20 years for WorkersÂ’ Party to match PAP?
-
SINGAPORE: As the Workers’ Party celebrates this weekend its 50th anniversary, and Secretary—General Low Thia Kiang takes a measure of satisfaction with his party’s performance so far, he already has hopes for its 60th anniversary.
He hopes he will no longer be party chief by then.
It is a sign of the confidence he has in the prospects for the party, which was the best performer among the opposition parties at last yearÂ’s General Election.
Come WPÂ’s 70th anniversary, he reckons it will be ready finally to match the quality of the PeopleÂ’s Action Party (PAP) and have a good go at forming SingaporeÂ’s government.
In a broad—ranging interview with Chinese—language newspaper Lianhe Zaobao, Mr Low who became WP secretary—general in 2001 gave the PAP a definite "passing" grade. And he said that there is more space in Singapore politics now.
But he noted that the ruling party had the backing of many scholars to help draw up policies, while the WPÂ’s resources and ability to mobilise people are limited. So, what the WP can do currently is propose refinements to government policies.
One of Mr LowÂ’s main grouses about current policies is that they have not engendered sufficiently, in his view, a sense of belonging in the country.
"For example, in the debate on CPF, some people say: Might as well take out CPF and migrate," he said in describing the sense of insecurity caused by a higher withdrawal age.
"Identification with a country is a feeling; it means that no matter what, I was born here, so I die here. I think Singapore has not reached such a stage of emotional identification."
At this point, though, his main preoccupation is to make the WP a respected and reliable party.
"Our main aim is to garner more support from the constituents, and make a breakthrough in the elections, especially in the Group Representation Constituencies. At the same time, we hope that the WP can play an important role in SingaporeÂ’s democratic process, and as a result, make the democratic process more competitive," he said. "Politics should be about responsible politics. The opposition should be a watchdog, not a mad dog. ThatÂ’s the right path for a political party."
As for succession in the WP, when asked by Zaobao if party chairman Sylvia Lim would take over the reins eventually, he said it was for all the WP members to decide. He did say, however, why he did not invite the PAP to his partyÂ’s anniversary.
"When we had our 40th anniversary celebration, we did invite them, but they replied to say Â’thank you for inviting but we cannot attendÂ’. So, I thought, donÂ’t make things difficult for other people. So, we didnÂ’t send an invite this year," he said. -
Can't help but feel he was taking a dig at a certain somebody hereOriginally posted by kramnave:"Politics should be about responsible politics. The opposition should be a watchdog, not a mad dog. ThatÂ’s the right path for a political party."
. -
"Politics should be about responsible politics. The opposition should be a watchdog, not a mad dog. ThatÂ’s the right path for a political party." - Secretary General Low Thia Kiang Of Workers Party
Thank You Mr Low..... for setting the record straight. And Please Please come to Woodlands GRC next election..... I will keep my promise to Vote for WP or any other Opps as long as no one name CJS is inside...... -
Originally posted by hloc:
i will give it to any opposition be it the dumb guy CSJ
[b]
Thank You Mr Low..... for setting the record straight. And Please Please come to Woodlands GRC next election..... I will keep my promise to Vote for WP or any other Opps as long as no one name CJS is inside...... [/b] -
if they shed off people who can't even fill in nomination forms properly, and then go on to lie about it ... then yes .. perhaps they have a chance ... the people are increasingly discontented, but they are not stupid either ...
first step would be fielding quality candidates, and not take in all and sundry ....
or else they'll end up being the second SDP ... -
That is about right, Singaporeans will have to suffer another 20 years, and that's a only maybe, unless of course people support Dr Chee Soon Juan and help him make the despotic and dishonorable respect the opposition, so that the opposition can recruit the right people.
As Mr Low said, right now they cannot recruit the right people because the despotic self serving regime is in power. They are raising prices right and left and nobody can do a thing about it. -
I will vote even the slipper man or karang guni manOriginally posted by SevenEleven:i will give it to any opposition be it the dumb guy CSJ -
Mr. Low Thia Khiang may be too optimistic or hopeful that WP will have able to persuade autocracy to let go and let people exercise their political and civil rights.Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:That is about right, Singaporeans will have to suffer another 20 years, and that's a only maybe, unless of course people support Dr Chee Soon Juan and help him make the despotic and dishonorable respect the opposition, so that the opposition can recruit the right people.
As Mr Low said, right now they cannot recruit the right people because the despotic self serving regime is in power. They are raising prices right and left and nobody can do a thing about it.
All the arguments on the autocracy side like the need to restrict freedoms for stability have been answered with the authoritarians running out of ideas how to reply good and valid objections raised.
