Democracy conference in Singapore
-
Dr Chee's speech at Democracy conference
Dr Chee Soon Juan
Address at International Youth Conference for Democracy Organised by the Young Democrats of the SDP.
July 26, 2003
SINGAPORE
http://www.singapore-window.org/sw03/030726sj.htm
YOU may not realize it but all of you in this room today are making history. Look around you. I have not seen so many young Singaporeans gathered in one place for the sole purpose of talking about human rights, liberty and democracy.
Most people who come through Singapore may not see it but Singapore is one of the most repressive countries in Asia. You donÂ’t believe me? How many of our foreign delegates here have ever attended a conference to talk about human rights and democracy in Singapore? Similarly, how many of the locals here have attended a conference of this nature?
The control in Singapore is extremely sophisticated but the effects of the repression are no less effective. You may be tempted then to think that allowing this conference must be a change of the Singapore governmentÂ’s heart. Let me give you a little bit of information that has hitherto remained largely unknown.
In 1996 the Council of Asian Liberals and Democrats (CALD) wanted to hold its annual conference in Singapore (its conferences have been held in most cities in East Asia except Rangoon and Singapore). But the Singapore government exerted so much pressure on the sponsors that the event had to be cancelled.
You see, the Singapore government is very sensitive to international opinion. It wants the world to see it and accept it as a modern, progressive democratic nation. It didn't want to publicly ban the CALD conference, so it worked behind the scenes to put a stop to it.
The difference with this present conference is that the sponsors are not based in Singapore and therefore immune to PAP pressure. To ban the conference would make the government look politically infantile and cause a diplomatic sensation especially when so many of the foreign delegates are elected officials from around the world.
Unable to prevent the conference from going ahead, the authorities then made life as difficult as possible for the organisers. The government insisted that each overseas speaker had to apply for a Professional Visit Pass (PVP) even though none of them were working in Singapore and none were going to stay for more than four days.
The delegates were required to furnish two passport photographs and they had to surrender their passports so that the Immigrations department could stamp it. On top of this, the speakers had to furnish information relating to their spouses and their academic qualifications! We then had to pay $50 for each PVP application. IÂ’m surprised that they didnÂ’t require the speakers to be fingerprinted. Why should our friends here be treated like common criminals or illegal immigrants when several of them are MPs? [Do PAP MPs need to be subjected to such a process when they are invited to speak in other countries?] I have attended many, many conferences through the years and I am ashamed to say that this is the first time I have come across such behaviour. On behalf of democratic-minded Singaporeans, I offer the delegates my sincerest apology.
Repression in Singapore
This gives you an idea of what Singaporeans live under. The kind of all-pervasive control that the PAP exerts by insisting on retaining detailed information about the people.
Let me give you more evidence of how repressive Singapore is. Singapore is one of the few countries in Asia that does not allow its citizens to freely and openly assemble even though our constitution guarantees us that right. Even the governments of China, even Cambodia and Malaysia allows public gatherings.
Minister for Home Affars, Wong Kan Seng, declared: "The government does not authorise protests and demonstrations of any nature." The only countries in Asia that continues to outlaw public rallies and protests are North Korea, Vietnam, Burma and Singapore. We are in bad company.
Are public protests that important? PAP is terrified of public protests. You can write letters, scream on the Internet, but there is nothing like seeing the multitudes of citizens coming out to voice their concerns in unison.
Without public gatherings, apartheid would still rule South Africa today, blacks in America would still have to go to a separate toilet from the whites, Taiwan would still be labouring under a dictatorship and Hong Kong would not be able to beat back ChinaÂ’s intentions to impose Article 23. If we did not have public gatherings Singapore would still be a British colony.
The truth of the matter is that not only is there nothing wrong with public protests. In fact, the right to assembly is vitally important for the well-being of citizens.
Economist and Nobel laureate, Professor Amartya Sen wrote: "Political and civil rights give people the opportunity to draw attention forcefully to the general needs and to demand appropriate public action. The governmental response to acute suffering often depends on the pressure that is put on it and this is where the political rights (voting, criticizing, protesting, and so on) can make a real difference."
To be cont'd... -
Double Post
-
...Cont'd
Are we sheep?
Why is it that when the PAP tells us that something is black when it is clearly white, we say nothing? Is it because we are afraid?
