A credible and effective opposition: Part II

Thursday, 09 July 2009

Singapore Democrats

In the first part of this post, we listed out the criteria by which Singaporeans say they measure the credibility of an opposition party, chiefly that the opposition must: One, be able to propose credible alternative ideas; two, speak up on issues that matter to the people; three, ask the hard and necessary questions; four, not become dormant in between elections; and five, foster opposition unity.

As we have spoken at length on the first two criteria (see here and here), we will not dwell on them in this post. Instead, we focus on the latter three measures and examine how we strive to live up to our own expectations as well as those of our fellow Singaporeans.

Asking the hard questions

One of the most important roles of an opposition is to check the government and hold it accountable. A checks and balance system is one of the key strengths of the democratic system.

Without a strong opposition to ask the hard and necessary questions, the government is not compelled to reveal information crucial to the public. Left on its own, no ruling party will volunteer information. Transparency is the casualty.

In this regard the Singapore Democrats have not been found wanting. We have consistently been asking the hard and necessary questions on various issues.

Take for example, the acquisition of Shin Corp to the strategy of promoting Singapore as a tax haven to our ill-advised investments in Western banks where billions of dollars have been lost.

But because the SDP is not represented in Parliament, we are unable to pose such important questions to the Government and hold its feet to the fire. As a result the ruling party has been able to get away with much.

This is why the PAP goes all out, fair means or foul, to ensure that the Singapore Democrats are prevented from getting into Parliament. http://www.singapore-window.org/sw01/011122a1.htm

Not dormant in between elections

The PAP has always accused the opposition of going to sleep in between elections and coming alive only to contest the polls. In other words, the PAP says, the opposition is lazy and incompetent.

Of course, it doesn't mention the myriad of rules and regulations the Government puts in place to ensure that opposition parties are prevented from actively engaging in the political arena in between elections.

Be that as it may, the Singapore Democrats have not allowed the obstacles to keep us inactive. Despite the PAP's best efforts, we have been doing everything we can to strengthen ourselves as well as to empower Singaporeans.

In the past, it was easy for the PAP and its media to paint the SDP in such negative light. With the advent of the Internet, however, such an underhanded tactic is harder to carry out successfully.

Our readers can attest to the fact that we have been organising campaigns or forums, visiting students, meeting with residents, doing research, and so on. We have posted these activities on this website to keep you updated.

Nonetheless, it is hard for our news to reach the wider public because the mainstream press continues to censor of much of what we do and say, leading Singaporeans to think negatively of the party. (See here)

In the spirit of the SDP, however, we will not let the adverse conditions defeat us. We have a mountain to climb but we will be resolute in overcoming the adversity and bringing democracy to our shores.

Calling for reform

In a one-party state like Singapore, must not bury its head in the sand and pretend as if we are operating in a democracy. Even though we will get knocked hard by the ruling, we must always sound the call for reform.

Failure does not come when we get knocked down, it comes when we give up trying. We must not give up trying to reform the system and fighting for our political freedoms. We don't have to this at the expense of bread-and-butter issues.

Surely the opposition can campaign on these two areas in tandem. After all, political rights and economic rights are two sides of the same coin. Talking about the latter while ignoring former is naive at best.

We need to teach the people how to fish instead of constantly asking the government to provide more fish. We need to empower the people and work for change so that the people become the masters, not remain as the PAP's servants.

Indeed the opposition must work towards bring about a system that encourages citizens to actively participate in the public process and one that allows them to vote freely and fairly.

Of course, championing reform will attract the wrath of the PAP. But if the opposition in an autocracy cannot call tell the emperor that he has no clothes, what good is it to the people.

Share this article:

Comments (27)

Fri 10 Jul 2009 7:08 AM | Simpang Bedok - Orwellian State a la 1984

Singapore is classic Orwellian State a la "1984". We been bombarded with info of the 60th anniversary of the book.

I don't it has anything to do with a credible and effective opposition at all. Time to reread George Orwell.

Fri 10 Jul 2009 5:40 PM | zah - Does it matter - credible and effective?

I agree with SK.

Situation so bad no point talking about credible and effective. Big Deal!

