PAP versus the Opposition.
-
In any case, forummers should not vote for themselves if they run for office ANYWHERE, not just politics. Maybe they should never run, none of them.... none of us are of any calibre for leadership.Originally posted by mancha:The opposition are like forumers here, they are colourful in criticising the government, but cannot present a convincing plan on what they plan to do if they win. -
Methinks you are wrong. Both WP and SDP has a role of checks to play.Originally posted by hloc:During the last election, Worker Party was suppose to contest at my Woodlands area. But then CSJ came
I would have galdly cast my vote for the Worker Party but will NEVER do so for SDP as long as the Chee's are around. My personal view. -
There is a difference between many opposition parties existing and fragmented and disunited opposition. Singapore has many opposition parties but does not mean opposition is disunited. Anywhere, there is many opposition parties. Go do research. Unless the govt limits the no. of parties.Originally posted by teraexa: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. -
Do you stay in PP? It's one TC serving 20000 people. PAP merge all their TC into one big one. Problem is, they give better quality service to an individual better than PP but PP serves 20000 people, PAP TC serves 20000 people better but neglects the other 80000.Originally posted by PRP:Potong Pasir town council can't manage better than or differently from PAP wards.So how good is Chiam? -
I'm not sure if you're missing out on something here. Granted, if your argument stems from the fact that they're playing the game within the confines of the law, you can't be wrong. That said, that's just the tangible aspect of it which can be qualitatively quantified.Originally posted by teraexa: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.
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.
In theory, the Legislative, Judiciary and Executive are independent entities - I doubt you could really make a case for that to be true in practice if certain judicial precendence is anything to go by. Just browse through some threads Atobe has posted with opinions from learned individuals who are legally qualified and have had prior experience working with this regime. Alternatively, just get your hands on Francis Seow's To Catch a Tartar.
It hardly makes sense to draw parallels with Malaysia to begin with. With the greatest respect, you could pretty much paint a rosier picture of this regime if you drew parallels with what is preached in North Korea - then again, if North Korea were used as a benchmark, just about every other country on the planet would come across as a paradise.Originally posted by teraexa: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?
What you perceive to constitute a Fascist regime is hardly in line with the reality of what such regimes get up to for a start. From Hitler to Mugabe, Saddam to Milosevic, variations of the exact practices adopted by such regimes are hardly identical although they're run on similar fundamental principles which aren't that distant from the concepts of tyranny and despotism.Originally posted by teraexa: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.
As a matter of fact, "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" just about sums up the paradox you have failed to address. Just to illustrate an example : the Gestapo often turned a blind eye to thugs deployed by the Nazis to deal with the opposition, but this could very much be attributed to their incompetence rather than the Nazis legitimately endorsing state-instigated violence, doesn't it? So once again, who decides what laws should be acceptable? If you needed any evidence on a similar parallel adopted by this regime, just take a look at the heavy-handed methods deployed against dissidents and other advocates of interests compromising those of the incumbents' - and mind, refusals to issue permits for public speaking, demonstrations are all pretty conveniently dismissed on account of them being a threat to law and order. I don't suppose you could make a case for truly First World governments to resort to such measures, could you?
Going back to your example of the fruit sellers. What you get here is effectively a scenario whereby the bigger stall resorts to driving the smaller stall out of business by whatever means possible - by fair means or foul. Through aggressive marketing gimmicks for themselves and depriving the smaller stall of doing so (well, there's certainly a role for the media
) and enticing customers through offering a seemingly better deal when there really is no alternative to begin with, the monopoly and stranglehold the bigger stall holds on the market share just about effectively kills off any effective competition from the smaller stall. While you may not patronise the smaller stall in view of what you perceive to be products of "inferior quality", I don't think it'd make a lot of sense to patronise the bigger stall who resorts to bullying tactics to drive others out of business and in fact, actually offers products which - although offering better value between the 2 stores - is truly inferior to other stalls elsewhere on this planet. -
That just about sums up your stance.Originally posted by teraexa:What can I say? I just want a comfortable life.
Who doesn't?
