PAP versus the Opposition.
-
PRP, I thought you said you are dying. Pls get ready.Originally posted by PRP:Potong Pasir town council can't manage better than or differently from PAP wards.So how good is Chiam? -
WP's Slyvia Lim!Originally posted by teraexa:Give me a credible opposition that bothers to engage the people even during normal non-election periods, not some people who keeps protesting for the sake of protesting and getting into trouble with the law repeatedly.
-
Teraexa,Originally posted by teraexa:Frankly, I will not vote the opposition just for the sake of voting otherwise.
No doubts, there are problems with the PAP (eg minister pay), but I have to say that our opposition have not exactly helped themselves either by being fragmented and disunited.
Seriously, I read through the arguments here. Very convincing about the electoral, media processes about how the incumbent seeks to enhance and consolidate its position in politics. However, are such measures only restricted here? No no no. In fact, it is so prevalent everywhere, even in so-called democratic havens such as USA, Britain and Taiwan. Jerrymandering (redrawing of electoral boundaries to favour the ruling party) is a widespread practice overseas and the way they do it really make the Serangoon-North-in-Marine-Parade-GRC incident look very very normal. Another example, the first-past-the-post system which were invented by the British and still used here. It allows the ruling party to control the Parliament even though they get the minority of the votes.
Ok, the restrictions on protests and public speeches are a tad too restrictive but I do not wish to see oversea situations of riots and violent protests breaking out here either.
Yes, the ruling party is not perfect, but neither is the opposition. Are there avenues for them to broadcast their political ideas and policies? Yes there are legal ways. Since the last GE, I have not ahd a whiff of the opposition in my GRC. It would have been good if they gone around distributing their newsletters but no, I have not seen them in action. Please give me an opposition that does not disappear during non-election days and only mysteriously materialise during election period.
Give me a credible opposition that bothers to engage the people even during normal non-election periods, not some people who keeps protesting for the sake of protesting and getting into trouble with the law repeatedly.
Seriously, I may not like the ruling party that's not a good enough reason to vote the opposition, not when the quality of some of them I see (some of the GRC teams seem to be just banded together for the sake of elections).
You can go an call me a PAP-centric elitist boot-licking lap dog, but I will tell you that for now, I will NOT vote the opposition, but neither will I vote the PAP either.
You can list all the bad points and shortcomings of the PAP all you want, but at the end of the day, if given a choice to choose between 2 rotten apples, I will prefer not to eat and drink water instead.
BTW, I am only 18. You can label me as a person who has been blinded by pro-govt propaganda and education but I believe if you were to take this to the normal man-in-the-street, chances are, they are probably more likely to agree with my viewpoint compared to yours.
I would not label your views on the PAP as bigotic but it is pretty much one-sided and subjective.
I am just 1 year older than you, but I'm afraid I have to say that what you say sounds like what Wee Shu Min said to Derrick (Rmb the incident?) With the same pompous tone as she uses. But let me talk to you:-
1-2) They are fragmented and divided. But this fragmentation and division should have no impact whatsoever on who you decide to vote. So plainly, you are going OOT here.
3) Sure, Gerrymandering may be practiced in other countries, but not as openly as here. And there will be lots of criticism coming from the local press on the govt's abuse of power, sometimes going to the extent of a re-election. Unlike here, where the Straits Times/ TNP/ TODAY doesn't even bother to report changed electoral boundaries, making poor uneducated voters unsure of what GRC they are in from one election to the next. Yes, the first-past-the-post system was invented in the UK. But the UK's FPTP is solely for Single-Member Wards. There is no such stupid thing as GRCs there. It is not like TOny Blair, Gordon Brown and Ruth Kelly could contest as a team in a single ward.
4) Don't believe everything the media shows. One purpose of the media is to sell news, so it usually produces sensationalism. Overseas protests are usually thousands and thousands of people. These people are usually peaceful. The ones causing the riots and other disturbances are usually a small band of fanatics or desparados. And usually, such unrest only occurs when people have been pushed beyond their limit. Put it this way, you can hardly expect inhabitants of a war-torn Iraq to offer the USAF a Christmas present, could you? But most other demonstrations in US and UK and AU are usually peaceful. Sadly, these don't make it to the press.
5) Unlike what you think, the opposition does not disappear during non-election periods. I was with a friend from the WP last week. he had spent an entire week in a walkabout in Hougang. And the SDP sells its newsletters at some of the MRT stations. Unfortunately, they are cash-strapped (unlike the PAP, which can bribe the MNCs) and operate under alot of restrictions which the PAP simply doesn't face. Notice: If a PAP member criticises his Party (like one did last year), he is labelled as giving "insightful feedback"; when an oppo member criticises the PAP, s/he gets charged for defamation or slander unless s/he beats around the bush. Do you seriously expect the opposition to be strong under such an environment?
6) That is just the SDP. Do not lump them together with the other parties.
7) Well, haha
, unfortunately voting is compulsory, and I don't think null-voting is acceptable. Then of course you could spoil your vote by drawing the merlion on it. Then again, you may jsut be wasting your time, because you won't even have a chance to vote under the GRC system.
Wow. So Moralistic. Tone down your ego man.