Fri 10 Jul 2009 6:40 PM | BryanT

Firstly, let me state that I agree with the article's point that the opposition must ask the hard questions.

Using the example of the Shin Corp saga, the article stated that as "the SDP is not represented in Parliament, [it was] unable to pose such important questions to the Government and hold its feet to the fire. As a result the ruling party has been able to get away with much." The allusion here is that without the SDP in parliament, the government was not properly questioned and held to account. This statement attempts to give the impression that only the SDP is capable of posing the so-called hard-questions.

Let's just take the Shin Corp example. The Hansard records that in parliament, Inderjit Singh, Alvin Yeoh, Sylvia Lim, Low Thia, Khiang and Cynthia Phua questioned the Finance Minister on the issue. Some may prefer to use the more crude word, "grilled". Personally, I was satisfied with the high quality and scope of questions posed. But let the fact speak for itself. These were the questions posed:

- Mr Inderjit Singh asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (a) if he will give an update to the House on Temasek Holdings' acquisition of Shin Corp of Thailand and the resulting problems with the deal; (b) whether the Government agrees with Temasek acquiring such a large percentage, of around 97%, of the strategic asset of another country; (c) whether Temasek abided by all of Thailand's rules and regulations; and (d) how much money has Temasek lost in the Shin Corp deal.

- Mr Inderjit Singh (Ang Mo Kio): Sir, would the Minister not agree that in making such acquisition, if Temasek or its companies being Government-linked, and making such strategic investments in countries, particularly in ASEAN neighbours, should they have been more careful and conscious about acquiring more than a certain percentage that will result in a general offer? At the end of the whole exercise with Temasek owning 96% of the strategic asset of Thailand, this seems to have created a lot of sensitivity in Thailand about Singapore Government trying to take control of the strategic asset. Should the Government or Ministry of Finance not give Temasek some guidelines so that in making acquisition, they do not cross the 25%, or any general offer limit, in any country that they make acquisition in?

- Mr Inderjit Singh: While I agree that we should make investments in Asia because there are tremendous opportunities for us to gain from such investments, does the Minister not agree that if you have $2 billion to invest, instead of investing $2 billion of that in 96% in one asset, should we not have invested in four assets of 25% each, diversifying the risks in one country versus $2 billion in one asset in one country and therefore increasing the risks tremendously for Temasek?

- Ms Sylvia Lim (Non-Constituency Member): Mr Speaker, I am wondering if the Minister could comment on whether the Government has any concerns about the quality of the advice that Temasek has received, particularly in this Shin deal, in assessing the political risk involved. Sir, even in the recovery phase, when we were told that Temasek will be setting up a representative office in Thailand, it was announced that they would be appointing an army general to work in our representative office only to be followed swiftly by a comment from the Crown Prince Office to say that this person is not a suitable person for such a post. I wonder if the Minister could comment on whether the Government is satisfied with the advice that Temasek has received as far as managing the political risk is concerned.

- Mr Alvin Yeo asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance in relation to Temasek's investment in Shin Corporation which has caused a considerable stir in Thailand, whether the Government agrees with such an investment and is satisfied that the necessary due diligence was carried out and no laws were broken in respect of the transaction.

- Mr Low Thia Khiang (Hougang): Sir, the Second Minister for Finance always talks about "due process". Can he elaborate further as to what due process Temasek Holding has gone through in this particular investment, in particular, the political risk assessment, because there were ground sentiments brewing in Thailand before the decision to purchase?

- Mdm Cynthia Phua (Aljunied): Mr Speaker, Sir, the ground is very concerned about the real loss and not the paper loss. Can the Minister clarify, under the Stock Exchange of Thailand's rules and regulations, whether Shin Corporation need to sell the shares above the takeover holdings quantum or the company can continue to hold the 97%, because that will affect whether it is a real loss or a paper loss?

The many questions were posed and answers duly given as what we expect to happen in Parliament. Within the confines of a parliament debate, I believe they were comprehensive at both ends, and pretty civil at that too. The last point is semi-important because I would seriously warn against reverting to the antic-filled days of JBJ's tribulations in parliament.