Mahatma Gandhi once said: "Democracy is not a state in which people act like sheep." I was in Australia and observed how sheep behaved. For anyone to control the flock in such a manner three factors are crucial: There must be fear, you must deprive the individual animal of information, and you must make sure that those that step out of outline are quickly chased back in. Of course it helps to have a bunch of dogs running around.
Are we sheep? Do we continue to let the PAP instil fear in us and deprive us of information? Do we let the PAP tell us that protests are dangerous when clearly they are not?
I have been criticized for being too confrontational. Believe me, what I am advocating now is very mainstream in the rest of the world. The PAP has put Singaporeans in this well, and covered it up with only a little peephole. All we see is this little patch of light that the PAP allows us to see. The party not only tells us what to think but how to go about thinking it.
I have seen what it is to be free. For citizens to come together to protest against government action and policies is good, is necessary, and it is for our survival. I have seen mothers with children, grannies even, the disabled all participating in peaceful marches. No pandemonium. Just dignified peoples fiercely proud and loyal to their countries.
Can it be that Singaporeans are really so incapable of expressing ourselves in peaceful protests and demonstrations? Are the Brits somehow more responsible than us, are the Japanese somehow superior in their political thought, are Hong Kongers somehow more trustworthy, are our Malaysian counterparts better citizens? Or is it that our government is simply more repressive than others?
Sometimes we are imprisoned not for our thoughts but by our thoughts.
Voting for change or changing the way we vote?
But isnÂ’t the best way to change and influence the government through the ballot box? Yes, provided that governments which get voted in donÂ’t begin to curtail the rights of the citizens once they get into power. Otherwise elections are rendered meaningless.
The question is not whether one country holds elections or not but whether the elections are one, genuinely free and fair, two, whether voters have access to information through a free media, and three, whether there is freedom of association, speech and assembly. None of these conditions exist in Singapore.
If elections are the only measure of whether a country is democratic or not, then Cuba, former Soviet Union, the Philippines, Iraq and Indonesia are all democracies because Fidel Castro, Marcos, Suharto, and Saddam Hussein, all conducted elections.
The PAP will introduce e-voting at the next election. There are studies that have shown that with the current technology, e-voting is open to fraud. Given the way Singapore conducts its elections without an independent election commission, we might as well kiss democracy goodbye if e-voting comes into effect.
Singaporeans must realise that there is no point in talking about policies when elections are not free and fair. Whether it is the GST, price hikes, foreign talent, economic policies, education, ministers salaries - you name it, it's not going to make a shred of difference if Singaporeans cannot express their will in free and fair elections.
Without a proper electoral system, the party in power can remain in power forever. How do we even begin to change this? By insisting on our right to freely assemble and protest against the PAP's continued manipulation of the election system. Peaceful mass rallies and public protests is the only language that the PAP understands.
DonÂ’t be discouraged
Ten years ago I didnÂ’t know anyone in the international community. Today we have this conference. We are making progress.
I have heard so many times that Singaporeans are not worth sacrificing for. I refuse to belief that. The fact that all of you are here and have taken the decision to attend this conference signals to me that there is hope.
We say our pledge "to build a democratic society based on justice and equality..." One of the stars on our flag symbolises democracy. And yet, we are one of the most repressive countries in Asia. DonÂ’t accept this lie anymore. For once be a rebel. Stand up for the truth.
Change must come from the masses but the masses need leaders. Where are we going to find these leaders? All of you here are leaders of democracy. Get together and form a youth movement for democracy. I cannot say that the PAP wonÂ’t try to trip you up. But when they do, you are not helpless. We are not alone. Democrats all over the world must and will stand up for each other.
Our friends from Sweden, America, all over Asia will you go back and tell their governments that we in Singapore want democracy like anyone else in the world. The international community will let the PAP know that the repression cannot continue in Singapore.
I have been there and I have seen what it is to be free. This is not the natural state of things and we do not have to accept it and think that what the PAP has engineered is the natural order of things. There are alternatives and better ones. We just need the courage to bring them to reality.
I cannot stand for elections but thatÂ’s okay. I donÂ’t need to stand for elections. I just need to continue to speak up so that one some of you here can get elected and establish democracy in this country.
