As expected, the media's coverage of the NUS Forum - GE 2006 Post-Mortem - is inept, terrible, and inaccurate. It paints a skewed picture of what actually took place at Guild House last night.
I will try as much as I can to recall and offer my own report here.
Catherine Lim kicked off the forum with her characteristic lively and enthusiastic account of two fictional stories. I will not recount the details of the two stories here but the point of her speech , as far as I can gather, is this: If the govt lets go enough, the people will wise up, and be able to see what is in their own interest.
Speaking after Catherine Lim was Perry Tong of the WP. His speech dwelled on what the WP has done and what it will be doing in future, how the WP perceived the elections.
Dr Chee Soon Juan spoke next. He started off with a rather good joke.. "I hadn't been able to sleep for a few days after the elections. I tried counting sheep to help me get to sleep...but even then, I couldn't...cos even the sheep were all in white... (the audience broke out in laughter and applause) And there were all these running dogs around them, trying to keep the sheep in line and not allowing them to stray..." (Audience broke out in laugher again...)
Dr Chee then proceeded to his speech proper. He gave the second longest speech last night (Denise Phua's speech was the longest - more than half an hour although the chair had informed the pannelists that each had only 10 to 12 minutes). Anyway, Dr Chee's focussed on why he and the SDP did not approve of the elections because of certain thinsgw hich happened behind the scenes.
It was rather revealing to hear him give exmaples of such 'political manoeuvrings' by the PAP govt. For example: Govt officials had paid the SDP contractors, who were supposed to put up their rally stage, a visit on the very same morning when the SDP was to hold its first rally. The contractors then told the SDP that they could no longer do the work of putting up their stage. The SDP then had to find a new contractor to do the work. His main thrust was the media - and how it skewed several incidents to paint the SDP in a bad light.
One example Dr Chee gave was the picture of him with reporters outside his office. He had given the media a full 5 minutes of his time answering their questions then, and photographers snapped away at him for that full 5 minutes. "Now, 5 minutes to a photographer is an eternity", Chee said. "But what did we see the next day in the papers?" He put up a picture on the projector and showed everyone the picture. "It looks as though I am trying to run away from answering their questions although I had been answering them for a full 5 minutes!"
He went on to show pictures of how the SDP was given skewed coverage by the media. Dr Chee offerred that there cannot be legitimacy to elections in singapore if the govt continues to engage in such acts of misrepresentation and misinformation.
Next was Prof Ho Khai Leong. He started off by saying that he is very disappointed by the elections, and called for several reforms focussing on the PAP itself, the media and the electoral process, and also called for municipal, local elections to be seriously considered.
On the PAP, he suggested (in very strong terms, in fact) that internal reforms are needed. He criticised the need to have the offices of SM & MM. These creates illegitimacy for the PM. "Who is really in charge of the govt? The PM should be the one who is in charge of everything - including winning back Potong Pasir and Hougang." (Audience laughed and clapped)
Prof Ho also criticised the manner in which the GRCs allowed new candidates to be helicoptered in to office. He questioned the bond and the legitimacy of MPs who hides behind one main minister to win an election. "You are not voting for the new MP but voting for the main MP, who is a minister."
Calling for the govt to seriously consider holding municipal, local elections, he said that this will free up MPs to be legislators at the national level, and local elections will be for representatives who will handle local municipal issues. He reiterated that MPs should not be bogged down with matters such as lift upgrading, covered walkways or writing letters to depts on behalf of residents.
Last to speak was Denise Phua. She spent a good part of her speech relating her own personal experiences and why she chose to join the PAP. She explained that she had gone from being 'anti-establishment to being in the establishment' and how her friends and family were surprised.
Ms Phua speaks well, articulates her words clearly and came across as a genuinely caring person. It is quite apparent that she is passionate about her work with autistic children. However, that is why it is also with a bit of sadness that she was 'arrowed' to represent the PAP in such a forum. Clearly out of her depth, she struggled to explain PAP policies and attitudes. Mostly, she repeated the oft-heard official PAP lines - although she did call herself a 'non-conformist' at one point.
She focussed her speech on her own personal analysis of the GE and came to the conclusion that, although some things need to be looked at, the elections was a good one for the PAP and delivered a good result for them.
Ms Phua gave a long speech and the restlessness of the audience became apparent towards the end of it. To be fair to her, being a first-time politician and being arrowed to represent her party, she did her best not to stray from her party line.
From sammyboy's forum posted by Pmonkey10