The questions now is this: Was the quality of parliament debate affected by SDP's absence? I leave the readers to form their opinions.

Note: the link to the above debate in Hansard is here:

http://www.parliament.gov.sg/parlweb/get_highlighted_content.jsp?docID=40114&hlLevel=Terms&links=SHIN,CORP&hlWords=%20shin%20corps%20&hlTitle=&queryOption=1&ref=http://www.parliament.gov.sg:80/reports/public/hansard/section/20061114/20061114_S0004.html#1

Sat 11 Jul 2009 2:42 AM | Seelan Palay - re: Does it matter - credible and effective?

[quote=zah]I agree with SK.

Situation so bad no point talking about credible and effective. Big Deal![/quote]

I can't believe you're coming to the SDP site, registering so many nicknames and actually replying to yourself to make it seem like there are more people agreeing with your opinion.

Sat 11 Jul 2009 6:37 AM | quantum

MPs dont just go to parliament to ask questions, they go to parliament to votes. Only 2 MPs have the power to vote independently.

Sat 11 Jul 2009 7:13 AM | Kai Xiong

BryanT,

So, where's the part about Singapore positioning itself as a tax haven to attract money?

And what are those antics Mr JB Jeyaretnam you so disapprove of? That which dissidents and opposition supporters revere him for, so much so a national petition was circulated for the naming of a professional chair and scholarship fund after the man, of which NMPs past and former together with civil society leaders are signatories?

What are you to decide what good parliamentary conduct is? We, Singaporeans have discerning eyes. Grant us a free and fair electoral process and let the process weed out unsuitable candidates.

Or do you believe us common people are too dumb to choose, and therefore need to be [i]guided[/i] appropriately (some may say whipped)?

Sat 11 Jul 2009 7:34 AM | Robox

Re: [color=red]"The allusion here is that without the SDP in parliament, the government was not properly questioned and held to account."[/color]

Note that the questions asked in Parliament in the Shin Corp debate is largely about the one thing that is closest to the hearts of a majority of Singaporeans, namely, MONEY; hardly surprising then that it would have provoked some semblance of a real debate.

But would you universalize the asking of those hard questions in that debate to ALL debates in the Singapore Parliament and on a diversity of issues? If you do, please provide the evidence here as you have so diligently done with the Shin Corp debate.

Having followed not only the articles on public affairs but even the court cases that the SDP has been embroiled in, I believe that the SDP has thus far asked the hardest of questions of any political party in Singapore.

Yes, I do read widely.

Sat 11 Jul 2009 6:24 PM | Robox - To BryanT

There is another angle that I would like to address the issue that you have raised, and for easy reference, it is once again this:

Re: [color=red]"The allusion here is that without the SDP in parliament, the government was not properly questioned and held to account. This statement attempts to give the impression that only the SDP is capable of posing the so-called hard-questions."[/color]

There are several ways that I can debate this allegation that you have made of the SDP, though I will do so only with specific reference to the Shin Corp debate at this time.

To prove yourself right you can prove that the voices that we already have in Parliament have asked enough of the sufficiently hard questions that are necessary of true debate.

You have in fact attempted to do that by citing Hansard.

Only.

You obviously feel that the voices already heard in Parliament - be they by the ruling party or by the 2 or 3 'opposition' voices in Parliament - have covered all the necessary aspects of the Shin Corp question and that there is nothing else left that might need to be uncovered about the Shin Corp issue by further hard questions.

There is a serious problem with that approach: it would only be reflective of your own [i]belief[/i] that enough of the sufficiently hard questions have already been asked in the Shin Corp issue. But belief (or even opinion that is not convincingly based on fact) unfortunately does not constitute proof; some of us Singaporeans have even harder questions to ask of the government.

Political parties in functioning democracies - and I hope that that is what you are trying to accomplish here with your criticisms - are organized along these lines: each party only puts forward a stand in the belief that their stand is the one that benefits ALL Singaporeans, or at worst, only the maximum number of Singaporeans who can benefit from that stand and all that entails.

I wish modern life were truly as simple as the days of the isolated mountain tribes that we all hail from as you seem to make it out to be, and that we all apparently yearn for more of that simplicity in defiance of the complexities that we are being confronted with in this day and age.