They can make me a bankrupt and take away all my possessions. They can convict me for speaking without a permit and put me in jail. But there is one thing that they cannot take away and that is my faith and commitment to democracy. -
And this is typical of the local "mainstream" press coverage of the event, from the "Do we want to encourage mindless risk taking?" thread elsewhere on this forum
------------------------------------------
www.todayonline.com
Teenagers show Dr Chee their mettle at SDP forum on democracy
Monday • July 28, 2003
— Lee Ching Wern
DOMESTIC politics bores them. They live comfortable lives, avoiding disruptive risks. They can't see beyond their examination grades.
All these easy stereotypes about Singapore's younger generation appeared to be thrown out of the window when some 30 teenagers turned up to listen to opposition voices at the Singapore Democratic Party's (SDP) International Youth Conference for Democracy over the weekend.
Many lugged backpacks and files. Some were as young as 14. And most were driven not by a particular political leaning but by a curiosity about politics and a belief in democracy.
And very soon, it became clear that Singapore's next generation could well be more politically aware than previously thought — and it will also speak its mind.
"After what you did at the last elections, I'm not very impressed," a 17-year-old junior college student bluntly told SDP's Secretary-General Chee Soon Juan.
She had taken the mike to remark on Dr Chee's comment during the last elections that Singapore had allegedly loaned Indonesia $17 billion — a statement that embroiled him in a defamation suit.
Oblivious to the high-powered foreign delegates and the obvious annoyance of the SDP cadres, Miss Chua Ruo Mei continued: "I thought politicians would at least be level-headed enough to find out their facts clearly enough before saying something in public.
"As young people, we are willing to take risks but only for causes we think are worthy. But there are no viable alternatives. So, I don't think opposition groups in Singapore can accuse young Singaporeans of being apathetic."
This touched a raw nerve.
SDP chairman Ling How Doong stood up and said: "I think it's very unbecoming of the young lady to launch a personal attack on Dr Chee. Firstly, the matter has not been settled yet and is in court Â…"
Then he added: "I suspect the speaker is living a very comfortable life. Those who speak up for their rights are those who have experienced hardship Â… I hope her fortune will continue."
Ms Chua was neither fazed nor intimidated. And she had laid bare her credentials earlier, when she announced: "I'm an advocate of freedom of speech, and I'm not pro-Government. Otherwise, I wouldn't be here."
Dr Chee later tried to smooth the situation by telling Ms Chua: "I thank you for your criticism and I do not for one minute take offence at your comment.
"Much as I disagree with you, I will fight for your rights to say what you think. The problem with the PAP is that when they disagree with me, they don't give me the right to respond."
Delegates were shown tapes of Dr Chee being led away by the police after his attempt to speak at the Istana on May Day last year.
The teenagers watched in fascination, but not all of them were convinced.
"They accuse the PAP of propaganda. But, to me, this is propaganda too," said National University of Singapore student Raj Thomas.
Still, they appreciated the chance to listen to alternative viewpoints.
After all, they had found out about the conference on their own initiative, mostly from the Internet.
"There are very few chances for us to hear different viewpoints about democracy in Singapore," said Haresh Paramesvaran, 15, who said such issues are not discussed much in school. "It's been a very worthwhile experience for me to see what the foreigners and opposition had to say."
The foreign speakers, consisting of politicians and activists from over 10 countries, largely stuck to talking about their own countries.
One offshoot was the creation of a Sweden-Singapore Initiative for Democracy, in which the SDP will join hands with three Swedish political parties and focus on issues like human rights and the electoral system in Singapore. The Swedish parties helped sponsor the weekend conference too.
One common question that intrigued the youngsters was why the PAP Government — known for its strong stand against external interference in Singapore's domestic politics — allowed this conference to be held in the first place.
Dr Chee's take: The Government would have looked "undemocratic" if it had not allowed the conference to go ahead -
thanks! now i dun need to go around looking for such articles to read!
btw i personally think the democracy conference is no big deal. and the newspaper and people played it up when they asked if the fact it could be held meant something.
anyway do u haf any source to find the booklet that msia published for the water issue? the one that they sold for 3 sens? im interested to read wat they have to say. -
And now, my opinion. Isn't it funny (or should it be typical?) how the local "mainstream" press, in covering this event, conveniently ignore the bigger picture of what the event was about, what went on, what was discussed at the event, instead focusing on the fact that a couple of students disagreed with what Dr. Chee said?
To everyone reading the speech, I strongly urge you to forget, for one moment, any preconceived opinions, brought about by negative reports or otherwise about Dr Chee, and read the article with an open mind, and then form an opinion on what he said.
Look at the message, not the man.