9-10) Nope, they aren't. You probably haven't heard a taxi-driver rant before right? Please look beyond your schoolbooks to truly understand your country. That is all I can say. Notice your SS textbooks never criticise the PAP. The PAP is always made to look like the victim, whether of the British, The Communists, The Alliance, terrorists or the Senseless West. If you were to ask each of these parties for their side, you would probably get a different story. Doesn't this all make the version of Singapore History presented in SS textbooks one-sided and bigoted too? (I am not surprised why we have tensions with M'sia and Indon even now.)
Rgds,
the pikamaster
P.S.: Which school are you from? In case you were wondering, I was from RI, and then I went to HCI. -
Can you explain that, please. Which area in Potong Pasir is not managed properly and how well do you think the PAP can do?Originally posted by PRP:Potong Pasir town council can't manage better than or differently from PAP wards.So how good is Chiam?
Chiam is beyong doubt a credible opposition who did his job well. Any reason to question that? -
Woot I sound like Wee Shu Min? I should be damned. Sorry for my tone just now cos I was not really in the best of moods when writing that.Originally posted by pikamaster:Teraexa,
I am just 1 year older than you, but I'm afraid I have to say that what you say sounds like what Wee Shu Min said to Derrick (Rmb the incident?) With the same pompous tone as she uses. But let me talk to you:-
1-2) They are fragmented and divided. But this fragmentation and division should have no impact whatsoever on who you decide to vote. So plainly, you are going OOT here.
3) Sure, Gerrymandering may be practiced in other countries, but not as openly as here. And there will be lots of criticism coming from the local press on the govt's abuse of power, sometimes going to the extent of a re-election. Unlike here, where the Straits Times/ TNP/ TODAY doesn't even bother to report changed electoral boundaries, making poor uneducated voters unsure of what GRC they are in from one election to the next. Yes, the first-past-the-post system was invented in the UK. But the UK's FPTP is solely for Single-Member Wards. There is no such stupid thing as GRCs there. It is not like TOny Blair, Gordon Brown and Ruth Kelly could contest as a team in a single ward.
4) Don't believe everything the media shows. One purpose of the media is to sell news, so it usually produces sensationalism. Overseas protests are usually thousands and thousands of people. These people are usually peaceful. The ones causing the riots and other disturbances are usually a small band of fanatics or desparados. And usually, such unrest only occurs when people have been pushed beyond their limit. Put it this way, you can hardly expect inhabitants of a war-torn Iraq to offer the USAF a Christmas present, could you? But most other demonstrations in US and UK and AU are usually peaceful. Sadly, these don't make it to the press.
5) Unlike what you think, the opposition does not disappear during non-election periods. I was with a friend from the WP last week. he had spent an entire week in a walkabout in Hougang. And the SDP sells its newsletters at some of the MRT stations. Unfortunately, they are cash-strapped (unlike the PAP, which can bribe the MNCs) and operate under alot of restrictions which the PAP simply doesn't face. Notice: If a PAP member criticises his Party (like one did last year), he is labelled as giving "insightful feedback"; when an oppo member criticises the PAP, s/he gets charged for defamation or slander unless s/he beats around the bush. Do you seriously expect the opposition to be strong under such an environment?
6) That is just the SDP. Do not lump them together with the other parties.
7) Well, haha, unfortunately voting is compulsory, and I don't think null-voting is acceptable. Then of course you could spoil your vote by drawing the merlion on it. Then again, you may jsut be wasting your time, because you won't even have a chance to vote under the GRC system. Wow. So Moralistic. Tone down your ego man.
9-10) Nope, they aren't. You probably haven't heard a taxi-driver rant before right? Please look beyond your schoolbooks to truly understand your country. That is all I can say. Notice your SS textbooks never criticise the PAP. The PAP is always made to look like the victim, whether of the British, The Communists, The Alliance, terrorists or the Senseless West. If you were to ask each of these parties for their side, you would probably get a different story. Doesn't this all make the version of Singapore History presented in SS textbooks one-sided and bigoted too? (I am not surprised why we have tensions with M'sia and Indon even now.)
Rgds,
the pikamaster
P.S.: Which school are you from? In case you were wondering, I was from RI, and then I went to HCI.
Just in case you are wondering where I am from, was from RI, currently in RJ.
And oh yes, back to topic, shall we?
Fragmentation and disunity. My personal beliefs (not too sure if it extends to others as well) are that if the opposition is disunited and fragmented, they certainly ain't giving me the confidence to vote them in. Would I want my MP to be bickering in Parliament, or worse, during my Meet-The-People sessions? Chances are that if the opposition show themselves to be credible, professional and united, my inclination to vote them is certainly going to be higher.
Now onto Gerrymandering (sorry for the earlier spelling error). Oh yes, certainly, Gerrymandering has, is and will continue to be used by incumbents to consolidate their position. I am one who is not blinded by the fact that our media is pro-govt (hey if not why they never ever reviewed The Hatchet Man?) but I am pretty sure that they DID report on boundary changes during elections. Yes, we lack a truly free press in Singapore but that's not really the issue of this point, yet. Anyway, regarding the point on GRCs and gerrymandering. These are both legal tools (within the provisions of the law). The problem is that people often view legality and ethics interchangably. Sure, such tactics aren't ethics, but they are legal (within the laws of Singapore) and without a strong 4th estate to criticise them, we'll just have to leave it at legality.
