TODAYÂ’S CHUCKLE: 66% Say Election Here Free And Fair
-
if it was published in the FT (Financial Times) or WSJ (Wall St Journal).. or condcuted by the said agencies then I'm more inclined to think it's not biased.
-
You might have missed out the rap on the knuckle for FT a few weeks ago...Only our dear eminent Dr Chee challenges the regime regularly...Originally posted by sir sickolot II:if it was published in the FT (Financial Times) or WSJ (Wall St Journal).. or condcuted by the said agencies then I'm more inclined to think it's not biased. -
i'm waiting for the next election..
-
The moral of the story, to me, is
this proved the reality of humanity.
Ren zi cu xing ben ......
kllbccbtlp hk hk really hk liao! -
i know the elder lee or was it his son who sued the FT some time back. and won.Originally posted by korusu:You might have missed out the rap on the knuckle for FT a few weeks ago...Only our dear eminent Dr Chee challenges the regime regularly...
but i'm inclined to think foreign news agencies do give an alternative perspective, even though it might not be absolutely accurate, it does give the reader a more , how shall i say, balanced perspective. -
The irony stems from the fact that this regime actually bothers publishing independent polls when a certain despot vehemently claimed to disregard the credibility of Reporters Without Borders, Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International.
Is this regime so desperate they're actually prepared to get their hands on anything with a marginally-positive slant, even if the means have arisen from illegal methods (note that conducting opinion polls in the run-up to elections and exit polls on polling day are outlawed in this dictatorship)?
-
This reminded of that time during the opening ceremony of the international bar assoc conference, I think some foreign organisation gave singapore a favourable judgement and Lee said something like Oh this is not my appraisal of singapore, I didnt have to defend myself or anything. When questioned upon the lousy ratings concerning press freedom, he said he didnt measure himself by the yardstick of amnesty international and stuff, he measures himself by the objective of governance of singapore...Originally posted by walesa:The irony stems from the fact that this regime actually bothers publishing independent polls when a certain despot vehemently claimed to disregard the credibility of Reporters Without Borders, Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International.
Is this regime so desperate they're actually prepared to get their hands on anything with a marginally-positive slant, even if the means have arisen from illegal methods (note that conducting opinion polls in the run-up to elections and exit polls on polling day are outlawed in this dictatorship)?
I mean why do people need to listen to a hypocrite like this? -
-
How Long - The Eagles
Like a bluebird with his heart removed
Lonely as a train
I've run just as far as I can run
If I never see the good old days
Shinin' in the sun
I'll be doin' fine and then some
How long, how long
Woman, will you weep?
How long, how long
Rock yourself to sleep
I've been doin' time in a lonesome prison
Where the sun don't shine
And just outside the freedom river runs
Out there in that shiny night
With bloodhounds on your mind
Don't you know it's the same sad situation
How long, how long
Woman, will you weep?
How long, how long
Rock yourself to sleep
Everybody feels alright
You know, I heard some poor fool sing...
(Somebody oooh...)
Everyone is out there on the loose
Well, I wish I lived in the land of fools
Where no one knew my name
But what you get is not quite what you choose
Tell me, how long, how long
Woman, will you weep?
How long, how long
Rock yourself to sleep
How long, how long
Muddy river runs so deep
How long, how long
Goodnight baby, rock yourself to sleep
Sleep tight, baby, rock yourself to sleep
Bye, bye, bye, bye bye, baby, rock yourself to sleep -
Selective amnesia, when used to your advantage, is the greatest ailment since sliced bread.Originally posted by korusu:This reminded of that time during the opening ceremony of the international bar assoc conference, I think some foreign organisation gave singapore a favourable judgement and Lee said something like Oh this is not my appraisal of singapore, I didnt have to defend myself or anything. When questioned upon the lousy ratings concerning press freedom, he said he didnt measure himself by the yardstick of amnesty international and stuff, he measures himself by the objective of governance of singapore...
I mean why do people need to listen to a hypocrite like this? After all, for all the propaganda that despot's cronies churn out, Francis Seow couldn't have put it better by labelling him an "insecure xenophobic". -
Agree.Originally posted by sir sickolot II:i know the elder lee or was it his son who sued the FT some time back. and won.
but i'm inclined to think foreign news agencies do give an alternative perspective, even though it might not be absolutely accurate, it does give the reader a more , how shall i say, balanced perspective.