Wuming78, I'm glad you liked the article, I believe a link to a pdf document of the Malaysian booklet was posted on one of the other threads in this forum, I didn't try to download it myself, will wait and see if I can obtain a hardcopy elsewhere, but I've heard that its a b**** to download....
Disclaimer: I'm not a card carrying member of any political party, just a Singaporean who believes Singaporeans have the right, and should, read alternative viewpoints before forming perspectives and opinions -
Allow me to respond to some of the points brought up by the students which the Today article quoted, which, interestingly contained opinions which either was with the party line (ruling party that is) or were neutral (grand total of one).
Again, let me re-emphasize here that I do not like Dr Chee as a man, as I feel that a significant part of what he says and does is with his ego in mind, nor does he rate very high with me as far as trustworthiness is concerned, but a lot of what he says I agree with."After what you did at the last elections, I'm not very impressed," a 17-year-old junior college student bluntly told SDP's Secretary-General Chee Soon Juan. "As young people, we are willing to take risks but only for causes we think are worthy. But there are no viable alternatives. So, I don't think opposition groups in Singapore can accuse young Singaporeans of being apathetic."
While the state of the Opposition has a lot to do with their own ineptitude, one does wonder how much of it was due to the ruling party's overwhelming control of all "mainstream" (theres that word again) media and points of information.Dr Chee later tried to smooth the situation by telling Ms Chua: "I thank you for your criticism and I do not for one minute take offence at your comment. "Much as I disagree with you, I will fight for your rights to say what you think. The problem with the PAP is that when they disagree with me, they don't give me the right to respond."
In the last statement, lies the difference with the ruling party"They accuse the PAP of propaganda. But, to me, this is propaganda too," said National University of Singapore student Raj Thomas.
Maybe it is, but I think it would be easier to respond if he had bothered to say (or Today had bothered to print) what was said at the conference that was propaganda. -
SDP response to Today article
------------------------------------------------------------
The press does it again
31 July 2003
http://www.singaporedemocrat.org/news_display.php?id=313
The TODAY newspaper, one of the few local newspapers who even bothered to show up to cover the International Youth Conference for Democracy that was held recently, ran a report that gave prominence to the remarks of one of the participants who was critical of Dr Chee Soon Juan.
Ms Lee Ching Wern, the reporter for TODAY, dedicated much of her story to Ms Chua Ruo Mei’s comments which included a remark about Dr Chee’s questioning of the Singapore government about the Indonesian loan during the 2001 elections: “Dr Chee, after what you did in the last elections, I was not impressed. You did not get your facts right. The US$10 billion was a loan to Indonesia and not a gift. If there is nothing to fight for in Singapore, you cannot accuse young Singaporeans of being apathetic.”
Did this comment take up much of the conference proceedings? Were there similar criticisms from other participants? Or were comments overwhelmingly supportive of the SDP and critical of the PAP? If they were, why was Ms Lee Ching WernÂ’s report so skewed? Did she misrepresent what had taken place during conference?
In order to answer these questions - we had had recorded the entire conference - we provide below the gist of all the comments made by other participants during the course of the day so that readers can judge for themselves.
Comments from members of the audience:
Lawyer and former opposition candidate Mr Maurice Neo observed: “I am surprised and concerned that in this region, there is nothing said about parliaments being an elitist club, a refuge for the bourgeois. This issue has been addressed in India but not here.”
Following Ms Chua Ruon Mei’s intervention, a young lawyer counter her: “I am a lawyer and lawyers defend rights of the people. Yet my fellow lawyer friends discouraged me from attending this forum, citing that the ISD would be following me and that they might start to avoid me if I attended this forum.”
Mr Ling How Doong then followed up: “I think it is very unbecoming of the young lady to launch a personal attack on Dr Chee. The case have not been settled in the court of law, so it is improper for her to cast her own judgment of the case.”
Another member of the audience then stood up to give a stinging rebuke of Mr Lee Kuan Yew, which we will not reproduce here for legal reasons.
A junior college student lamented about the state of the local media and that given the fact that the present conference was the first of its kind in Singapore, the publicity given by the press was shocking. He asked Dr Chee how young people could contribute to widen the publicity in future events.
Dr Tan Chong Kee of The Necessary Stage then got up to ask, following the presentation of Hong Kong Legislative Council member Andrew Cheng, how the Hong Kong people could gather in such numbers to stage a peaceful demonstration to make their anger and dissatisfaction heard, as opposed to Singaporeans just grumbling in coffeeshops.