But I suggest to you that for a more complete proof than the one you provided, the onus is now on you to provide the following:

1. that without any voice in Parliament, the SDP has never addressed the Shin Corp issue - this website should contain the proof otherwise - and is therefore making an extravagantly false claims that only they are currently capable of asking the hard questions; or,

2. that even with proof from this website that the SDP has in fact taken up in the Shin Corp issue, they have added absolutely nothing that could have furthered the debate if they had had voices in Parliament - the evidence from Hansard that you have supplied us with would constitute the proof required for this particular aspect of my queries to you.

Sat 11 Jul 2009 6:21 PM | Seelan Palay

We should emphasize that there needs to a debate, not just a Q&A where MPs ask the government whether it agrees with the investment or can it comment. These are called "daisies" where backbenches plant questions for the ministers to hit it out of the park. Oldest trick in the book.

Then again take a look at the way JBJ handled it. Better yet, take a look at PM Questions in the UK Parliament, its all over on YouTube.

There were reports that LKY pushed LHL and Ho Ching into it. Do a search on this website for reports and articles.

Call for COI or GPC hearing. We're talking US$4 billion! Should some heads not roll? As a result of the timidity of MPs, Barclays, ML and UBS happened.

In the first place, there is no place for Temasek and GIC.

And why mention Shin Corp only. SIP? Sands? UBS/Bar/ML?

Sun 12 Jul 2009 4:24 AM | caterers - Opposition Unity Hardest Part

I suppose the elusive opposition unity is the hardest part. Really one wonders how the Malaysian opposition does it. Take heart, by the way things are going it would not be long before the SDP itself will lead some such opposition.Allah willing, even far better than the PR of Malaysia.

Sun 12 Jul 2009 5:15 AM | sanusijama - Self Censorship universal problem

James Gomez talking straight again: Self censorship affects us all: Singapore’s Shame...really hard to be really credible or effective, he thinks.
Dangerous to agree or disagree?

Sun 12 Jul 2009 7:45 AM | BryanT - Dear Robox

Robox, the onus is on SDP to justify its statement that "because the SDP is not represented in Parliament, [it was] unable to pose such important questions to the Government and hold its feet to the fire. As a result the ruling party has been able to get away with much."

My point was that SDP seemed to allude that since it was not given the opportunity, and even if others in parliament did question the government on Shin Corps, it eventually managed to get away with much.

I looked through the Hansard to check the quality of debate and whether adequate questions were posed to the Finance Minister. Obviously, the measure of adequacy and quality is subjective, but my opinion is that the correct questions were offered by a good mix of MPs/NMPs/NCMPs. Of course, as with most issues, more questions could have be posed. But I hope we'll all agree that parliamentary time is limited and there are many areas to cover.

As I said, the onus is on SDP to show why it thinks, based on this particular issue as an example, that the government "got away".

As to the question of whether I could "universalize the asking of those hard questions in that debate to ALL debates in the Singapore Parliament and on a diversity of issues?" I hope you won't mind if I reverse the question and ask what make SDP so adamant that it is the only party that can ask hard questions. Otherwise, it cannot assume others cannot sufficiently hold the government to account.

I disagree with you that this is proven by the quality of the articles on public affairs SDP has published on this website. Let me just cite a recent example - "ONUL acclaimed by local art critic". It was quite a stretch of imagination to assign artistic value to a political video, and then had almost the entire article cover the political comments of the artistic critic. You can see my comment there. As to the court cases that the SDP has been embroiled in, my comment is that it is generally unwise to practise asking hard political question in court, even if SDP desires to link the political and judicial spheres.
Zen!

Sun 12 Jul 2009 7:42 AM | BryanT - Seelan

I agree that the British parliamentary is more invigorating and I am usually quite impressed by their oratory skills peppered with wit and incisive thrusts. But alas, such skills are not universal among all parliamentarians around the world and definitely a shortcoming of most of the Singaporeans ones. I cringe when I heard some of them speak even when they are trying their best. But let's be fair, it's the case for most Singaporeans - we don't do our orals too well :)

Perhaps you'd allow me to correct your perception of the British parliament. The "debate" you were referring to was probably the "Prime Minister's Question Time". Let me quote the details -
the Prime Minister answers questions from MPs in the Commons for half an hour every Wednesday from 12pm. The session usually starts with a routine question from an MP about the Prime Minister's engagements. This is known as an 'open question' and means that the MP can then ask a supplementary question on any subject.