Next onto the media. It is rather unfortunate that we only get to see the sensational side of protests or public gatherings through the media. However, I went to Taiwan during 2005 when they were holding their local elections. Boy, I saw with my eyes how a 'peaceful' gathering could go wrong simply because some opposing supporter started saying criticisms. Perhaps, it is a case of what we lose out (the chance for free speech) vs what we gain (relative peace?). This, unfortunately, can be argued till the cows come home and we can never reach a consensus.
Regarding the activities of the opposition, it is unforunate that I lack personal experience with some of the members and that financial support for them is still sorely lacking. However, if the opposition is to achieve anything significant, they will have to reach out to ordinary, ignorant people like me to convince of their votes.
Taxi drivers rants. What a familiar scene. Perhaps, if we listen to them carefully, most of their concerns are mainly economic in nature (rising minister pay, rising GST, rising costs, lower wages etc) but they have long resigned to the fact that PAP is dominant in politics and as long as they are economically well-off, they do not really care if PAP is all-dominating (ain't most people of the older generation like that?).
I wouldn't defend the PAP cos I think they have faults. Yet, I am just perturbed by the confusion between legality and morality in politics. What is immoral can be legal, like GRC, minister pay etc. Yes, some of PAP's actions are ethically wrong and only strong public sentiment can turn that lack of ethics into an issue worth examining, else we are probably resigned to living under a PAP that sometimes skirt around the grey areas of the law for some measures that perhaps lack in ethics.
Just my $0.02. -
Chiam has been a good opposition leader undoubtedly. The only reason why Potong Pasir has little upgrading projects is because the ministry does not give him funds to carry it out and he has to take it out of the town council's own budget.Originally posted by sgdiehard:Can you explain that, please. Which area in Potong Pasir is not managed properly and how well do you think the PAP can do?
Chiam is beyong doubt a credible opposition who did his job well. Any reason to question that? -
Chap, for an 18 year old, you have a long way to go.
I used to think the way you do, until I began to specialise in the very same field.
Believe me, your views will not be set in stone, especially when you get a first-hand view into policymaking and actually talk to the people involved.
Then you will find that the centrist political ground is always the most unteneble, and that swing votes are generally the main bastion of all competing political players in the domestic electoral arena. It is something we always hope to achieve, but realistically, people will either vote liberal or conservative.
And when you start delving into issues like international relations and foreign policy, our little island's politics seem like child's play when you have to attempt to understand the ramifications of American influence and basing in Manas Air Base, Kyrgyzstan on the general traditional and non-traditional security in the Central Asian region and write a sit-rep about it.
-
So how knowledgeable are you to be making such comments? Would you like to take a look at Iceland, Luxembourg or the Nordic nations(Sweden, Finland, Denmark and Norway)?Originally posted by eagle:And although the media is pro-PAP, it doesn't stop many from re-considering events from a different point of view. The arguments I see here are, when someone makes a post favourable to the PAP, an Opposition supporter will conveniently put it down as influenced by the media.
Sure, many countries enjoy "better" political rights. However, all the mentioned countries has a much larger population than sg, with the exception of HK, which has just abt 3 mil more than sg. In my humble opinion, a larger population is usually followed by a larger political arena. In the case of Singapore, our population is only at 4 mil, with many still being 1st/2nd generation citizens. I would expect them to be contented with a roof over their heads and a full stomach, and thus not as interested in the Sg politics.
I see you haven't been influenced by the media indeed, given your propensity to subscribe to the notion that this regime is handicapped by its "small" population when examples of prosperous nations out there with smaller populations thriving with greater degrees of liberties, rights and freedoms are aplenty.
Maybe you wouldn't. Maybe your rights, civil liberties and freedoms aren't important to you and you probably wouldn't care if you lived in a dictatorship, a pseudo-democracy or a true democracy.Originally posted by eagle:This continuous criticism of the lack of political rights has been around for a very long time, and this is the main point that certain Opposition members are putting forward to garner votes, i.e. "VOTE ME JUST BECAUSE I'M AN OPPOSITION". I would not want to give a vote to an opposition with that mentality.
That said, what constitutes a "continuous criticism" to you is hardly a criticism to many others - it's every bit as inalienable a right to them as it is to you to "not want to vote for an opposition just because he's an opposition". If you needed any evidence, just look at the North Koreans who risk life and limb to defect... -
I'm amazed by your thoughts, really.Originally posted by teraexa:Woot I sound like Wee Shu Min? I should be damned. Sorry for my tone just now cos I was not really in the best of moods when writing that.
Just in case you are wondering where I am from, was from RI, currently in RJ.
And oh yes, back to topic, shall we?
Fragmentation and disunity. My personal beliefs (not too sure if it extends to others as well) are that if the opposition is disunited and fragmented, they certainly ain't giving me the confidence to vote them in. Would I want my MP to be bickering in Parliament, or worse, during my Meet-The-People sessions? Chances are that if the opposition show themselves to be credible, professional and united, my inclination to vote them is certainly going to be higher.