Realism is such that oppositions will have to consider whether indeed once autocracy enjoys its taste of power for their own superficial look-good success it will never give up.
The only hope will now depend on whether the people in the next election will have sense enought to realize that they need to re-think everything what is needed for our continuous success.
If people are unable to vote and ruling party continues with their own stubborn self-serving controls and restrictions of freedoms and rights there will come a point when more NKF problems will surface and there will be chaos.
CSJ is contributing his part in maintaining a certain purity of the system to object and demand change. People's education is the biggest challenge for people are now unable to vote and their only way is to peaceful protests at first followed by more follow-up programs for change.
People can demand the change to the anti-freedom suing-opposition type of autocracy, otherwise the problem will remain.
Through peaceful means they could follow like the monks and attract international attention and ask for UN intervention so that there will be Gambari visitting our government with program to ask for change e.g. stop repressing people for the ruling party's own private agena of entrenching themselves in power. -
20 Jupiter years, I'd say........!
-
I will vote for any opposition that comes to my Jurong GRC.
As long as they oppose the PAP. -
Hi,
Personally, I don't agree to Mr Low's prediction that the WP will be at PAP's stage by its 70th anniversary. I would think this would be at the 90th anniversary or beyond, or never if the WP does not remains around.
However, this is merely a difference of opinion to the intricate details.
Regards -
Gopalan Nair harshly criticises Low Thia Khiang:
Singapore. Low Thia Khiang is a let down for the cause of democracy
Ladies and Gentlemen,
It is unfortunate that Singapore produces opposition politicians such as Low Thia Khiang. I have known him for 6 years while I was a member of the Workers Party, and this much I can say for him. He does not understand what a constitutional democracy is supposed to be; not forgetting that Singapore is, or at least is supposed to be a constitutional democracy.
He is very good in Hokkien and Teochew oratory to Chinese hawkers and grocery shop merchants in Hougang who do not know any English. For him to tell them that such and such policies are good or bad; get their support and enter Parliament to merely argue on policies is what he does. He does not have a sound education in English, let alone any understanding as to what a democracy is supposed to be. In fact, it appears to me that he does not believe in democracy but rather in the style of the Chinese politburo form of government; where the Chinese have no fundamental rights and the rulers decide on rules and laws which they feel would move the country forward; with or without freedom.
To the educated freedom is fundamental. Without it, there cannot be progress in this day and age. In any case, most educated people do not want progress if it comes with a denial of freedom. Low Thia Khiang does not understand any of this.
I am referring to his interview with the Chinese language press which was published in the Straits Times Nov 1, 2007.
He says "the term opposition is a legacy of the western parliamentary system and I have never believed that an opposition party should oppose for the sake of opposing or to shoot one's mouth off". He is wrong. Opposition derived from ancient Greece, ancient China and even ancient India where debate was encouraged so that, through consensus the best idea wins, and the country wins and progresses. It predated western parliamentary system by ions. Secondly he is wrong in "saying western opposition parties oppose for the sake of opposing or that they shoot one's mouth off". I wonder were he got such ideas, or is he saying these things because it pleases the PAP?
He then says "Politics should be responsible politics". Surely that is so. Is he suggesting that anyone would want it any other way? And we have no problem with his statement that "Opposition should be a watchdog, not a mad dog". That too we all agree. Why mention this. Or is he trying to say that the SDP is behaving otherwise?
He seems to be stating the obvious. "It is not the job of the opposition here to offer alternatives to all government policies". Yes Mr. Low. Here too we all agree. This is obvious.
He says "While the ruling party has specialists to study and research various issues, the opposition lacks the resources to come up with alternative issues". But Mr. Low, the ruling party uses taxpayers money to employ specialists. Similarly, when the opposition form the government, they will too. This does not prevent you to speak for the people; to defend their rights and to further their interest.
The WP, he says is "unlike the opposition parties in the west who come up with alternative policies for everything". He is wrong. Not just in the west, but also in the north the south and the east; throughout the world; good opposition parties come up with alternatives where they see the need. Not for everything. The man is engaging in rhetoric and nonsensical rhetoric at that.
Mr. Low is supposed to not only challenge government policies but if necessary, to throw them out and form a new government and not just "to improve on government policies". If that is all that he believes the work of the opposition is; he should step down immediately and stop being a spokesman for the Peoples Action Party.
He says 'the opposition should not shoot its mouth off and offer alternatives and policies on a whim'. I agree entirely and may I add that to my knowledge, no one has yet in Singapore behaved that way recently. The problem is that the opposition, like his, is not saying anything at all!
