Will we ever have such a situation in our GE?
-
NYT OP-ED
29th Jan 2004
The Dead Center
By ROBERT B. REICH
Published: January 29, 2004
he dismal fifth-place showing by Senator Joseph Lieberman in the New Hampshire primary on Tuesday serves as both reminder and motivator to the other Democratic presidential candidates on what it will take to win in November. For so long now, everyone has assumed that recapturing the presidency depends on who triumphs in the battle between liberals and moderates within the party. Such thinking, though, is inherently flawed. The real fight is between those who want only to win back the White House and those who also want to build a new political movement — one that rivals the conservative movement that has given Republicans their dominant position in American politics.
Senator Lieberman's defeat on Tuesday could be a good indicator of which side is ahead. To their detriment, Mr. Lieberman and the perennially dour Democratic Leadership Council have been deeply wary of any hint of a progressive movement, preferring instead an uninspired centrist message that echoes Republican themes.
On the other extreme is Howard Dean, who could be called the quintessential "movement" Democrat. His campaign is both grass-roots and reformist, and is based on the proposition that ordinary people must be empowered to "take back America." Similar threads can also be seen in the campaigns of Senators John Edwards and John Kerry. (Full disclosure: I've been helping Senator Kerry.) It was no accident after last week's caucuses in Iowa that a beaming Senator Edwards told supporters they had "started a movement to change America."
I hope that Mr. Edwards and the others will stay on message — and movement. After all, Democrats have seen what the Republican Party has been able to accomplish over the years. The conservative movement has developed dedicated sources of money and legions of ground troops who not only get out the vote, but also spend the time between elections persuading others to join their ranks. It has devised frames of reference that are used repeatedly in policy debates (among them: it's your money, tax and spend, political correctness, class warfare).
It has a system for recruiting and electing officials nationwide who share the same world view and who will vote accordingly. And it has a coherent ideology uniting evangelical Christians, blue-collar whites in the South and West, and big business — an ideology in which foreign enemies, domestic poverty and crime, and homosexuality all must be met with strict punishment and religious orthodoxy.
In contrast, the Democratic Party has had no analogous movement to animate it. Instead, every four years party loyalists throw themselves behind a presidential candidate who they believe will deliver them from the rising conservative tide. After the election, they go back to whatever they were doing before. Other Democrats have involved themselves in single-issue politics — the environment, campaign finance, the war in Iraq and so on — but these battles have failed to build a political movement. Issues rise and fall, depending on which interests are threatened and when. They can even divide Democrats, as each advocacy group scrambles after the same set of liberal donors and competes for the limited attention of the news media.
As a result, Democrats have been undisciplined, intimidated or just plain silent. They have few dedicated sources of money, and almost no ground troops. The religious left is disconnected from the political struggle. One hears few liberal Democratic phrases that are repeated with any regularity. In addition, there is no consistent Democratic world view or ideology. Most Congressional Democrats raise their own money, do their own polls and vote every which way. Democrats have little or no clear identity except by reference to what conservatives say about them.
Self-styled Democratic centrists, like those who inhabit the Democratic Leadership Council, attribute the party's difficulties to a failure to respond to an electorate grown more conservative, upscale and suburban. This is nonsense. The biggest losses for Democrats since 1980 have not been among suburban voters but among America's giant middle and working classes — especially white workers without four-year college degrees, once part of the old Democratic base. Not incidentally, these are the same people who have lost the most economic ground over the last quarter-century. -
Democrats could have responded with bold plans on jobs, schools, health care and retirement security. They could have delivered a strong message about the responsibility of corporations to help their employees in all these respects, and of wealthy elites not to corrupt politics with money. More recently, the party could have used the threat of terrorism to inspire the same sort of sacrifice and social solidarity as Democrats did in World War II — including higher taxes on the wealthy to pay for what needs doing. In short, they could have turned themselves into a populist movement to take back democracy from increasingly concentrated wealth and power.
But Democrats did none of this. So conservatives eagerly stepped into the void, claiming the populist mantle and blaming liberal elites for what's gone wrong with America. The question ahead is whether Democrats can claim it back. The rush by many Democrats in recent years to the so-called center has been a pathetic substitute for candid talk about what the nation needs to do and for fueling a movement based on liberal values. In truth, America has no consistent political center. Polls reflect little more than reflexive responses to what people have most recently heard about an issue. Meanwhile, the so-called center has continued to shift to the right because conservative Republicans stay put while Democrats keep meeting them halfway.