Another commentator remarked: “In Singapore, we have the ISD. Twice it was used to suppress the opposition when they tried to stage public protests. Once in 1963 and another time in 1986.”
Another jumped in: “I am happy to attend this gathering of considerably more than 5 people. Human rights are inalienable and democracy is a process that protects human rights. Open discussion amongst student groups is less tolerated here than elsewhere in the world.”
“Here in Singapore, although the government is fully elected, everyone knows that this is not a democracy,” yet another participant chimed in. “But Singapore has been a trading partner of Europe and US for years. It is not true that we do not talk of democracy here. You can go to the US Embassy and still be locked up or made bankrupt. The only other option is to migrate which, which is what we are doing, at 3% a year.”
A young man offered: “Singaporeans are generally not concerned about democracy. All they want is a good education, good career, good health care, good car, good house and good lover.”
During the session on Asian values, an elderly participant gave us this insight: “European and Asian values are different altogether. Here we depend on ourselves for survival. The biggest person we distrust is ourselves. If we can control ourselves, then can we practice democracy. What is right for ourselves maybe wrong for others. If we can accept that, then we can have democracy.”
“First, can we afford democracy?” a junior college student asked. “Singapore has a GDP per capita income of US$20,000. Yes, I think we can afford democracy. I think democracy is universal and is not necessarily exempt from Asian values. To arbitrarily imprison a political opponent is wrong across the globe.”
He observed: “There is no such thing as a soft dictatorship. I see nothing soft about Marco's dictatorial regime, I see nothing soft about Suharto's dictatorial regime, I see nothing soft about SPDC [Burma's State Peace and Development Council], I see nothing soft about Lee Kuan Yew.”
A Swedish delegate joined in the Asian values debate: “There is nothing Asian about Asian values. We have the same values at home and we call them Family values.”
On the point that Singaporeans are more interested in bread-and-butter issues rather than ideals such as democracy, a participant had this to say: “Yes, you cannot eat democracy. You cannot take an abstract concept and assimilate it in our bodies. But in this age of globalisation, the cutting edge of any modern economy is creative thinking and independent thought processes. Even the PAP recognises that. But you cannot have creative thinking and independent thought processes by having a bunch of scholars in select committees conducting feasibility studies. Democracy is the most fertile ground for creative thinking and independent thought processes. True, you cannot eat democracy but democracy is going to feed you.
Another comment addressed Mr Tong Kim Chuan’s (Parti Gerakan, Malaysia) presentation: “[Mr Tong] suggested that the opposition here should work with the ruling regime to get around suppression. This cannot work in Singapore because we have a partisan press and media controlled by the government.” On another note the participant added that he was saddened to see young Swedish politicians speaking so eloquently while young Singaporeans were not free to do the same.
Towards the end of the day’s events, someone stood up and encouraged opposition parties to share their resources: “I would like to see opposition parties organise more workshops and seminars. I would also like the people to petition for independent political newspapers so we can hear alternative voices.”
Pathetic reporting
There were at least fifteen comments that were supportive of the democracy and critical of the PAP’s repressive habits. Fifteen to one – yet Ms Lee Ching Wern of TODAY chose to give prominence to that one comment. We append Ms Lee’s report so that readers can judge for themselves (see below)[Note: I've left the report out since its been posted above]. This is not journalism, it is pathetic.
Then there is the broadcast media. There was complete and utter silence.
The overwhelming majority of Singaporeans would have read the goings-on of the conference through the eyes and ears of Ms Lee. The Straits Times' Ahmad Osman didn't even show up until just a few minutes before the conference ended. With such reporting, can anything the Singapore Democrats do ever be right in the minds of Singaporeans? -
One can only hope that the message is closely studied, even if the messenger that bring forth the message is not well supported.
It is an irony of history, that the messenger who speaks of the stark reality of life is never well liked.
The person who rocks the stable boat is always condemned for shaking up the peace.
Yet we prefer to be lulled into ineptitude to think and fend for ourselves, depending entirely (and trusting totally) on the Government's ever capable hands in resolving the situation.
With unemployment continuing to grow, wages continuing to be shrunk, and with the Government and its government controlled Unions unable to resolve the basic issues of Singaporean needs, will Singaporeans soon find courage to be more expressive of their basic rights to employment.