I am astonished at Mr. Low's statement that the opposition "should not offer alternative policies before it has reached a certain stage, until they have reached the stage of being able to replace the government and that WP is a long way off". Believe it or not, he is suggesting that the opposition or his version of it, should continue waiting and let the PAP do whatever they want because in all areas, the PAP have more experience than the WP. Is this not the chicken and the egg scenario. If the opposition does not challenge the PAP, they will not get the experience. And since they do not have the experience, they should not challenge the PAP! Is there not something patently wrong in his reasoning?
And what is worse " He believes that his party is not prepared to challenge the PAP in the near future, and that it will take a very long time". In that case, why did he stand for elections under the WP ticket anyway. Has he not misled his people?
In a few words, this man has let down his people. The Chinese speaking kway teow man in Hougang food court may not be aware of this, but an English speaking college graduate knows this very well.
Whether he likes it or not, he should be told that Singapore is a constitutional democracy. In other words there is a constitution. In it, the people have rights. These rights are inalienable. It is not up to the government's discretion to provide it or not. It is mandatory. These rights are being trodden upon. Right of Freedom of speech is being trodden upon. Right of assembly is trodden upon. Lee claims Singapore is first world. First world countries have these rights.
And finally Singapore is not Guandong or Beijing. Hu Jintao may sit with his Chinese Parliament in deciding how and what rights shall be denied. If he wants Chinese style democracy, then he should go there. What we are supposed to have in Singapore is a constitutional democracy, which had it's roots in Ancient Greece. Singapore is an English speaking country. Not a Teochew speaking country. The laws of Singapore are written in the English language. He should know this by now.
Originating from the ideas of Aristotle and Socrates.
Mr. Low does not appear to know the principles of government, and appears to have no inclination or desire to learn it now. Very sad.
Gopalan Nair
http://singaporedissident.blogspot.com/2007/10/singapore-low-thia-khiang-is-let-down.html -
Hi,Originally posted by kramnave:Can't help but feel he was taking a dig at a certain somebody here .
Pardon my imprudence but I have a different view. Mr Low has been quoted for this statement in at least 5 interviews. I think this refers to the approach that is expected of WP from a minority of opposition supporters rather than other personalities in the opposition.
Whether anyone is taking this approach or wish to take this approach, I do not think it is up to the WP to comment.
An example of this expectation is the following incident I heard. A bus driver approached Mr Low, asking him to start a protest. Mr Low asked him to join in. The driver said he had a wife and children to feed. Mr Low asked him in return if he or his party members had no wife and children to feed. The driver laughed, stuck out his tongue and shook Mr Low's hand.
Regards -
Ok fair enough, i get your point. The statement i made was a sweeping one anyway, tongue-in-cheek.Originally posted by Melvin Tan:Hi,
Pardon my imprudence but I have a different view. Mr Low has been quoted for this statement in at least 5 interviews. I think this refers to the approach that is expected of WP from a minority of opposition supporters rather than other personalities in the opposition.
Whether anyone is taking this approach or wish to take this approach, I do not think it is up to the WP to comment.
An example of this expectation is the following incident I heard. A bus driver approached Mr Low, asking him to start a protest. Mr Low asked him to join in. The driver said he had a wife and children to feed. Mr Low asked him in return if he or his party members had no wife and children to feed. The driver laughed, stuck out his tongue and shook Mr Low's hand.
Regards -
Originally posted by Poh Ah Pak:
I can quote Socrates, Aristotle, Marx, Adam Smith and hell even Immanuel Kant but so what ? Whats the use English as a medium of communication if both speaks Teochew better than any other language ? If the people in Hougang by voting, thinks LTK is doing a great job for them then why should Gopalan Nair try to prove otherwise ? Singaporeans are the ones who cast their votes and know what they want, no ?
Gopalan Nair harshly criticises Low Thia Khiang:
[b]Singapore. Low Thia Khiang is a let down for the cause of democracy
Ladies and Gentlemen,
It is unfortunate that Singapore produces opposition politicians such as Low Thia Khiang. I have known him for 6 years while I was a member of the Workers Party, and this much I can say for him. He does not understand what a constitutional democracy is supposed to be; not forgetting that Singapore is, or at least is supposed to be a constitutional democracy.
He is very good in Hokkien and Teochew oratory to Chinese hawkers and grocery shop merchants in Hougang who do not know any English. For him to tell them that such and such policies are good or bad; get their support and enter Parliament to merely argue on policies is what he does. He does not have a sound education in English, let alone any understanding as to what a democracy is supposed to be. In fact, it appears to me that he does not believe in democracy but rather in the style of the Chinese politburo form of government; where the Chinese have no fundamental rights and the rulers decide on rules and laws which they feel would move the country forward; with or without freedom.