Democrats who avoid movement politics point to Bill Clinton's success in repositioning the party in the center during the 1990's. Mr. Clinton was (and is) a remarkably gifted politician who accomplished something no Democrat since Franklin Delano Roosevelt had done — getting re-elected. But his effect on the party was to blur rather than to clarify what Democrats stand for. As a result, Mr. Clinton neither started nor sustained anything that might be called a political movement.
This handicapped his administration from the start. In 1994, when battling for his health care proposal, Mr. Clinton had no broad-based political movement behind him. Even though polls showed support among a majority of Americans, it wasn't enough to overcome the conservative effort on the other side. By contrast, George W. Bush got his tax cuts through Congress, even though Americans were ambivalent about them. President Bush had a political movement behind him that supplied the muscle he needed.
In the months leading up to the 1996 election, Mr. Clinton famously triangulated — finding positions equidistant between Democrats and Republicans — and ran for re-election on tiny issues like V-chips in television sets and school uniforms. The strategy worked, but it was a Pyrrhic victory. Had Mr. Clinton told Americans the truth — that when the economic boom went bust we'd still have to face the challenges of a country concentrating more wealth and power in fewer hands — he could have built a long-term mandate for change. By the late 90's the nation finally had the wherewithal to expand prosperity by investing in people, especially their education and health. But because Mr. Clinton was re-elected without any mandate, the nation was confused about what needed to be accomplished and easily distracted by conservative fulminations against a president who lied about sex.
As we head into the next wave of primaries, the Democratic candidates should pay close attention to what Republicans have learned about winning elections. First, it is crucial to build a political movement that will endure after particular electoral contests. Second, in order for a presidency to be effective, it needs a movement that mobilizes Americans behind it. Finally, any political movement derives its durability from the clarity of its convictions. And there's no better way to clarify convictions than to hone them in political combat.
A fierce battle for the White House may be exactly what the Democrats need to mobilize a movement behind them. It may also be what America needs to restore a two-party system of governance and a clear understanding of the choices we face as a nation.
Robert B. Reich, former United States secretary of labor, is a professor of social and economic policy at Brandeis University and the author of the forthcoming "Reason: Why Liberals Will Win the Battle for America."
the objective pikamaster -
In a mature community, there will result in a situation in which the 'LEADERS' and the 'LED' have the maturity, respect, trust, and confidence in each other that allow such a political system as practised in the USA to exist.
It is truly a DEMOCRATIC PROCESS that is effectively GIVING the opportunity of choosing the POLITICAL LEADER by members registered with the Party, at the lowest rank, down to the community level, in their home districts.
It is a process in which the Citizens CHOOSES the prospective Leader to lead the Country as the PRESIDENT.
Expediency is not used as an excuse to short-change or short circuit the entire process.
Can this happen in Singapore ?
It can only happen only when there is ACTIVE POLITICAL INTERESTS and PARTICIPATION by Singaporeans.
It can happen when Singaporeans believe and insist on their POLITICAL RIGHT by joining the Political Party that believe in DEMOCRATIC VALUES and the POLITICAL RIGHTS of the INDIVIDUAL at the LOWEST RANK of MEMBERSHIP.
With an OPEN SELECTION PROCESS as practised in the SDP, we can have a young 'maverick' to sway its political memberships to accept his new leadership, and allowing him to take over the Party from an older leadership seen to be ineffective in representing the interests of the members and the Community.
The other alternative is to prevent any POSSIBLE REVOLT of the unpredictable minds of the membership, and risk the loss of control of the Party, by limiting the effectiveness of the vote by an unpredictable mass of unknown faces of insignificant personalities behind each membership.
In the Singapore experience, with the exception of SDP, most existing Political Parties in Singapore is based on 'TOP DOWN' selection and controlled political processes.
The 'Elite' Candidates are selected, tested and annointed by a 'SUPER ELITE' Group; after which the 'Elite' candidates are presented to a 'SELECTED GROUP' of Cadre Members, disciplined and kept in check by Party Rules, Regulations and Politiks; and kept under a tight leash by the 'Super Elite' Group.
The 'SELECTED GROUP' of CADRE MEMBERS are picked from the larger pool of ORDINARY MEMBERSHIPS, and again vetted and approved by a Select Committee, whose membership are carefully chosen by the 'SUPER ELITE' Group.
The entire process is to weed out those who are assessed to be the 'fence sitter', the 'mentally weak', the 'uncommitted', the 'fraudulent', the 'shallow and unthinking', the 'flippant', the 'deviants', the 'controversial', the 'risky'.