Now onto Gerrymandering (sorry for the earlier spelling error). Oh yes, certainly, Gerrymandering has, is and will continue to be used by incumbents to consolidate their position. I am one who is not blinded by the fact that our media is pro-govt (hey if not why they never ever reviewed The Hatchet Man?) but I am pretty sure that they DID report on boundary changes during elections. Yes, we lack a truly free press in Singapore but that's not really the issue of this point, yet. Anyway, regarding the point on GRCs and gerrymandering. These are both legal tools (within the provisions of the law). The problem is that people often view legality and ethics interchangably. Sure, such tactics aren't ethics, but they are legal (within the laws of Singapore) and without a strong 4th estate to criticise them, we'll just have to leave it at legality.
Next onto the media. It is rather unfortunate that we only get to see the sensational side of protests or public gatherings through the media. However, I went to Taiwan during 2005 when they were holding their local elections. Boy, I saw with my eyes how a 'peaceful' gathering could go wrong simply because some opposing supporter started saying criticisms. Perhaps, it is a case of what we lose out (the chance for free speech) vs what we gain (relative peace?). This, unfortunately, can be argued till the cows come home and we can never reach a consensus.
Regarding the activities of the opposition, it is unforunate that I lack personal experience with some of the members and that financial support for them is still sorely lacking. However, if the opposition is to achieve anything significant, they will have to reach out to ordinary, ignorant people like me to convince of their votes.
Taxi drivers rants. What a familiar scene. Perhaps, if we listen to them carefully, most of their concerns are mainly economic in nature (rising minister pay, rising GST, rising costs, lower wages etc) but they have long resigned to the fact that PAP is dominant in politics and as long as they are economically well-off, they do not really care if PAP is all-dominating (ain't most people of the older generation like that?).
I wouldn't defend the PAP cos I think they have faults. Yet, I am just perturbed by the confusion between legality and morality in politics. What is immoral can be legal, like GRC, minister pay etc. Yes, some of PAP's actions are ethically wrong and only strong public sentiment can turn that lack of ethics into an issue worth examining, else we are probably resigned to living under a PAP that sometimes skirt around the grey areas of the law for some measures that perhaps lack in ethics.
Just my $0.02.
On one hand, you're using the benchmark of liberal democracies to benchmark the standards the Opposition should live up to, yet argue that they should do so within a given framework set out by a despotic regime.
What's the purpose of a constitution and the significance of following "laws" that are laid down by a regime which could amend the laws to suit their interests at will? Going by your logic, I suppose it must have been just and valid that it be obligatory for anyone living in Nazi-occupied territory to report Jews (as decreed by the law on those premises) to the authorities and have them deported to a concentration camp? Likewise, laws like those draconian ones in North Korea precluding its citizenry from leaving their regime is just and should also be abided by?
As a matter of fact, I find the whole idea of the GRC an insult to the very purpose the despots introducing the system claim it to serve. JB Jeyeretnam, belonging to a minority ethnic group, was the first opposition MP to be elected in post-independent Singapore - and he did so running as an individual. Evidently, it's not rocket science to see that capable individuals - minority or otherwise - were not unduly marginalised in their efforts to be elected even in the absence of the scam that is affectionately known as the GRC. -
Would you risk your life and limb to defect in a system that you live in? Why blame the PAP for the political apathy when you would not want to embark on any concrete action but instead wait for others to do so?Originally posted by walesa:Maybe you wouldn't. Maybe your rights, civil liberties and freedoms aren't important to you and you probably wouldn't care if you lived in a dictatorship, a pseudo-democracy or a true democracy.
That said, what constitutes a "continuous criticism" to you is hardly a criticism to many others - it's every bit as inalienable a right to them as it is to you to "not want to vote for an opposition just because he's an opposition". If you needed any evidence, just look at the North Koreans who risk life and limb to defect...
Comparison between Singapore and other countries can never be equal nor justified. Would your compare your relationship between you and your spouse to the relationship between another couple? Furthermore, there's nothing wrong with subscribing to the notion that Singapore is handicapped by being "small" when it's true. Although this may sound cliche, we have limited land, limited resources and a young nation of citizens without any strong sense of belonging.
Again, what I'm going to say will sound very similar to the media. The people of Singapore hold themselves much worse than European countries (if we compare with Luxemburg, Finland, etc). But this is a fact; I have personally observed it. How many of you were actually impressed by the service standards in Singapore? Yes, we are a "FIRST world Country". However, it seems to me that the majority of our people do not display the qualities of a "First world" citizen. In this sense, do you truly think the country as a whole deserve greater rights?
Even if we do deserve greater rights, is the Opposition strong and capable enough to persuade you to give them your vote? Some members of the Opposition do have the qualities, but the numbers are not many. Internal strifes in SDP, miscalculations of the Barisan Socialis, have caused great hurt to the Opposition.
In my opinion, the strongest Opposition now is the Worker's Party. If you want a credible opposition to vote for in the future, just hope that no misfortune befall them as what happened to other Opposition in the past. -
And think of it this way , residents in potong pasir pay the same taxes as the ones in other constituencies.Originally posted by teraexa:Chiam has been a good opposition leader undoubtedly. The only reason why Potong Pasir has little upgrading projects is because the ministry does not give him funds to carry it out and he has to take it out of the town council's own budget.