To the educated freedom is fundamental. Without it, there cannot be progress in this day and age. In any case, most educated people do not want progress if it comes with a denial of freedom. Low Thia Khiang does not understand any of this.
I am referring to his interview with the Chinese language press which was published in the Straits Times Nov 1, 2007.
He says "the term opposition is a legacy of the western parliamentary system and I have never believed that an opposition party should oppose for the sake of opposing or to shoot one's mouth off". He is wrong. Opposition derived from ancient Greece, ancient China and even ancient India where debate was encouraged so that, through consensus the best idea wins, and the country wins and progresses. It predated western parliamentary system by ions. Secondly he is wrong in "saying western opposition parties oppose for the sake of opposing or that they shoot one's mouth off". I wonder were he got such ideas, or is he saying these things because it pleases the PAP?
He then says "Politics should be responsible politics". Surely that is so. Is he suggesting that anyone would want it any other way? And we have no problem with his statement that "Opposition should be a watchdog, not a mad dog". That too we all agree. Why mention this. Or is he trying to say that the SDP is behaving otherwise?
He seems to be stating the obvious. "It is not the job of the opposition here to offer alternatives to all government policies". Yes Mr. Low. Here too we all agree. This is obvious.
He says "While the ruling party has specialists to study and research various issues, the opposition lacks the resources to come up with alternative issues". But Mr. Low, the ruling party uses taxpayers money to employ specialists. Similarly, when the opposition form the government, they will too. This does not prevent you to speak for the people; to defend their rights and to further their interest.
The WP, he says is "unlike the opposition parties in the west who come up with alternative policies for everything". He is wrong. Not just in the west, but also in the north the south and the east; throughout the world; good opposition parties come up with alternatives where they see the need. Not for everything. The man is engaging in rhetoric and nonsensical rhetoric at that.
Mr. Low is supposed to not only challenge government policies but if necessary, to throw them out and form a new government and not just "to improve on government policies". If that is all that he believes the work of the opposition is; he should step down immediately and stop being a spokesman for the Peoples Action Party.
He says 'the opposition should not shoot its mouth off and offer alternatives and policies on a whim'. I agree entirely and may I add that to my knowledge, no one has yet in Singapore behaved that way recently. The problem is that the opposition, like his, is not saying anything at all!
I am astonished at Mr. Low's statement that the opposition "should not offer alternative policies before it has reached a certain stage, until they have reached the stage of being able to replace the government and that WP is a long way off". Believe it or not, he is suggesting that the opposition or his version of it, should continue waiting and let the PAP do whatever they want because in all areas, the PAP have more experience than the WP. Is this not the chicken and the egg scenario. If the opposition does not challenge the PAP, they will not get the experience. And since they do not have the experience, they should not challenge the PAP! Is there not something patently wrong in his reasoning?
And what is worse " He believes that his party is not prepared to challenge the PAP in the near future, and that it will take a very long time". In that case, why did he stand for elections under the WP ticket anyway. Has he not misled his people?
In a few words, this man has let down his people. The Chinese speaking kway teow man in Hougang food court may not be aware of this, but an English speaking college graduate knows this very well.
Whether he likes it or not, he should be told that Singapore is a constitutional democracy. In other words there is a constitution. In it, the people have rights. These rights are inalienable. It is not up to the government's discretion to provide it or not. It is mandatory. These rights are being trodden upon. Right of Freedom of speech is being trodden upon. Right of assembly is trodden upon. Lee claims Singapore is first world. First world countries have these rights.
And finally Singapore is not Guandong or Beijing. Hu Jintao may sit with his Chinese Parliament in deciding how and what rights shall be denied. If he wants Chinese style democracy, then he should go there. What we are supposed to have in Singapore is a constitutional democracy, which had it's roots in Ancient Greece. Singapore is an English speaking country. Not a Teochew speaking country. The laws of Singapore are written in the English language. He should know this by now.
Originating from the ideas of Aristotle and Socrates.
Mr. Low does not appear to know the principles of government, and appears to have no inclination or desire to learn it now. Very sad.
Gopalan Nair
http://singaporedissident.blogspot.com/2007/10/singapore-low-thia-khiang-is-let-down.html[/b] -
I agree with Low Thia Khiang.
I do not agree with Gopalan Nair.
WP must increase their strength first in order to engage against the PAP.
If WP makes reckless moves, the party might be crippled.