You're a pragmatist, so am I. That said, it's obvious there're those who will choose to play within the rules of a game and excel at it; while there'll be those who find it a waste of time to play a game where the rules are stacked heavily in the interest of the House. For the latter, they'll pretty much just up sticks and move on to play another game instead of biding their time playing a silly game which they haven't got a realistic chance of winning (or by their reasoning, their rewards will not exactly commensurate with their efforts). -
Well I like this paragraph of yours. It aligns perfectly with what is happening here. I am just a person who neither likes the incumbent nor the opposition. I am still inclined to playing within the rules although that may change. The problem is, I just hate opposition candidates asking people to vote for them simply because they are "non-PAP". That is not a good enough reason to vote for them to any mature voter.Originally posted by walesa:Going back to your example of the fruit sellers. What you get here is effectively a scenario whereby the bigger stall resorts to driving the smaller stall out of business by whatever means possible - by fair means or foul. Through aggressive marketing gimmicks for themselves and depriving the smaller stall of doing so (well, there's certainly a role for the media ) and enticing customers through offering a seemingly better deal when there really is no alternative to begin with, the monopoly and stranglehold the bigger stall holds on the market share just about effectively kills off any effective competition from the smaller stall. While you may not patronise the smaller stall in view of what you perceive to be products of "inferior quality", I don't think it'd make a lot of sense to patronise the bigger stall who resorts to bullying tactics to drive others out of business and in fact, actually offers products which - although offering better value between the 2 stores - is truly inferior to other stalls elsewhere on this planet.
It seems like many of our ideas have a confluence, just that we come from different points of view. At the end of the day, I guess our opposition still has much to improve as much as we would like to see more of them in Parliament.
We can only wait and hope for that day to come. -
I can only agree with this.Originally posted by teraexa:It seems like many of our ideas have a confluence, just that we come from different points of view. At the end of the day, I guess our opposition still has much to improve as much as we would like to see more of them in Parliament.
We can only wait and hope for that day to come. -
I certainly wouldn't subscribe to the notion that it wouldn't be a "good enough reason to vote for them (opposition)" - not when the incumbents are returned to power anyway. As a matter of fact, I'm pretty sure - to most anyway - many wouldn't exactly subscribe to the belief the best way to handle a thug out to extort you would be to simply submit to him meekly (although that's obviously a stance some timid souls would take).Originally posted by teraexa:Well I like this paragraph of yours. It aligns perfectly with what is happening here. I am just a person who neither likes the incumbent nor the opposition. I am still inclined to playing within the rules although that may change. The problem is, I just hate opposition candidates asking people to vote for them simply because they are "non-PAP". That is not a good enough reason to vote for them to any mature voter.
It seems like many of our ideas have a confluence, just that we come from different points of view. At the end of the day, I guess our opposition still has much to improve as much as we would like to see more of them in Parliament.
We can only wait and hope for that day to come.
I suppose, your argument would hold more water (although that's hardly a view I share; just that it'd make it a stronger case for your argument) if there existed a genuine possibility of the "inferior" opposition (which, in my view, isn't even inferior to begin with - they're merely the products of what the despots have made them out to be) garnering enough votes to form their own government. That said, with an electoral system which is nothing short of being in shambles (just consider the gerrymandering and how the elections commission actually accounts to the PMO), it'd indeed be ludicrous not to send a message of disapproval to the despots perpetuating a brand of tyranny masked under a democratic smokescreen.
Quite simply, "the day" you're hoping for to come would simply never arrive so long as the opposition continue to play the game by the rules laid out by the despots. -
Yet when "the day" comes, the opposition will have to endure verbal and legal attacks from the incumbent (till they are bankrupt).Originally posted by walesa:Quite simply, "the day" you're hoping for to come would simply never arrive so long as the opposition continue to play the game by the rules laid out by the despots. -
How would "the day" even come when the opposition competes on a severely disadvantaged basis? Try pitting yourself against Maurice Greene in a 100m sprint when the rules dictate you need to carry a haversack, in addition to Greene being allowed to start at the 50m mark.Originally posted by eagle:Yet when "the day" comes, the opposition will have to endure verbal and legal attacks from the incumbent (till they are bankrupt).
And yes, "enduring verbal and legal attacks" is indeed a brand of tyranny so uniquely Singapore only those living here - and foolishly subscribing to the propaganda churned out by the regime - would actually regard it as playing within the rules of the game...
-
I commented on Chiam,so he gave the above msgThis chap took a comment badly.I belive even Chiam won't say such words.Originally posted by googoomuck:PRP, I thought you said you are dying. Pls get ready. -
To Chiam's supporters or SPP members:
Does Potong Pasir town council manage better than or different from PAP town council?U may say "yes" but pls show evidences. -
Teraexa,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 unfortunate 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.
1-3) I'm biased against Rafflesians, which is why I chose to go to HCI.
But back to the topic...
4) Hmm, do Sylvia Lim and Chiam See Tong do exactly what you describe in this para? Does the PM's Questions in UK operate like that?