Like the 2 balls of our dragons,
no 2 balls are the same.
But as long as there are 2 balls,
2 balls is better than 1 ball.
and 2 balls give a better balance.
1 ball is unbalanced. -
frankly, even if it was true, you idiots won't believe it
seriously!
everything uttered by the opposition is the gospel truth...
everything uttered by the MIW is total fabrication..
that's how you idiots attempt to think... -
It is based on a Gallup survey, as such it should be a good reflection of the population sample. However, if you try going out in the streets trying to get personal views on politics in this country, it wouldn't be surprising knowing how people would largely respond. So there is a sort of 'social-desirability' effect here in play. Of course, Gallup may have controlled for that in their equation.
-
mmmm so do you think the election in Singapore is free and fair?Originally posted by the Bear:frankly, even if it was true, you idiots won't believe it
seriously!
everything uttered by the opposition is the gospel truth...
everything uttered by the MIW is total fabrication..
that's how you idiots attempt to think... -
All we are asking for is proof of the validity of the survey. We hardly mentioned the opposition. Lashing out at us and calling us idiots is quite low.Originally posted by the Bear:frankly, even if it was true, you idiots won't believe it
seriously!
everything uttered by the opposition is the gospel truth...
everything uttered by the MIW is total fabrication..
that's how you idiots attempt to think... -
The source of the survey is valid. This source was also quoted in the Malaysian newspaper as part of propaganda too in the midst of the problems they are having with accusations of anti-democracy.
Well I think there is nothing wrong with the source of the survey as some countries were rated really low in that survey. But why Singapore is so high I think attributes to 2 reasons:
1) Source is valid but the results can be maipulated by the media to present it the way that favours one party.
2) IT just reflects the mentality of singaporeans. Kia See. They can talk loudly against governments in coffeeshop, in toilets, in forums but when it comes to official representation like a survey (must be scare that wait they say bad things kena tracked) or voting, they will still say good things. -
That doesn't make it valid at all. Your reasons are just conjecture. And it became even less valid (or more invalid), if such a thing is possible, when it was quoted in a Malaysian newspaper (I assume it's a broadsheet and you're not talking about a tabloid).Originally posted by gasband:The source of the survey is valid. This source was also quoted in the Malaysian newspaper as part of propaganda too in the midst of the problems they are having with accusations of anti-democracy.
Well I think there is nothing wrong with the source of the survey as some countries were rated really low in that survey. But why Singapore is so high I think attributes to 2 reasons:
1) Source is valid but the results can be maipulated by the media to present it the way that favours one party.
2) IT just reflects the mentality of singaporeans. Kia See. They can talk loudly against governments in coffeeshop, in toilets, in forums but when it comes to official representation like a survey (must be scare that wait they say bad things kena tracked) or voting, they will still say good things. -
I think what he was saying is that the source is credible. Gallup is a reputable source, they are one of the main polls people turn to for the publics view on political issues in the States. Furthermore, the concern he raised on the 'social desirability' effect is not based on conjecture, it is something taught in any introductory statistics course.
-
True, true. Point noted. Was a bit rash in my rantings. Sorry about thatOriginally posted by Quincey:I think what he was saying is that the source is credible. Gallup is a reputable source, they are one of the main polls people turn to for the publics view on political issues in the States. Furthermore, the concern he raised on the 'social desirability' effect is not based on conjecture, it is something taught in any introductory statistics course. -
Originally posted by Poh Ah Pak:
*standing ovation*
[b]The Truth About The Election System
Elections
In the absence of genuinely free and fair elections, the act of voting becomes a treacherous impostor of democracy. In Singapore, the Elections Department is under the purview of the Prime MinisterÂ’s Office. Because it conducts its business largely away from public scrutiny, many are as convinced of its impartiality as they would be the act of a ventriloquist over the radio.
For instance, the Electoral Boundaries Review Committee redraws the boundaries and then submits its report to the cabinet for approval. The opposition and the public are not consulted, and the report bypasses parliament. Changes are announced only shortly before the elections. As a result, constituencies that showed strong support for the opposition party have undergone major surgery. These areas have either been redistributed to other PAP strongholds or wholly absorbed into GRCs.