Does the upgrading money come from taxpayer monies? If so - how come it is so unfairly distributed then?
Think about it. -
Originally posted by teraexa:
Now you coming from RJC.....the opinion you put forth is not very Raffles like.
Woot I sound like Wee Shu Min? I should be damned. Sorry for my tone just now cos I was not really in the best of moods when writing that.
Just in case you are wondering where I am from, was from RI, currently in RJ.
And oh yes, back to topic, shall we?
Fragmentation and disunity. My personal beliefs (not too sure if it extends to others as well) are that if the opposition is disunited and fragmented, they certainly ain't giving me the confidence to vote them in. Would I want my MP to be bickering in Parliament, or worse, during my Meet-The-People sessions? Chances are that if the opposition show themselves to be credible, professional and united, my inclination to vote them is certainly going to be higher.
Now onto Gerrymandering (sorry for the earlier spelling error). Oh yes, certainly, Gerrymandering has, is and will continue to be used by incumbents to consolidate their position. I am one who is not blinded by the fact that our media is pro-govt (hey if not why they never ever reviewed The Hatchet Man?) but I am pretty sure that they DID report on boundary changes during elections. Yes, we lack a truly free press in Singapore but that's not really the issue of this point, yet. Anyway, regarding the point on GRCs and gerrymandering. These are both legal tools (within the provisions of the law). The problem is that people often view legality and ethics interchangably. Sure, such tactics aren't ethics, but they are legal (within the laws of Singapore) and without a strong 4th estate to criticise them, we'll just have to leave it at legality.
Next onto the media. It is rather unfortunate that we only get to see the sensational side of protests or public gatherings through the media. However, I went to Taiwan during 2005 when they were holding their local elections. Boy, I saw with my eyes how a 'peaceful' gathering could go wrong simply because some opposing supporter started saying criticisms. Perhaps, it is a case of what we lose out (the chance for free speech) vs what we gain (relative peace?). This, unfortunately, can be argued till the cows come home and we can never reach a consensus.
Regarding the activities of the opposition, it is unforunate that I lack personal experience with some of the members and that financial support for them is still sorely lacking. However, if the opposition is to achieve anything significant, they will have to reach out to ordinary, ignorant people like me to convince of their votes.
First of all , why compare Taiwan to Singapore? There are alot of other liberal countries out there with elections that are peaceful - just noise in the media and noise from opposing parties - nothing physical. Australia and USA are examples of those nations.
Using Taiwan as a benchmark is like using Private Pre U school to benchmark against RJC.
As one knows, no one in their right mind will benchmark against a standard which is known for violence in parliament unless they want to show how good they are when not benchmarked against the gold standard.
As for freedom of speech , I rather have freedom of speech to know what everyone thinks than to oppress others in their thoughts or go underground. Of course freedom of speech comes with responsiblity of good citzenship. -
A fair viewpoint!Originally posted by teraexa:Frankly, I will not vote the opposition just for the sake of voting otherwise.
No doubts, there are problems with the PAP (eg minister pay), but I have to say that our opposition have not exactly helped themselves either by being fragmented and disunited.
Seriously, I read through the arguments here. Very convincing about the electoral, media processes about how the incumbent seeks to enhance and consolidate its position in politics. However, are such measures only restricted here? No no no. In fact, it is so prevalent everywhere, even in so-called democratic havens such as USA, Britain and Taiwan. Jerrymandering (redrawing of electoral boundaries to favour the ruling party) is a widespread practice overseas and the way they do it really make the Serangoon-North-in-Marine-Parade-GRC incident look very very normal. Another example, the first-past-the-post system which were invented by the British and still used here. It allows the ruling party to control the Parliament even though they get the minority of the votes.
Ok, the restrictions on protests and public speeches are a tad too restrictive but I do not wish to see oversea situations of riots and violent protests breaking out here either.
Yes, the ruling party is not perfect, but neither is the opposition. Are there avenues for them to broadcast their political ideas and policies? Yes there are legal ways. Since the last GE, I have not ahd a whiff of the opposition in my GRC. It would have been good if they gone around distributing their newsletters but no, I have not seen them in action. Please give me an opposition that does not disappear during non-election days and only mysteriously materialise during election period.
Give me a credible opposition that bothers to engage the people even during normal non-election periods, not some people who keeps protesting for the sake of protesting and getting into trouble with the law repeatedly.
Seriously, I may not like the ruling party that's not a good enough reason to vote the opposition, not when the quality of some of them I see (some of the GRC teams seem to be just banded together for the sake of elections).
You can go an call me a PAP-centric elitist boot-licking lap dog, but I will tell you that for now, I will NOT vote the opposition, but neither will I vote the PAP either.
You can list all the bad points and shortcomings of the PAP all you want, but at the end of the day, if given a choice to choose between 2 rotten apples, I will prefer not to eat and drink water instead.