5) Gerrymandering was named after a President something Gerry who drew up electoral districts shaped like salamanders. (This is a historical fact; I am not kidding) But the term is a derogatory term in Western politics anyway. And no, the media didn't report on boundary changes; they only reported on boundaries, which is a different thing. And their "Report" was online, which many people are not rich enough to afford. GRCs are a provision of the law, but then I can always ask the philosophical question: What is the Rule of Law if the Law can be changed at the whim of a political party? And interestingly, why do we not have a strong 4th estate? Never leave a stone unturned.
6) Taiwan is a garbled example actually because of the whole Chinese-imperialism issue. Taiwan is almost an Asian Chechnya, minus the theaters with nerve gas in them.
7) The issue was who the man-on-the-street support, and not what they support for.
Hmmm... and you wouldn't vote for those who would stop the PAP from skirting round those areas?
My $0.02 as well.
Rgds,
the pikamaster -
Here is a good question:Originally posted by teraexa:Well I like this paragraph of yours. It aligns perfectly with what is happening here. I am just a person who neither likes the incumbent nor the opposition. I am still inclined to playing within the rules although that may change. The problem is, I just hate opposition candidates asking people to vote for them simply because they are "non-PAP". That is not a good enough reason to vote for them to any mature voter.
It seems like many of our ideas have a confluence, just that we come from different points of view. At the end of the day, I guess our opposition still has much to improve as much as we would like to see more of them in Parliament.
We can only wait and hope for that day to come.
What can the opposition really say except "we are not the PAP"? Unlike Mozilla and FSF, which can argue that they are superior to Microsoft or SCO Systems, whenever the opposition tries and make a statement of what they have which the PAP doesn't, some PAP idiot will steal their ideas and then sue them for defamation, like what SCO did with the Linux Core. Unfortunately, we don't have an independent European Union Fairtrade Commission here to judge the cases for us, so well the commercial party (SCO/PAP) will always win in our case, and the alternative (FSF/Oppo) get blacklisted for no good reason.
I think by now the opposition probably just wants the intelligent voter to fill up the blanks by himself or herself.
Rgds,
the pikamaster -
A better question to ask might be:Originally posted by PRP:To Chiam's supporters or SPP members:
Does Potong Pasir town council manage better than or different from PAP town council?U may say "yes" but pls show evidences.
Why is PP still firmly under the SDA despite all the carrots and sticks put out to it? Are the people there simply stupid or do they see something you don't?
Given their limited resources, how have the SDA managed PP?
Doing a job when you can draw from the large resources of the people's money is hardly an indication of doing a better job or being more competent... it simply means you have more resources. -
Who deserves more respect?Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:A better question to ask might be:
Why is PP still firmly under the SDA despite all the carrots and sticks put out to it? Are the people there simply stupid or do they see something you don't?
Given their limited resources, how have the SDA managed PP?
Doing a job when you can draw from the large resources of the people's money is hardly an indication of doing a better job or being more competent... it simply means you have more resources.
A man that has gained the respect of his people with limited resources.
OR
A man that has gained the ire of his people with a large number of them doubting his ability, with a large pool of resources and making life difficult for his people? -
PAP lost the two elections because people dont want to be bribed by the government.
-
The GE is not a vote on the preformance of PP town council.Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:A better question to ask might be:
Why is PP still firmly under the SDA despite all the carrots and sticks put out to it? Are the people there simply stupid or do they see something you don't?
Given their limited resources, how have the SDA managed PP?
Doing a job when you can draw from the large resources of the people's money is hardly an indication of doing a better job or being more competent... it simply means you have more resources.
Even with limited or lesser resource,PP can still does a better or at least different job from PAP town councils.Would anyone just directly answer my question? -
Can you please explain what you mean by "Potong Pasir can still does a better or at least different job from PAP town councils?"Originally posted by PRP:The GE is not a vote on the preformance of PP town council.
Even with limited or lesser resource,PP can still does a better or at least different job from PAP town councils.Would anyone just directly answer my question?
How different do you want them to be? From what I've seen, Potong Pasir has retained much of it's charm. Have you ever taken a walk there?
Even with promises of an extensive upgrading should Mr. Sitoh Yi Pin be elected as MP for Potong Pasir, it's residents didn't see the need to, with the SPP winning by an even bigger margin than the 2001 elections.
If the performance of Mr Chiam is not up to the mark, I would dare say his popularity should be on the wane, especially with more new residents in the Potong Pasir ward.
Spanking new facilities is not the only indication of the Town Council's performance, rather it involves several factors with "Customer Relationship management" being another key consideration.
I suggest that you dedicate a nice sunday for a morning stroll there, and see it with your own eyes. -
Need i explain the phrase "does a better or different job" ?