagined 'Great Divide', first mooted in 1994, or 'disconnect' between the PAP Government and the people that therefore necessitates the Government to impose 'tight (political) control' in order to remain in power. Frustrating, because she offered no new evidence to support her arguments.
With the General Election in May this year giving a decisive 67 per cent victory to the PAP Government, the people of Singapore had categorically disagreed, again, with Dr Lim's understanding of their true feelings towards the Government.
Even Dr Lim admitted that Singaporeans have 'an unquestioning trust in and total dependence on the Government to continue to give them a good life'. She resented this by branding as 'politically naïve' the vast number of Singaporeans who provided tremendous political support to the PAP Government by returning it to power repeatedly over the last 40 years.
Prior to the May election, the economy grew by 8.4 per cent and 6.4 per cent in 2004 and 2005 respectively, while unemployment dropped to 2.5 per cent last December.
I am therefore baffled by her logic that Singaporeans should have a distrusting, more critical and sceptical attitude towards an incorruptible government whose policies have created jobs and provided affordable housing, education and medical services as well as social peace and stability.
The PAP-people relationship has a solid, unbreakable unity of purpose and commitment to the national interests of survival and sustainable economic prosperity.
I would like to suggest that the relative absence of open and widespread political dissent in Singapore is the result of good government, instead of some sinister covert network of political controls.
More young people stood as candidates in the 2006 General Election, and also joined various political parties since.
The Straits Times Forum page, its Review section, and the many blog sites also reflect a great diversity of views from Singaporeans.
It is difficult to reconcile Dr Lim's lamentation about the lack of political freedom with her two-page article appearing in the main pages of our major English newspaper, after her speech to a government-linked think-tank!
Dr Lim's numerous speeches provide the most conclusive rebuttal of her thesis on the lack of tolerance of political dissent in Singapore.
Michael Heng Swee Hai
ST Forum
If this article is a representative of the mindset of the majority, it is interesting to note that many would simply take figures at face value from the govt and use them on a whim.
Economic and unemployment figures for years have always shown improvements nearer general elections. Such growths have always been made public to create the impression of improvement.
What Michael Heng is doing is claiming 'one' contradicts the other, without actually analysing the accuracy of 'one'.
Is Catherine Lim such a daft observer of the Singapore political scene to justify such a skewered criticism that ignore reality - as if the real world will be made more palatable by dismissing its existence ?
Sadly, there are Singaporeans who will be naive enough to believe that by sitting next to the Devil, they can change the Devil's way from inside HIS den.
In sitting close to the Devil, it will not take long for these Singaporeans to forget their original mission of "changing the system from within" - and will be drawn into corrupt world of absolute monopoly in power.
Some of the recent post-65 junior ministers were "severe" government critique in their earlier days, but have since changed their tune after being recruited and offered the hard-to-reject Million Dollar Ministerial positions.
Catherine Lim has been a keen and outspoken observer, with an honest and uncolored view of Singapore Life and Events, and have drawn strong rebuke from the Government.
She must have said something very honest and true to have attracted such severe reprimand.
Can this Michael Heng even begin to write anything original other then to repeat all that has been said by the Political demi-Gods of Singapore ?
What can be their purpose to defend the system and deny the truth ?
Like all Empires, it will wane once its peak has passed, and the whole truth will be seen with stark honesty; despite all the desparate efforts of the Political demi-Gods to prevent that fateful day.
LKY had even recently dared to suggest that the SAF should attempt a coup, in the event a freak election result should place the Alternative Parties to form the next Singapore Government.
Is this an illusion of an attempt at total political control by the Ruling Party ?
This is indeed pathetic that LKY should leave behind a legacy of political institutions that will cause friction, deep set rivalries, and competitive political animosities.
It seems that he will miss the opportunity to create a Singapore institution that will be robust enough to stand up to the political changes of different political parties forming different government - similar to the robust political institutions of the mature democratic states that form the European Community.
The British left us with a superior Parliamentary System which had served UK over several decades, and successive changes of government did not affect their political institutions.
It is a crying shame that this Ruling Party has changed the face of the inherited Parliamentary System and political institutions, and also corrupting the legislature and judiciary with partisan politics that leaves behind instability and political rivalries.
Was Catherine Lim wrong with her observation of political control ? -
Very well said!!!!Originally posted by Atobe:hat by
It is pathetic that a supposedly well educated Singaporean will find the present monopolistic political control to be an illusion.
Is Catherine Lim such a daft observer of the Singapore political scene to justify such a skewered criticism that ignore reality - as if the real world will be made more palatable by dismissing its existence ?
Sadly, there are Singaporeans who will be naive enough to believe that by sitting next to the Devil, they can change the Devil's way from inside HIS den.
In sitting close to the Devil, it will not take long for these Singaporeans to forget their original mission of "changing the system from within" - and will be drawn into corrupt world of absolute monopoly in power.
Some of the recent post-65 junior ministers were "severe" government critique in their earlier days, but have since changed their tune after being recruited and offered the hard-to-reject Million Dollar Ministerial positions.
Catherine Lim has been a keen and outspoken observer, with an honest and uncolored view of Singapore Life and Events, and have drawn strong rebuke from the Government.
She must have said something very honest and true to have attracted such severe reprimand.
Can this Michael Heng even begin to write anything original other then to repeat all that has been said by the Political demi-Gods of Singapore ?
What can be their purpose to defend the system and deny the truth ?
Like all Empires, it will wane once its peak has passed, and the whole truth will be seen with stark honesty; despite all the desparate efforts of the Political demi-Gods to prevent that fateful day.
LKY had even recently dared to suggest that the SAF should attempt a coup, in the event a freak election result should place the Alternative Parties to form the next Singapore Government.
Is this an illusion of an attempt at total political control by the Ruling Party ?
This is indeed pathetic that LKY should leave behind a legacy of political institutions that will cause friction, deep set rivalries, and competitive political animosities.
It seems that he will miss the opportunity to create a Singapore institution that will be robust enough to stand up to the political changes of different political parties forming different government - similar to the robust political institutions of the mature democratic states that form the European Community.
The British left us with a superior Parliamentary System which had served UK over several decades, and successive changes of government did not affect their political institutions.
It is a crying shame that this Ruling Party has changed the face of the inherited Parliamentary System and political institutions, and also corrupting the legislature and judiciary with partisan politics that leaves behind instability and political rivalries.
Was Catherine Lim wrong with her observation of political control ?
The old man has passed his time n not relevant in this era,why can he quit the show n let his son 2 take over????
Is LSL so hopless n helpess, he is more than 40 yrs old oreli,shd he doesnt know how 2 looking after himself?????
My father discarded me at the age of 18 years ,why cant LKY?????? -
Is that Michael guy some old man trying to carry balls?
-
I know who u r talking about!!!Originally posted by 798:by the way, most students call him meatball as he is fat n disgusting.
His nake name is mai koh heng!!! In hokkien ,bad luck 4 ever~~~~~~