BTW, I am only 18. You can label me as a person who has been blinded by pro-govt propaganda and education but I believe if you were to take this to the normal man-in-the-street, chances are, they are probably more likely to agree with my viewpoint compared to yours.
I would not label your views on the PAP as bigotic but it is pretty much one-sided and subjective. -
The Chiam's supporters don't like my above msg.Originally posted by PRP:Potong Pasir town council can't manage better than or differently from PAP wards.So how good is Chiam?
I believe Chiam can be an opposition MP but can't be a minister. -
Perhaps allow me to rephrase my thoughts using some analogies later which hopefully allow everyone to understand my viewpoint, which incidentally may or may not agree with yours, better.Originally posted by walesa:I'm amazed by your thoughts, really.
On one hand, you're using the benchmark of liberal democracies to benchmark the standards the Opposition should live up to, yet argue that they should do so within a given framework set out by a despotic regime.
What's the purpose of a constitution and the significance of following "laws" that are laid down by a regime which could amend the laws to suit their interests at will? Going by your logic, I suppose it must have been just and valid that it be obligatory for anyone living in Nazi-occupied territory to report Jews (as decreed by the law on those premises) to the authorities and have them deported to a concentration camp? Likewise, laws like those draconian ones in North Korea precluding its citizenry from leaving their regime is just and should also be abided by?
As a matter of fact, I find the whole idea of the GRC an insult to the very purpose the despots introducing the system claim it to serve. JB Jeyeretnam, belonging to a minority ethnic group, was the first opposition MP to be elected in post-independent Singapore - and he did so running as an individual. Evidently, it's not rocket science to see that capable individuals - minority or otherwise - were not unduly marginalised in their efforts to be elected even in the absence of the scam that is affectionately known as the GRC.
The general feeling (which may not be correct as after all I am human) I get from here is that people tend to view democracy and authoritarian regimes as 2 mutually exclusive situations or at best 2 scenarios which may spawn a hybrid scenario, an authoritarian regime masked as a democracy.
However, my viewpoint and in fact my whole premise is that democracy and authoritarian regimes are just 2 ends of a spectrum in which most, if not all, of the political regimes in the world fall in between.
So where does Singapore stand? Personally I really feel that Singapore is very very near the middle where the democracy starts to toe the red line that inclines it towards an authoritarian regime. However, what sets Singapore apart from other authoritarian regime is that most of the tools used by the government has been to enhance and consolidate their position by making the conditions for opposition to grow rather unfavourable. What makes it exasperating instead of other countries like say Iran is that often this actions are done within, or some say just skirting the edge, of the law. How many Consitution changes have we seen so far? Perhaps the major ones are really the GRC, the popular vote for President. The government has not done is to change the laws drastically to suit their methods. Instead, they have made pretty good use of existing spaces within the laws to consolidate their position.
Let's first talk about upgrading, or rather the lack of it in opposition wards. No matter how ethically wrong it is (yes people living in those areas are taxpayers too), they have not changed the law to stipulate that opposition wards do not receive funds for upgrading (hey they are also scared that one day they become the opposition). Instead, they just make it difficult for MPs of those wards to receive funding as they control the ministry after all. Legal? Yes. Ethical? No. Did the law really explicitly say that opposition wards do not receive upgrading funds? No. But then why no upgrading funds? They just make it difficult for you to obtain them.
Exasperated by such an action? It is not Uniquely Singapore. In fact, widely employed in the world wherever there are partisan concerns. You can always see opposition wards getting deprived of certain benefits to allow the government to better win it back next elections. Common tactic. Even our dear Malaysia also has such situations. When I went to KL some years back, the tour bus passed by this area which looked shabbier than the rest. The tour guide said that it was because the ward belonged to the opposition. Familiar?
Now back to my analogy. Political parties are just like competing fruit stalls. Lets imagine a hypothetical situation of 2 stalls fighting to sell apples. The stall (party) with better prices (policies) and better quality (publicity) will get more customers (votes). Singapore is like 2 fruit stalls, 1 mega fruit stall and 1 small push cart stall. The mega fruit stall frequent uses different tactics to gain more customers, like price wars, monopolise supply, use big billboards to block the push cart stall, use bright lights to mask the push cart, use loudhailers to outshout the competitor. Sounds like the normal durian stall competition? It's just like the govt. They just use legal methods to frustrate you and hope you close shop.
What about Fascist regimes? They will try all means possible to drive you out of business, ALL means, be it bribing the police, setting fire to your stall, beating you up, basically doing anything they want, legally or not.
Enough of the analogy. Back to my point, all along I have been saying that I recognise that the opposition faces a hard and frustrating time here, just like the push cart in the first scenario. However, the problem is, the fruits that the push cart offers are still inferior compared to the mega stall. Then in that case, as a customer, why should I buy inferior goods just because I hate the flashiness of the mega stall? Rather, the push cart has not given me enough reasons to patronise it. The opposition faces a tough challenge which they may or may not surmount. If they are truly able, they are able to rise above these challenges.