The objective is to ensure tight control of POLITICS by the those at the Top of the Political Heap, who will not tolerate dissension from the Bottom, and loose control of the process by anyone or all at the Bottom of the Pile.
It reflects a lack of maturity, respect, trust, and confidence by those at the TOP, towards those at the BOTTOM. -
Double Post
-
One of the things in that article that sticks out is that the Democrats are usually the recipient of the donkey vote: they get in not on the strengths of their platform, but by virtue of the voters having had enough of the Republicans. Once the public get over their nausea, they go back to voting Republican.
What, then does that imply for the Singaporean political scene? Are we to vote for another government simply because we do not want the incumbents there? What happens if the new government actually leaves us worse off?
God forbid that I am advocating blind support for the PAP, but I have seen it happen in Australia at the state level (and some would argue at the national level), and the results have been disastrous. At the same time, I engineered such a campaign at university during my undergraduate days, and while the new council had the best of intentions, they failed to employ the political savvy that I urged them to do the moment the election results came out. As a result, they lost the next year and never achieved anything of real value.
Beware the donkey vote, folks. -
As much as the Democrats are given the symbol of the Donkey, the Republicans have theirs as the Elephant.
What a competition between the stubborn and jack-ass attitude of the Donkey, and the clumsy and bloated 'long nose' of the Elephant that symbolises the antics of Pinochio's long nose too.
Little wonder that with Nixon came 'Watergate' and his effort to cover up, and now we are wondering if George W Bush has also something to hide with his efforts in Iraq.
When Singapore became self-governing, it was as much a gamble for Singaporeans to place a vote for a young, upstart, outspoken and POLITICALLY UNTESTED lawyer (in the character of LKY), who was able to take on the might of the Colonial Government of the British Empire.
It is a gamble that older Singaporeans took in LKY and his team, as there was little to lose, and very much to gain - INDEPENDENCE.
Given the Political and Economic Climate in Singapore today, does Singaporeans have much to lose, if we take a gamble with a New A-Team of Men with suitable qualification and ability ?
It will be INDEPENDENCE of the Singapore Citizens - from Top Down Interference in every aspect of the Singaporean's Rights to be involve in Politics, Economics, Social and Cultural activities.
At present, those who govern us, do so through a subordinate team of qualified and obedient Singaporean Civil Servants - all of whom merely execute the orders from the Executive.
These are the same experienced and qualified people who will be in place to execute the orders of a New A-Team of Political Executives, should one take the center stage.
All the dissuasive talk of Opposition Parties lacking experience and the possibilities of bankrupting Singapore, is nothing but Third World Politics at play, to scare the purposefully made BLANK minds of the politically disaffected and uneducated Singaporean.
Every able and qualified person, who dare to stand up against the might of the Ruling Party, should be given a chance to prove his value in contributing to the Political Debate for the good of Singapore.
The previous generation that lived through the early 1950's had accepted the challenges in taking a gamble against the oppressive authority and might of the Colonial Office of the British Empire.
Will this generation of the Twenty-First Century have less gumption to take a chance for their own Future, by supporting those Qualified and Able Persons - who will dare to put themselves up to challenge the presumed perpetual authority of the Ruling Party ? -
ATOBE,
are u frm the 20th century batch of Singaporeans i.e. Gen M, or frm the 21st Century batch of Singaporeans i.e. Gen X?
perhaps, if u r frm GEN X, u could be the one to stand up for SIngapore, eh?
the curious pikamaster -
Atobe, you'll have to pardon my ignorance - I've just returned after 10 years away. Which particular qualified and able persons are you talking about and could you give me a brief background on them?
-
Seen the actions of the 'Gen M' and transition into 'Gen X'.Originally posted by pikamaster:ATOBE,
are u frm the 20th century batch of Singaporeans i.e. Gen M, or frm the 21st Century batch of Singaporeans i.e. Gen X?
perhaps, if u r frm GEN X, u could be the one to stand up for SIngapore, eh?
the curious pikamaster
Sounds tempting but as mentioned in my postings in other topics, one has to build a base and build the ground.
It is a process that has to be passed before a decision is made.
In the meanwhile, it will suffice if we can give morale support to the existing Singaporeans, who dare to stand up to the stifling politics of the Ruling Party. -
Any SINGAPOREAN, whom the Election Commission has approved as being a qualified candidate to stand for Election in any Election Constituency.Originally posted by Gedanken:Atobe, you'll have to pardon my ignorance - I've just returned after 10 years away. Which particular qualified and able persons are you talking about and could you give me a brief background on them?