WP, since they are in parliament, should fight inside parliament.
SDP, which is not in parliament, should fight outside of parliament.
Different arenas would require different tactics. -
a building wasn't built in a day and will not last without proper foundation....20 years? maybe....but at least there's a plan
-
The majority of HG constituency residents took some sacrifice to support WP.These are the people who have backbones. Don't let them down.
Of course winning more seats is the aim of the opposition. Opposition unity is important as well. Otherwise, where is the strength to oppose or propose an alternative solution.“Unpopular but necessary policies” must be studied to see if the issues really leaves the government with no better alternatives. The people want to know. That’s why the opposition must also ‘encourage’ the ministers to explain in detail.
It’s preferable to have a tri-party rule – the rule of law, respect and protection of human rights and good governance are not to be tampered with.
WP must be cautious with its choice of words. Now it is showing signs of ‘weakness’. Or maybe it’s something else! -
WP should sit back and watch SDP and PAP fight among themselves and move only when there is something to gain.
Kill with a Borrowed Sword
When you do not have the means to attack your enemy directly, then attack using the strength of another. Trick an ally into attacking him, bribe an official to turn traitor, or use the enemy's own strength against him.
http://www.chinastrategies.com/List.htm#Strategy%203 -
timing is about right, when moralities is all time low.
-
So are you telling SDP to plan an armed rebellion which will forced PAP and WP to unite and put down? SDP and WP must take down PAP legally so there won't be any future problems for Singaporeans. So far, WP is going in the right direction while SDP doesn't know head or tail of politically matters.Originally posted by Poh Ah Pak:I agree with Low Thia Khiang.
I do not agree with Gopalan Nair.
WP must increase their strength first in order to engage against the PAP.
If WP makes reckless moves, the party might be crippled.
WP, since they are in parliament, should fight inside parliament.
SDP, which is not in parliament, should fight outside of parliament.
Different arenas would require different tactics. -
What I mean is that SDP should continue to launch propaganda attacks against PAP and try to weaken PAP's popularity among the 66.6%.
This is the strategy of "Steal The Firewood From Under the Pot".
Steal The Firewood From Under the Pot
When faced with an enemy too powerful to engage directly you must first weaken him by undermining his foundation and attacking his source of power.
http://www.chinastrategies.com/list%202.htm#Strategy%2019 -
Not that easy in future also. With your FT being eligible to vote when they get their citizenship .
-
Spot on!Originally posted by kramnave:SINGAPORE: As the Workers’ Party celebrates this weekend its 50th anniversary, and Secretary—General Low Thia Kiang ...
....he noted that the ruling party had the backing of many scholars to help draw up policies, while the WPÂ’s resources and ability to mobilise people are limited. So, what the WP can do currently is propose refinements to government policies.
...
In this thread,What are the oppositions offering to us Singaporeans.thread I said that, the opposition are now trying to better the already good, so that the good will be even better.
Thats the way to go effectively, and slowly garner more support.
Not the dwindling way. <
... refraining from using the rabid term> -
Hi,
Decided to do the honours for the article pasted
Pardon me, everyone.
Firstly, wonder since when a PAP critic became a PAP-style elite. Only those who can speak English will understand constitutional democracy. Chinese only support a politburo form of government. It has been forgotten that the KMT tried to spread constitutional democracy in China and now in Taiwan.
A divide was made on several areas between the educated and the uneducated. "To the educated, freedom is fundamental". Conversely, the uneducated has to prefer to be caged?
Secondly, consistently lampooning the "Teochew" aspect not only displays elitist inclinations but also racist inclinations.
Thirdly, debate and encouraging debate is not the same as opposing for the sake of opposing. I impressed that this wasnÂ’t difficult to fathom.
Fourthly, the interviewee appears to be disdained for statements agreed with and stating the obvious and for statements not agreed with not stating what is individually deemed to be the obvious. Forked tongue?
Hence, when it was mentioned that the opposition will "use taxpayers money to employ specialists" when it becomes government, it is not stating the obvious.
Fifthly, the manifestoes of various countries have obviously never been studied. SingaporeÂ’s opposition parties have few of the most elaborate manifestoes in the world. What to say of a Japan party"s manifesto of only few pages?
Sixthly, the interviewÂ’s stated that his party would have "a good go at forming Singapore's government" (in some years' time) has obviously been discarded by a poor reader.
Seventhly, integrity deficiencies can be discerned when the word "ready" was substituted by "prepared" as in "not prepared to challenge the PAP in the near future". Originally, it read "not ready to challenge the PAP in the near future".
Seven points, enough said.
Regards