Until then, I will just have to keep waiting for them to sell better fruits. -
After reading your opinions, there's perhaps a misunderstanding as to why I said that sentence. I quoted that anecdote, not as a benchmark, about how even our media seeks to sensationalise events, these events are really happening out there right before my eyes. Anecdotes are anecdotes and I never use them as benchmark. Rather I try to use them as scenarios for 'what-ifs'. No doubt, anecdotes can be biased and inaccurate, but hey if a person's first impression of something is through that anecdote, he is probably going to base most, or if not some, of his judgement based on that anecdote.Originally posted by fymk:Now you coming from RJC.....the opinion you put forth is not very Raffles like.
First of all , why compare Taiwan to Singapore? There are alot of other liberal countries out there with elections that are peaceful - just noise in the media and noise from opposing parties - nothing physical. Australia and USA are examples of those nations.
Using Taiwan as a benchmark is like using Private Pre U school to benchmark against RJC.
As one knows, no one in their right mind will benchmark against a standard which is known for violence in parliament unless they want to show how good they are when not benchmarked against the gold standard.
As for freedom of speech , I rather have freedom of speech to know what everyone thinks than to oppress others in their thoughts or go underground. Of course freedom of speech comes with responsiblity of good citzenship.
That said, I chose the anecdote of Taiwan to make a point that democracy, or what is being marketed as democracy, is not necessarily desirable. Not only it is inefficient (look at the time parliament takes to debate and pass bills overseas) but it assumes preconditions which some societies may not fulfil such as voter maturity. Populist measures are popular but do they really serve any long term purposes (NSS, ERS etc)? American and Australian politics are also not untarred from such ills. Inefficiencies, partisan bickering, voter immaturity.
Free speech. A touchy topic that is a potential banana skin or minefield. I do not want to touch on it cos the boundaries and definitions alone can involve quite a pain in the head.
And yes, I am pretty much a centrist. I have no illusion that my views will change later but my base principle is always that of pragmatism. -
I have posted this somewhere on another thread, and I will say it again.
All government sucks.
You choose, if you are able, the least rotten one.
The incumbent (PAP) isn't doing what any other incumbent wouldn't do. -
Teraexa, I enjoy the presentation of your arguments.....a smooth read for me.
With regards to your views on GRC gerrymeandering and lack of upgrading for opposition wards, I beg to differ.
In this world, a lot of crimes are pardoned because they are hidden under the "common practice" veil.
What happens elsewhere in other electoral processes may not necessarily justify its usage here.
Let's go back to basics. If PAP is really sincere in gauging the support of Singaporeans, then they should play the game fairly.
If PAP can win their votes this way, I would gladly accept it. -
I agree with you on that point.Originally posted by Rock^Star:Teraexa, I enjoy the presentation of your arguments.....a smooth read for me.
With regards to your views on GRC gerrymeandering and lack of upgrading for opposition wards, I beg to differ.
In this world, a lot of crimes are pardoned because they are hidden under the "common practice" veil.
What happens elsewhere in other electoral processes may not necessarily justify its usage here.
Let's go back to basics. If PAP is really sincere in gauging the support of Singaporeans, then they should play the game fairly.
If PAP can win their votes this way, I would gladly accept it.
Sometimes people, including me, just let others off when they do wrong things that have been done so many times that we view them as being acceptable.
And ya I will not vote the PAP. Think they have enough votes to be in power. Neither will I vote the opposition since they have not given me a reason why I should vote for them.
That said, whether I get to cast my vote (or the lack of it rather) is rather uncertain given the GRC system.
What can I say? I just want a comfortable life.
Who doesn't? -
It takes time to get things done because of accountability issues. Can't pass a legislation without consultation. If it is done properly and correctly first at a slower pace , why not? Inefficiencies? I don't think Australia is that inefficient. Consider this , Singapore hubs - look at them- hub here hub there, not no.1 hub yet.Originally posted by teraexa:After reading your opinions, there's perhaps a misunderstanding as to why I said that sentence. I quoted that anecdote, not as a benchmark, about how even our media seeks to sensationalise events, these events are really happening out there right before my eyes. Anecdotes are anecdotes and I never use them as benchmark. Rather I try to use them as scenarios for 'what-ifs'. No doubt, anecdotes can be biased and inaccurate, but hey if a person's first impression of something is through that anecdote, he is probably going to base most, or if not some, of his judgement based on that anecdote.
That said, I chose the anecdote of Taiwan to make a point that democracy, or what is being marketed as democracy, is not necessarily desirable. Not only it is inefficient (look at the time parliament takes to debate and pass bills overseas) but it assumes preconditions which some societies may not fulfil such as voter maturity. Populist measures are popular but do they really serve any long term purposes (NSS, ERS etc)? American and Australian politics are also not untarred from such ills. Inefficiencies, partisan bickering, voter immaturity.
Free speech. A touchy topic that is a potential banana skin or minefield. I do not want to touch on it cos the boundaries and definitions alone can involve quite a pain in the head.
And yes, I am pretty much a centrist. I have no illusion that my views will change later but my base principle is always that of pragmatism.
Partisan bickering is good fun to read about. Everyone you know has an idea to improve the country or improve their paypacket but it shows that Politicians are equally human as well. I don't want some goody elite twoshoe who scored A1s all the way and be all saintly as a politician. I want someone I can identify with and know how it is like to be in my shoes.