If we do not have the courage to risk our own career, the least we can do for ourselves, is to support those Singaporeans, who will sacrifice their personal well being for the sake of improving the Political Environment in Singapore.
Ability of a Candidate can only be judged when one is elected.
The present two Opposition Members of Parliament were both derided by propaganda from the Ruling Party - prior to and during the Elections.
Cynical remarks were brought to a boil, to question the abilities of the Opposition Candidates to manage their constituencies in any effective ways. Questions were also raised as to their capacities to make changes for the improvement of their respective constituents, when they do not have any dominating presence in Singapore Politics, nor influence over the affairs of the various Ministries and Statutory Boards.
Yet, Mr Chiam has survived three elections and remained supported by his constituents, and Mr Low has been returned in two elections by his constituents. -
i did not say that one does not need to build up a base and build the ground. Clearly, you have to stand up for a base, or else who are you standing up against?Originally posted by Atobe:Seen the actions of the 'Gen M' and transition into 'Gen X'.
Sounds tempting but as mentioned in my postings in other topics, one has to build a base and build the ground.
It is a process that has to be passed before a decision is made.
In the meanwhile, it will suffice if we can give morale support to the existing Singaporeans, who dare to stand up to the stifling politics of the Ruling Party.
btw, who are the existing Singaporeans who can stand up to the stifling politics of the Ruling Party?
If you are talking abt Steve Chia, prhaps, but then his recent scandal...
If you are talking about Dr CHee Soon Juan, he is fine, but he does go overboard sometimes.
If you are talking about Low Thia Kiang, He is nothing but a major boring. Listening him speak in Parliament made me fall asleep, same like the other ministers.
If you are talking about SYlvia Lim, that remains to be seen.
If you are talking abotout JBJ, i'll have to agree that he should have more support.
the pikamaster -
The base that I had referred to, is the strong foundation to form a Political Party - which will include finance, administration, management, information - intelligence, expertise in every department that allow a Political Party to form a 'Shadow Government in Waiting'.Originally posted by pikamaster:i did not say that one does not need to build up a base and build the ground. Clearly, you have to stand up for a base, or else who are you standing up against?
btw, who are the existing Singaporeans who can stand up to the stifling politics of the Ruling Party?
If you are talking abt Steve Chia, prhaps, but then his recent scandal...
If you are talking about Dr CHee Soon Juan, he is fine, but he does go overboard sometimes.
If you are talking about Low Thia Kiang, He is nothing but a major boring. Listening him speak in Parliament made me fall asleep, same like the other ministers.
If you are talking about SYlvia Lim, that remains to be seen.
If you are talking abotout JBJ, i'll have to agree that he should have more support.
the pikamaster
The Platform for a Political Party is easy enough to formulate.
Concerning the question of who are the 'able and qualified' persons in Singapore that one can count on, I recall quite a few Singaporean names, who were outspoken enough during the early 1980s and even into the 1990s, but some were made targets of political opportunity, and given examplary political treatment by LKY and the ISD.
The Internal Security Act was used against some of them, they were imprisoned for a short period, and subsequently put on restraining orders that prevent them from participation in Politics - as a condition for their release.
There are other personalities, some of whom are lawyers, medical specialists - in public and private practices, lecturers, writers, chartered accountants, and entrepreneurs.
In private, many are outspoken in their views of the POLITICS practised by the Ruling Party, but most will be quite prudent and judicious with their views AND attitudes in public - so as not to jeopardise their own well being in Singapore.
Everyone in Singapore seems to be waiting for a respectable team of personalities - with good credentials - to offer themselves and their program as an alternative to that being offered as a fait accompli by the Ruling Party to the frustrated population.
Those few Opposition names that you have mentioned should be given more morale and pro-active support by Singaporeans.
Those who can contribute with effort, or time, or finance, should do so according to one's ability.
Those who cannot respect the sacrifices made by these Opposition Personalities - and deem such Opposition Persons to be foolish - can still engage them in educational debate.
Other Singaporeans who are educated, can assist the Opposition Parties with research and intelligence work, data processing, or in administrative and management work in the areas of Party Finances (Fund Management to grow the Party Finances), Education of Members in the Legal and Political Processes, Developing the Intellectual Strength of the Opposition Members through vigorous debates, and involvement into any other activities that can help the Opposition Parties to contribute effectively to the Political Process for the good of Singapore and Singaporeans. -
Truth be told, if I were in CST's constituency, I would vote for him. I have to admit that, as a lad years ago when I first saw him on television, his presentation did not particularly impress me. However, in my opinion he has earned his place on Singapore's political scene.Originally posted by Atobe:Any SINGAPOREAN, whom the Election Commission has approved as being a qualified candidate to stand for Election in any Election Constituency.