Violations of the Parliamentary Elections Act (PEA) by the PAP are never acted upon. In the 1997 elections, several PAP ministers entered polling stations, which they clearly had no authority to do. Under the PEA, no unauthorised persons are allowed to loiter within 200 meters of any voting centre. Yet election officials did not attempt to enforce the rule. Worse, the Attorney General declined to prosecute, saying that the ministers were inside the polling centre—as opposed to loitering on the outside—and, hence, not in breach of any regulation. Complaints and reports about ballot papers being folded together (which should be impossible, because each voter is required to fold his or her voting paper and place it individually into the boxes), the number of ballot papers exceeding the number of registered voters, ballots being sealed in the boxes before polling commenced, ballot boxes not being sealed in the presence of opposition candidates and their agents, and ballot boxes taken to centres outside of the constituency for counting all went unheeded.
The official campaign period is limited to eight days. The ruling party meanwhile enjoys the adoration of the media it controls and freely uses the publicity to introduce and generate support for its candidates months in advance of the election. Under the British system, the prime minister is empowered to select the election date. In Singapore, the end of the year has been the period favoured by the PAP for elections because of the monsoon rains, which prevent voters from attending the rallies of opposition parties. The government determines the time and the sites for public rallies, which usually means that the designated spots are remote and difficult to get to, with grounds that quickly turn into muddy swamps after a downpour.
The GRC system is a monstrous affront to parliamentary representation. Voters cannot choose the candidates they want. The professed rationale for this system is to ensure that ethnic minority communities are not underrepresented in parliament, since each GRC team requires at least one candidate from the minority groups. The PAP argues that the majority Chinese population would be reluctant to elect a candidate not of the same race. Such a principled endeavour would be praiseworthy if it were not for the fact that Jeyaretnam, a minority himself, defeated Chinese PAP candidates in 1981 and again in 1984. In fact, the percentage of ethnic minority MPs declined relative to the population since the 1988 elections, when the scheme was first implemented. Add to this the increasing number of NMPs, the reluctance of the government to hold by-elections, and death of the one-person-one-vote system, and parliamentary democracy in Singapore has become something of an unpalatable joke.
One factor that makes Singaporeans so fearful of taking part in elections is the use of libel laws by the PAP. The judiciary is seen by many to be partial to the ruling party. Several opposition leaders have been rendered bankrupts when they have been unable to pay the millions of dollars in damages to the PAP plaintiffs.
Veteran oppositionist, Joshua B. Jeyaretnam, has paid more than a million dollars to Lee Kuan Yew and other PAP litigants. A former judge, Jeyaretnam had to sell his houses and almost all his possessions to make good on the payments. In January 2001, he was declared bankrupt because he could not pay the hundreds of thousands of dollars he still owed his opponents. Under the law he will lose his seat in parliament and be barred from future elections.
Tang Liang Hong, a successful corporate lawyer and an opposition candidate in the 1997 elections, was sued for defamation for remarks he made about PAP leaders during a public rally. Following the elections, Tang fled the country. His wifeÂ’s passport was quickly impounded and she was made a co-defendant in the lawsuit. Their assets were seized. Months later, a high court judge awarded the 11 PAP plaintiffs US$4.7 million, later reduced to US$2.1 million. Tang was subsequently declared bankrupt when he failed to pay the money. He and his wife lost everything they owned in Singapore. The story would have been less wretched had it ended there. During his exile, the government charged him with 33 counts of tax evasion. There is presently an outstanding warrant for his arrest.
In 2001, Lee Kuan Yew and Goh Chok Tong sued Dr Chee Soon Juan for defamation for raising questions about SingaporeÂ’s secretive loan to the Suharto regime in 1997 just before he was toppled. The courts then refused to allow Dr Chee to engage foreign lawyers in the form of QueenÂ’s Counsels (QC), even though Dr Chee had indicated that he could not find a local lawyer to represent him and that Lee and Goh had engaged a Senior Counsel (SingaporeÂ’s equivalent of the QC) to act for them. The case was subsequently awarded to the plaintiffs in a summary judgment which meant that Dr Chee was not given an open trial to defend himself and call for witnesses. The plaintiffs were awarded $500,000 in damages.