I am an equally pragmatic person and I like to see a balance of power. Opposition with no credibility still beats having an overpowering number of a particular party in parliament. That way it cannot become a runaway train of ministers paying themselves ridiculously well for crappy progress. If any american or australian minister attempts to pay themselves that amount of our dear ministers, they have to pass thru senate/ parliament and get the votes from the opposition to support them. Or else ...next round, out they go. -
Did you read their manifesto and press releases? Of course you will not vote for SDP if you compare PAP's plan to SDP's words. You should compare PAP's plans to SDP's plans.Originally posted by eagle:However, when I see the faces of the GRC contestants (SDP), the way they talk, and the method in which they just ask for votes and not put forward a convincing plan on what they plan to do if they were voted in, it's really hard to put a cross beside their party logo. -
Does the fact that there're people out there willing to risk their lives and limbs to defect in a system they live in not suggest there're people who actually value their liberties, rights and freedoms above everything else? As a matter of fact, why should anyone who wishes to exercise his/her rights play within the rules set down by oppressive despots running regimes which you conveniently claim as having arisen because people "would not want to embark on any concrete action"?Originally posted by eagle:Would you risk your life and limb to defect in a system that you live in? Why blame the PAP for the political apathy when you would not want to embark on any concrete action but instead wait for others to do so?
Comparison between Singapore and other countries can never be equal nor justified. Would your compare your relationship between you and your spouse to the relationship between another couple? Furthermore, there's nothing wrong with subscribing to the notion that Singapore is handicapped by being "small" when it's true. Although this may sound cliche, we have limited land, limited resources and a young nation of citizens without any strong sense of belonging.
Again, what I'm going to say will sound very similar to the media. The people of Singapore hold themselves much worse than European countries (if we compare with Luxemburg, Finland, etc). But this is a fact; I have personally observed it. How many of you were actually impressed by the service standards in Singapore? Yes, we are a "FIRST world Country". However, it seems to me that the majority of our people do not display the qualities of a "First world" citizen. In this sense, do you truly think the country as a whole deserve greater rights?
Even if we do deserve greater rights, is the Opposition strong and capable enough to persuade you to give them your vote? Some members of the Opposition do have the qualities, but the numbers are not many. Internal strifes in SDP, miscalculations of the Barisan Socialis, have caused great hurt to the Opposition.
In my opinion, the strongest Opposition now is the Worker's Party. If you want a credible opposition to vote for in the future, just hope that no misfortune befall them as what happened to other Opposition in the past.
If comparisons with other nations can neither be equal nor justified, then why make a ruckus about Singapore being small then? If you didn't compare with the land masses/populations of other nations, how would you even know that Singapore is small and deprived of resources and human capital as you claim? Evidently, Iceland, Luxembourg and the Nordic nations are great living testaments to the fact that even countries with small populations are capable of achieving exceptional things on par, if not better, with other first world nations with a far greater land mass and/or population. Just because this regime can't do it, it doesn't mean it can't be done, does it?
And what has service standards got to do with rights? Are you telling me someone suspected of kidnapping, murder or arson does not deserve a right to a fair judicial trial and should just serve whatever punishments the law enforcement officials should throw at him/her without a right to defend the charges levied at him/her? This just begs the question : if you do not even understand what your inalienable rights are, it makes little sense to talk about your stance. If your argument stems from the fact that rights should only be accorded as reward for greater maturity/responsibility, you certainly wouldn't look out of place in regimes run by despots and tyrants. -
This I agree, she's one of the best along with LTK. Good for WP.Originally posted by eagle:I would gladly give the Opposition a vote if they can show me some good candidates. An example of a good candidate is Slyvia Lim. I have seen her face to face, and I'm very impressed with how she carry herself, her views and opinions, and how she attempts to converse with everyone present. I will give her my vote if she ever comes to my constitutency.
Maybe you were asking a different question to Steve Chia. In any case Steve is not wrong, Singapore lacks check-and-balance and between 2 candidates, one that will make the strong stronger and the other that checks on the strong, I will go for the latter of course.Originally posted by eagle:However, when I see Steve Chia talking (face to face too), all I sense is that he is appealing to others to vote for him just because he's the Opposition. He's appealing for votes because he do not want Singapore to be owned only by the PAP. These are reasons not strong enough to warrant my vote. Furthermore, he cannot carry his speech with enough fluency and confidence to persuade.
When opposition enters Parliament of course they will be backbenchers. Do you expect them to be ministers? If they are ministers they wouldn't be opposition.Originally posted by eagle:We have enough back-benchers in the PAP; we do not need back-benchers from the Opposition too. -
Francis Seow is better at law than politics. He has no ideas on how to run the country but his books are on laws. Compared to JBJ and CSJ, he didn't even stay in Singapore.Originally posted by walesa:Going by your reasoning, I suppose even Francis Seow wouldn't have made a credible opposition candidate based on the image perpetuated by the fascist mouthpieces (or do you genuinely believe the press here is free and credible enough to paint an accurate picture of an opposition's credentials?). -
Spot on! Viually every opposition party has a manifesto. He should go and read.Originally posted by LazerLordz:Secondly, why should anyone share some of their policy work in a public forum?