If we do not have the courage to risk our own career, the least we can do for ourselves, is to support those Singaporeans, who will sacrifice their personal well being for the sake of improving the Political Environment in Singapore.
Ability of a Candidate can only be judged when one is elected.
The present two Opposition Members of Parliament were both derided by propaganda from the Ruling Party - prior to and during the Elections.
Cynical remarks were brought to a boil, to question the abilities of the Opposition Candidates to manage their constituencies in any effective ways. Questions were also raised as to their capacities to make changes for the improvement of their respective constituents, when they do not have any dominating presence in Singapore Politics, nor influence over the affairs of the various Ministries and Statutory Boards.
Yet, Mr Chiam has survived three elections and remained supported by his constituents, and Mr Low has been returned in two elections by his constituents.
If the ability of a candidate can only be judged once he or she is elected, we have a bit of a conundrum here. We would ideally vote candidates in on our perception of their ability levels, but we would only find that out after we voted them in.
We are thus left to make our decisions based upon the reflection that candidates present of their ability, not of the actual ability level itself. Therein lies the problem. With what fellows of the likes of Chee Soon Juan present to the public, is it any wonder that they get scoffed at? As for JBJ, with his publications about LKY, one might be forgiven for thinking that old Josh is more interested in evening the score with Harry than with the welfare of the nation.
Like it or not, the incumbents, over and above the benefits reaped from being in a position to demonstrate their level of ability, present a much more competent image than do the opposition members. Note that the last statement was couched in relative terms. The implication is that if the opposition could present itself as being more competent than the incumbents, they might stand a chance of swinging the vote (controlling for other errant factors, of course). Perhaps they could also work upon formulating a stronger platform, and also by presenting a strong and united front - power struggles within the parties only detract from their image of strength. -
It is unfortunate but in the Election Process, the candidates will have to employ 'MARKETING' strategies to succeed in attracting the electorate and winning their confidence and their votes.
It is also unfortunate that unlike in the commercial environment, in which Market Forces strikes a relative balance that will eventually take place, this does not exist in Singapore POLITICS - for reasons that are already quite well known.
Dr Chee Soon Juan (CSJ) and 'Old Josh' (JBJ) were both seen - by the reknown telescopic vision of the 'Old King' - to be in position to threaten the serene environment of paved succession for the 'Prince', and his continued paved Political Life; and these two had to be dealt with from the beginning.
CSJ is a trained Psychologist, and had involved himself in researches on the psychological stress of children in our high pressure education environment. He had also involved himself in other areas of community activities, by giving his specialist services.
With data collected from first hand studies-research work in the Singapore communities, his thoughts - expressed in his books - are quite clear, concerning the Singapore malaise that is caused by on-going policies of the present Government in existent for the last 40 years (from the pre-independence days of Internal Self-Rule), and the potential harm that the policies can bring if continued.
He had offered reasonable solutions in his books that seems to have been quietly adopted by the Government some ten years after the books were written. Try reading one of his books - "Your Future, My Faith, Our Freedom".
'Old Josh' must be forgiven if he has an axe to grind, having been 'cheated' of his seat in Parliament.
He had been charged on a 'technical point' of accounting of contributions towards Party Funds, and had first been discharged by a District Court Judge - (whose eminent career was suddenly downgraded for this single decision) - and subsequently found guilty by another.
'Old Josh' was challenged by the 'Old King' to appeal to the highest court and if successful, the 'Old King' will personally see to it that a Presidential Pardon will be given.
Unfortunately for the 'Old King', the highest court of appeal in Singapore - during the 1980s - was the House of Lords in the English Parliament - (which was purposefully retained by the Singapore Government, so as to allow a measure for the quality of the Justice System in Singapore).
The House of Lords reviewed the case that was presented before it, and confirmed that the decision of the demoted District Judge was correct, and that 'Old Josh' should not have been subsequently found guilty. The House of Lords decision was based on the technical and legal interpretations of the Laws that governed this case.
Disgracefully, the 'Old King' dismissed the findings of the House of Lords, claiming that they are living in a world away from Singapore, and have no inkling of Life in Singapore; the Singapore Parliament soon passed a bill making the House of Lords irrelevant to the Justice System in Singapore - (suddenly, there seems no longer a need for any further qualitative measure of the Singapore Justice).