This was not the first suit brought against Dr Chee. In 1993 when he was sacked from the National University of Singapore and three months after he joined the opposition and contested in an election, Dr Chee was also sued for defamation by the head of the department, who was a PAP MP, for disputing that his dismissal. The amount of costs and damages awarded was approximately $400,000.
Such a scenario has prompted Amnesty International to remark: “Civil defamation suits are being misused by the Executive to intimidate and deter those Singaporeans holding dissenting views.”
It is no wonder then that in its annual report Freedom House says that, “Citizens cannot democratically change their government.”
http://www.singaporedemocrat.org/elections.html
You can fool all the people some of the time,
and some of the people all the time,
but you cannot fool all the people all the time.
-- Abraham Lincoln
You CANNOT fool or influence me singapore mainstream media.
You have failed.
[/b] -
It is interesting to note that in a well-expected democracy like US, citizens there do not have a high opinion of their election system.Originally posted by Quincey:I think what he was saying is that the source is credible. Gallup is a reputable source, they are one of the main polls people turn to for the publics view on political issues in the States. Furthermore, the concern he raised on the 'social desirability' effect is not based on conjecture, it is something taught in any introductory statistics course.
They have come a long way since George Washington.
However, it is also interesting to note that, apart from D and R, the third parties downwards get worse coverage in US dailies than Singapore opposition in ST. They are taken as if they do not exist. Few Singaporeans could know that more than 5 candidates contest a US Presidential Election every time.
Regards -
thank u huhOriginally posted by Quincey:I think what he was saying is that the source is credible. Gallup is a reputable source, they are one of the main polls people turn to for the publics view on political issues in the States. Furthermore, the concern he raised on the 'social desirability' effect is not based on conjecture, it is something taught in any introductory statistics course.
-
Correct. But never mind that only reflects more on himself/herself.Originally posted by Demonight:All we are asking for is proof of the validity of the survey. We hardly mentioned the opposition. Lashing out at us and calling us idiots is quite low. -
Most likely these people just ardor PAP. They should take the survey on residents living in Hougang. Then we would have a more authentic result. Or they should increase the level of people surveyed to about 100 000. Anyway, most people here are timid. They are afraid to go against our wonderful government because they know that they will end up into the hands of our loving ISD department.Originally posted by FireIce:these 1,020 from where one ah?
-
Yes, indeed, many thinkers point to the democratic deficit present in their electoral system, especially in the aftermath of Bush V Gore. Yes, the only third party candidate i ever heard of was Ralf Nader, why? because many democrats argue that he chipped away enough of Gore's Liberal votes to swing the election to Bush. Even though, if you ask me, Gore won the elections. Bush V Gore was a total sham and a product of the political nature of the Supreme Court. (Clarence Thomas literally didn't even utter a single word through the deliberations, because he was a conservative judge and he knew where he was going to cast his lot for.)Originally posted by Melvin Tan:It is interesting to note that in a well-expected democracy like US, citizens there do not have a high opinion of their election system.
They have come a long way since George Washington.
However, it is also interesting to note that, apart from D and R, the third parties downwards get worse coverage in US dailies than Singapore opposition in ST. They are taken as if they do not exist. Few Singaporeans could know that more than 5 candidates contest a US Presidential Election every time.
Regards
Although there isn't adequate coverage of third party candidates, I don't know if it is right to akin the lack of media coverage to outright political censorship or control of the media. Of course, one can argue that it is such a dominant two party system that other parties are not worth reporting on and as such reflective of the democratic deficiency in what is suppose to be the land of the free. As such, in place of outright censorship, we have an institutional reality - where power is monopolized by two domineering factions. This is reflective of the perennial theme of 'power in the hands of the few'.
However, that partisanship doesn't extend to just political parties, it is a reality so entrenched in the political culture that even the news media is reflective of that partisan vault. News media groups like News Corp and Fox are known to be very pro-Republican and the New York Times is like the bastion of the liberal news media. Outrightly, it seems biased and unbalanced. But I believe that it is this contradiction and this constant struggle between factions, that reflects the ideals of the founding fathers. James Madison, for one, advocated the existence of conflicting interest groups, to prevent a single tyrannical entity from dominating the system. In where individuals, and in seeking their self interest are in a constant struggle, however that clash of wills has brought about a system of checks and balances and at the same time, impasse.