This baisc right to employment is now an issue, since Senior Acamedicians from our Tertiary Institutions have interpreted the Statistics from the Ministry of Manpower - that has allowed them to conclude that 4 out of every 5 jobs have gone to foreigners.
Will Singaporeans lock horns with the Government to trim the Government sails that freely embrace foreign talents just so as to bring in MNC's that are creating more jobs for the benefit of the foreign nationals in a local government subsidised business environment ? -
Hmm. From this, it's obvious that the governent is trying to control the media, to avoid giving any publicity to the opposition, except negative ones.
-
Like all Singaporeans, our ruling party is pramatic, we play hardball, that's how we survive. Hence I have to problem with the PAP playing hardball, that's what I would do as well, or any Singaporean political party that hopes to suceed in Singapore.
What do pragmatic parties do?
They give no quarter to the opposition, gunning them down at every corner that they can, using every edge to create a mismatch. And of course that has worked very well, and the opposition is non the better then to sit back, take the blows full force (rather the tai-ching it) and playing matyr... please, these won't help Singaporeans change their votes, I mean they can see a woman get run over by an MRT and care little but to crowd around, what good is a hunger-striking, jail going politican like chee gonna do?
Even LKY said so himself to JBJ when he complained that Harry was going all out to kill him, to which Lee told him rather matter of factly that that was indeed what he was doing, playing hardball to the maximum.
If opposition parties ever want to have eben a slimmer of hope of beating the PAP at their game, they should stop bickering among themselves, complaining like babies and try to sell abstract concepts like basic rights, democracy and stuff like that to Singaporeans, they should band together, disregard their differences, and offer a pramatic response to the PAP. They need to learn to adapt to their foe rather then contuine to come into every elections big, dumb and stupid. Despite their obvious advantages, the PAP are still; extremely crafty when it comes to politics (if not Singapore will be doomed). Make no mistake, the gar'men is anything but incompetent, and maybe the opposition might start to realize it too rather then keep up all the angst and chest beating.
The only sad thing about this is that prehaps the PAP had played hardball so long and hard that they have killed off all credible exercise to them, and hence run the risk of growing flabby with recent times, as indicated by the recent sense of alienation of the people from the govt. over many issues. SARs gave them a workout recently, but I think they are gonna have to exercise more to get back in touch somewhat or else we are all in for a rough ride. -
ST, the PAP wants to play hardball, as a pragmatic political party. Fair enough, no political party in the world (or at least, the segments of the world we like to consider ourselves as) won't play this game to survuve. But they play in a playing field that is at the very least, geared towards being level. Can we say the same for Singapore? The PAP has used, or should we say altered the rules of the game such that it is no longer fair, or should I say, anywhere near fair. Look at the way the media is being manipulated for one party. Is that fair? Look at the Today article above, balanced reporting, or yellow journalism at its best? Or should I say, at its worst?
That is the crux of the problem, you get off playing hardball the way the PAP does, it becomes bullying. I've no problems with playing hardball, but I find the bullying that occurs here distasteful, revolting and downright despicable.
Sure, law of the jungle, the fittest survive. If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. If you don't like it, leave. That part I understand. And maybe thats why Singapore has the one of the highest net migration rates in the world, and a lot more would join them if they could.
At the end of the day, it does paint a pretty sorry picture that a political party that claims its "the best" in Singapore has to resort to such tactics.
And don't get me started about the libel laws.... -
It dosen't have to be fair, and probably will never be. What the opposition needs to do is to wisen up, realise these rules and adapt to the playing field to get the most mileage out them. Rather then keep complaining and think things will change. Nope, short of a US task force invading us, the rules are not going to change anytime soon.
The opposition however, can help everyone a lot more by playing smarter instead of harder. Find ways to present their position to the public but at the same time keep relatively clean of trouble with the garm'men. And above all, be pragmatic and quit trying to sell lofty ideas to Singaporeans. And of course, watch what they say. You don't have to state truths literally, that'll only get u sued.
All in all, if they are smart enough, they will present a credible opposition to the PAP, an opposition that is smart enough to avoid all the snares set out for them. And while they might not win anytime soon, giving the PAP a run for their money means the ruling party stays in tip top shape, a boon for all Singaporeans.
If Chee and co., along with other people really want to change things, they should stop coming in hard and dumb to make their tiny attacks against the PAP, which probably does them more harm then it actually helps to loosen to ruling party's grip on power.