Unfortunately for 'Old Josh' - the promise of a Presidential Pardon was no longer available, as the 'Old King' deemed the House of Lords decision as irrelevant due to their inability to understand the Singapore environment.
CSJ had a fairly reasonable Alternative Program but his youthful exuberance and slow learning curve in Singapore Politics cost him the time lost.
'Old Josh' simply had to get his Worker's Party to enter Parliament, just to break the monopoly of the Ruling Party and give a counter balance in political debate in Parliament - (a threat that LKY had seen, and need to quash 'an environment in which time is wasted in endless debates in Parliament, without the job being done').
In the haste of 'getting the job done', we are now experiencing the effects of hasty decisions made twenty years ago - from birth control, unbalanced reliance on MNCs, education policies geared towards economic program in currency, the dominance of GLCs at the expense of SMEs to form a supporting base, the enthusiastically pursued URA Land Pricing Policy that provide regular windfalls into the Treasury (just to name a few).
The Government had blindly ignored all the warnings from the alternative voices over the last twenty years, all of which were derided as disgruntled voices common in any political environment.
Can we afford to continue to have an environment of Political Monopoly by a single Political Party that allow hasty policies to be passed, and tinkering of the policies as the years passed ?
Can we afford to allow the Political Future to be in the hands of ONE Political Party ?
Can we depend on a SINGLE Political Party to be in a position to continuously produce Able Leaders ?
Is the Welfare of Singapore best served in the current form ? -
If you think you are that capable, why don't you stand up and form a political party? It will be interesting to see how many people in singapore have the same kind of mindset as you.
-
Patience - is the keyword.Originally posted by CenturionMBT:If you think you are that capable, why don't you stand up and form a political party?
Calmness in thought - is a pre-requisite.
Perseverence - is the hallmark
Thorough Preparation - is strength
It depends on who you meet, and how you present yourself.It will be interesting to see how many people in singapore have the same kind of mindset as you.
From a broad cross-section of Singapore communities, at all different income levels, different types and intensity of political disaffection exist, with varying degrees of sophistication in expression or articulation of their existing plights.
It depends very much on how you prefer to open your mind to listen, absorb, review, compare, and analyse what you have gathered; but more importantly how all these relate to your own position, principles, beliefs, and plans. -
Opposition parties need to learn to play The Party's game a little better, while this will not ensure them sucess, it will give them a lot more leverage to get their points across the the general populace.
One can shell The Party's apparent flaws in policy and rigging of the elections to turn out in their favour, but wars are won in the big picture. Such direct confrontation againsts a larger and stronger foe who holds all the cards will not end nicely for the opposition mice. Oddly, while they reconize that the elections are rigged, they are not really coming up with any tatics to get around them the best they can.
While they all have their points to make, the scattered rabble of the oppositions lacks the actual resources and manpower to take on the might of The Party,
Of course, even the very term "opposition" is subtle propangada, any form of though against The Party's rule is considered Opposition, not Alternatives... Hence anybody against the holy cannonized Party can be considered as a heretic and hence be burned at stake. Also, The Party has done a good job of convincing everyone that nobody can do the job better, and yet at the same time stubbornly insist on holding all the cards that give them that very advantage, the ability to shift the odds in their favour so overwhemingly that any upstart coming into the scene has virtually nothing to work on.
It is sad that a large number of us have fallen into the trap of judging political members by character cults, and not if they actually make sense or not. Many miss the blunders The Party is making now blinded by it's past achievements. Considering how strict The Party's way of working is, where past achievements mean for nothing once you screw up, it is amazing how this same principal does not apply to them as a party.
Of course, when the upstart makes any comments on The Party and is found to be wrong about his facts, he can be sued till his is pratically destroyed. When The Party is found to be in the wrong, despite all the information they have at hand, it is an "honest" mistake. Scacred cows of the common people are the first to be culled when the going gets bad while they have shown a distinct distaste for doing anything outside their comfort zone.
Go figure. -
There's one thing I've just noticed about the posts in this thread, mine included. All this time we've been talking about opposition members versus The Party, not opposition parties versus The Party.
While we do have individual opposition members who do slip past The Party's defences, are there enough credible opposition members, pulling together in the same direction, to form the critical mass required for a party, rather than individuals, to present a challenge to The Party? -
Thankfully you seem to be the best person to notice this event.Originally posted by Gedanken:There's one thing I've just noticed about the posts in this thread, mine included. All this time we've been talking about opposition members versus The Party, not opposition parties versus The Party.
While we do have individual opposition members who do slip past The Party's defences, are there enough credible opposition members, pulling together in the same direction, to form the critical mass required for a party, rather than individuals, to present a challenge to The Party?
Although there have been some efforts to avoid referring to personalities, and focus on a general term - that of the Opposition, somehow the critical and cynical comments towards the Opposition Party seems to center on the performance of those few individual personalities from the Opposition
ST's post above, preceding yours, is an effort in this direction.
The critical mass do exist in Singapore Society.
Unfortunately the manner in which POLITICS as practised by the Ruling Party has disheartened many - especially amongst the Professionals, who prefer to succumb to the Ruling Party's Political Philosophy of 'Filling the Stomach, and Dull the Mind'.
This 'Political Philosophy' and the threat of 'Robust Politics' practised in a 'One-Way Low Tolerance' by the Ruling Party does not help in creating a better political environment for Singapore.
POLITICS govern all aspects of Life in Singapore, and so far is claimed as the exclusive turf of the Ruling Party. Its political interest is protected and fought with much fervour, similar to the fights over territorial claims of the various triad gangs in Singapore. If one is to take a cynical view of current events, the Government - (with its various Revenue Collection and Security Apparatus) - have now replaced the activities of the Triads.
We still 'pay and obey' for our own protection and for a secure environment.
Will professionals and educated Singaporeans - (accustomed to the gracious and finer material living in Life) - be prepared to make sacrifices to enter the rough and tumble world of POLITICS, with an uncertain outcome ?
Dr Chee Soon Juan was one of the few young professionals who dared and paid a heavy price for his decision - partly perhaps due to his political immaturity, lack of being streetsmart, and more importantly the lack of professional organisational support in the SDP.
Mr Chiam (a Lawyer) had also experienced the sharp ridicule from LKY during election campaign, and had failed as many times as CSJ did in as many elections. Mr Chiam got into Parliament from a massive sympathetic vote that was in reaction to LKY's public ridicule of Mr Chiam's poor 'O' Level results.
Mr Chiam and Mr Low are currently the two Opposition Members in Parliament, both will certainly need more of their Party Members to be elected into Parliament to provide them with the necessary support on issues tabled by the Opposition in Parliament. -
I agree.
Ever since the people voted in The Party and handed rule of the nation over to them, the common Singaporean has never got it back since. So many policies have crept in subtly, to slowly choke off this right to a level that can be controlled by The Party.
The recent years since the establishment of "Political Fortress Singapore" has allowed and increasing boldness of slapping the Singaporean in the face with tactless, ham-fisted, knee-jerk, top-heavy policies.
This is greatly indicative on how public opinion had turned from an avenue to be taken seriously has been robbed of it's potency in a "demo-crazy" to become nothing more then the cries of children under the care of The Nanny which are to be treated as nothing more then an annoyance.
So much so to the point many Singaporeans have deluded themselves that any outcry against the rule of The Party must be put down immediately as deviant as these people have apparently forgotten that self-expression and free speech, or even the basic sense to make reasoned arguments, is viewed as "rocking the boat" by questioning the Great Nanny Party and the wonderful works they have done for us.
Opposition, from civillian or political quarters, are treated not as opinion, but as children who dare to rebel against the Nanny and hence should be disciplined.
It's sad that some normal Singaporeans think that they are doing Singapore and her people a favour by putting down these deviants themselves, and hence become part of the system that tries to deflate the critical mass. However, The Party may have stepped over a critical mass themselves as they may have overextended themselves in milking the Singaporean cow recently, if the rising indepedent and non-party liner political opinion on the street is to be noticed.
One wonder if a Party that deludes itself that most of the people is firmly on their side, (when 70 percent of them can't even get a chance to vote thanks to the "incentives" for fielding alternative political opinion in the elections), actually still believes that.
I wonder if they are actually willing to hold real elections where each and every Singaporean has a say, and remove all the Opposition handicaps that hamstring their own efforts to effect change in Singapore (and hence allowing The Party to accuse them of not being credible), while I suspect they may still remain in Power, given we still have little alternative choices, they would realize that their position might not be as unassilable as they have deluded themselves into assuming. -
While the USA has a truly democratic process, in which the Citizens are INVOLVED in the ACTUAL PROCESS of selecting their hopefuls as Presidential Candidates, Singapore's political process does not trust the judgment of the Singapore Citizens.