And of course, they could also stop blaming Singaporeans for not being able to care less for their plight. After all, we are a pragmatic bunch. We can never vote for them if we don't see them as a pratical choice, no matter how glitzy their ideas may be. They really need to wisen up, and think smart and act blur a little bit more rather then shoot off their mouth at every little fault they see in the gar'men. And go head on, only to be mown down by the combined arsenal of govt. might.
Singapore is no Africa, we don't want matyrs, we want people which can give us four walls and a roof, plus stuff to eat and maybe relax one corner a bit more. Even though we know the ruling party isn't exactly the sharpest tool in the shed when it comes to providing these needs to the best of our specs, and sometimes even having them at charge at our expense, we simply don't see the opposition has being any better at changing things. Yes, they may be loftier ideas and stuff like that. But in reality they are a badly organized raggle that can't get their acts together. As a matter of fact, some of their ideas seem downright ridiculus to apply here, I wonder if they have noticed that?
What is happening however, is that the PAP is smart enough, and crafty enough to dangle tempting issue baits for the opposition to snap at, and end up messing themselves up in the process. The opposition is predictible, and hence easily suppressed with conventional political weaponary, in Singapore we fight politics like the Americans fight war; with overwhelming firepower. The opposition, non the wiser, and with their heads stuck too high up in their superority of morals over the PAP, just keep taking a beating again and again every elections, and are non the wiser, if anything they seem to be a bunch of lofty scholars rather then down to earth people.
And where is the political talent in Singapore going? The smarter and more pratical ones either leave Singapore for good, or join the PAP because they know they can make the best there, rather then go over to the opposition, and get their heads stuffed so full of lofty political ideas and utopian systems that they are of no earthly good.
And that is why, my friends, unless the opposition gets its act together and plays smart, I doubt we'll ever see any sort of a change anywhere. Contray to what it appears, I believe the opposition actually has a fighting chance of making the ruling party sit up and notice and stop the political wayang and actually do some real politics if they are smart enough to play the same game, instead of carrying on their self-destructive-for-no-purpose way. Make no mistake, the PAP is a formidible, effective force that has kept Singapore afloat for a long time, that's why if the opposition wants to work out the bugs, they better have some better and less invasive idea then a total system reformat. -
As much as the present Opposition Parties have to brush up on their act, they will need support from the Singapore Citizens.
The support can take many forms:
morale nourishment - be more forgiving in the light of the uphill tasks that they are facing, they certainly do not need any further criticism and skepticism, especially with the media being controlled and manipulated to put them in a bad light;
research support - by way of clear and affirmative research works on any issues of public interests;
financial support - buy the publications, that will help give us an alternative view and allow us to see issues from different perspectives; at the same time it allow us to understand the depth of thought of the writer;
political support - if one feel safe about the future in Opposition hands, put a vote and see how the candidate perform in Parliament.
There was as much skepticism towards Chiam See Tong, when he first went about Cairnhill Constituency with his Volkswagen and a small megaphone during his first public election campaign.
J.B.Jeyaratnam was also very much maligned and derided by the bad publicity campaign, with LKY attacking Jeyaratnam personnally in the most derogatory term of accusing Jeyaratnam to be a "charlatan".
Despite the years of being accused to be a "fraud" by LKY, "Little" Lee has seen it fit to call Jeyaratnam a "true Singaporean" and NOT "a Quitter".
Have we been manipulated by the Ruling Party, in their expert use of mass media psychology, to thwart our view and vision of the Opposition Parties ?
The Word from the Ruling Party cannot always be right, and we must always view their Word with a pinch of salt especially when vested interests are at stake.
The Ruling Party will have very much to lose, more then the ordinary Singapore Citizens - the high salary jobs paid in the various Ministries, the benefits from the Government Linked Companies, the entire web of financial arrangements in Singapore and investments overseas.
Will Singapore survive with a change in any Political Party ruling Singapore ?
I believe that Singapore will move forward with its own momentum, as Singapore thrives because of the People in every strata of society that put its brain and muscle to survive against all odds.
What has the Ruling Party contributed - except with the organisational skill of the mouth, to spur the people on.
All the ideas espoused by the Political Leaders are worked behind the scene by ordinary Singapore Citizens, who labor day and night to get the research done, security maintained, orders issued, supervisory works executed or be sacked.
It is the ordinary people that make the Politial Leaders effective.