The selection of a Singapore Leader is conducted in secrecy and behind close doors, to be annointed by 'God' himself, acting as the Father - who will select his Son, while the Holy Gohst will give his limited holy blessings.
The current change that will require the Future Prime Minister to be elected by his own 'parliamentary peers' - seems to be determined after the fact, with the aim of giving the annointed some political legitimacy.
J.B.J comments on PAP MPs selecting PM
(Think Centre)
10 February 2004 by J.B.Jeyaretnam
Please spare us this shananigan that the PAP MPs are going to select the next Prime Minister.
I see that the PAP are now planning a shenanigan for Mr. Lee Hsien Loong's succession as Prime Minister after I asked Mr. Goh Chok Tong to clarify his remarks to CNN.
Until Goh was questioned about the succession in the CNN interview, Singaporeans had been told in no uncertain terms that Mr. Lee Hsien Loong would be the next Prime Minister. It had all been arranged.
Goh was going to step down before the next elections and Lee Hsien Loong would take over. Now, after I questioned Goh, we are told "Oh no, PAP MPs are going to select the next Prime Minister".
It is just another show that the PAP are so good at putting up to hide the truth.
We do not need any more shows about Lee Hsien Loong becoming the Prime Minister.
Goh told CNN that Singaporeans had to accept "that the Lees are controlling Singapore." So Singaporeans have to accept that the Lee family decides who is to be the next Prime Minister.
Please spare us this shananigan that the PAP MPs are going to select the next Prime Minister.
signed
J.B.Jeyaretnam
9th February 2004 -
Originally posted by Atobe:
While the USA has a truly democratic process, in which the Citizens are INVOLVED in the ACTUAL PROCESS of selecting their hopefuls as Presidential Candidates, Singapore's political process does not trust the judgment of the Singapore Citizens.
The selection of a Singapore Leader is conducted in secrecy and behind close doors, to be annointed by 'God' himself, acting as the Father - who will select his Son, while the Holy Gohst will give his limited holy blessings.
The current change that will require the Future Prime Minister to be elected by his own 'parliamentary peers' - seems to be determined after the fact, with the aim of giving the annointed some political legitimacy.
[b]J.B.J comments on PAP MPs selecting PM
(Think Centre)
10 February 2004 by J.B.Jeyaretnam
Please spare us this shananigan that the PAP MPs are going to select the next Prime Minister.
I see that the PAP are now planning a shenanigan for Mr. Lee Hsien Loong's succession as Prime Minister after I asked Mr. Goh Chok Tong to clarify his remarks to CNN.
Until Goh was questioned about the succession in the CNN interview, Singaporeans had been told in no uncertain terms that Mr. Lee Hsien Loong would be the next Prime Minister. It had all been arranged.
Goh was going to step down before the next elections and Lee Hsien Loong would take over. Now, after I questioned Goh, we are told "Oh no, PAP MPs are going to select the next Prime Minister".
It is just another show that the PAP are so good at putting up to hide the truth.
We do not need any more shows about Lee Hsien Loong becoming the Prime Minister.
Goh told CNN that Singaporeans had to accept "that the Lees are controlling Singapore." So Singaporeans have to accept that the Lee family decides who is to be the next Prime Minister.
Please spare us this shananigan that the PAP MPs are going to select the next Prime Minister.
signed
J.B.Jeyaretnam
9th February 2004
[/b]
but honestly , unless the opo comes up with something to convince us that they have the ability to lead if not i don't think they'll win, all i've seen so far are clowns, i don't even know the name of the oposition party and i'm not even going to bother to find out if they continue to carry on like this -
How can you call someone 'A Clown', who has the courage to put himself up as a Candidate to be elected into Parliament ?Originally posted by oldbreadstinks:
but honestly , unless the opo comes up with something to convince us that they have the ability to lead if not i don't think they'll win, all i've seen so far are clowns, i don't even know the name of the oposition party and i'm not even going to bother to find out if they continue to carry on like this
It is not the Opposition Candidates that need to come up with something to convince the Electorates that they are of the right stuff; but it is the Singapore Citizens to decide for themselves what is the Right Stuff for the type of Opposition that they want ?
Do Singaporeans have any clue as to what standards are they looking for in an Opposition Candidate, or is their idea of the desired standards being set by the Ruling Party ?
Do we need the Ruling Party to even teach us how to think, so as to select the right sparring partner for them in Parliament ?
Are Singaporeans setting their own Agenda for Singapore's Future, or have Singaporeans left their Agenda open to be set by the Ruling Party ?