I agree that it can be very entertaining and exhiliratiing and hope that we can have this as well here in Sg. Sure would liven things up quite a bit.

Other than this, the British parliament is ALSO a boring Q&A drag whereby MPs send in questions beforehand as follows - Commons oral questions are tabled by MPs at least three days in advance of Question Time. The questions are then printed in the Commons Questions Book. The order in which the questions are asked is determined randomly by a computer. MPs who are called by the Speaker to ask their question do not read it out, but simply call out its number. When the government minister has replied, the MP can ask another question (known as a supplementary) and other MPs may also be called to ask supplementary questions.

As to your allegation of "daisies" where backbenches plant questions, I hope you can enlighten us or perhaps even show proof of this happening. Just because it's the oldest trick in the book is probably not a good deduction. It's like saying : it has been done elsewhere before, so it must be happening here.

Sun 12 Jul 2009 7:42 AM | BryanT - Dear Kai Xiong

Apologies but my ignorance extends to the "tax haven to attract money" that you mentioned. Perhaps you want to enlighten?

I didn't revere JBJ but respected him, especially for his guts and his energy (even in the later days). But my impression of his parliamentary performance was not high, with moments of ill-preparation and inappropriate aggression which are usually not conducive to good parliamentary debate. But alas, it seems that people (including the opposition)seems only belatedly to have recognised his contributions. It usually happens AFTER one has passed on. (god bless him)

Yes, I agree that Singaporeans have discerning eyes. But would you not agree that if the elections were indeed unfair and unfree, they should have discerned that as well. No, we were not too dumb to choose, and we did weed out the unsuitable candidates in sandals, clerks, etc. Frankly, I have not issue with people in sandals, but there is usually a need to inspire some confidence before he/she gets the votes. But I must add that my impression of the quality of opposition candidates has increased in recent years, even if it seems to have stagnated.

Sun 12 Jul 2009 6:35 PM | Seelan Palay - To BryanT

When I cited the British Parliament, it is not to highlight its members “oratory skills peppered with wit and incisive thrusts”. Far from it. MPs are elected by the people as their representatives to the legislature. But in Singapore what we have is a parliament in which most of its members are there without being voted in by the electorate.

Parliament is a place for MPs to articulate the aspirations and expectations of the people. It should not be a place for “yes men and yes women” of a particular individual or a coterie of selfish characters out to enrich themselves with millions of dollars in what they call salary.

Yes, questions have to be submitted in advance by members to the relevant ministers before they are raised in parliament. But there is something called supplementary questions when the member or other members are not satisfied with the answer.

Again, bills going through committee stages could be boring to even those in the chamber, let alone the public in the viewing gallery.

Debating skills aside, what we want to see in a parliament is the articulation of concerns of the electorate by their “elected” members. Not by those who are “selected” by someone but pretending to be "elected”.

The bottom line is, as taxpayers, we are still waiting for the answers to the huge losses incurred by GIC and Temasek, the former headed by Lee Kuan Yew and the latter by his daughter-in-law Ho Ching. Why did Lee Hsien Yang, brother of prime minister Lee, resign from Singtel and why is Ho Ching, PM’s wife, stepping down from Temasek? Have these questions been raised in parliament?

Sun 12 Jul 2009 7:37 PM | AN

Gentlemen,

Just to share with all you on Barrack Obama's sppeech in Ghana. I like the one that he talks about Corroption & Tyranny and also the last part.

We need him to tell LKY to change his style of governance...

[b]GOOD GOVERNANCE[/b]

Development depends upon good governance. That is the ingredient which has been missing in far too many places, for far too long. That is the change that can unlock Africa's potential. And that is a responsibility that can only be met by Africans. ...

[b]CORRUPTION AND TYRANNY[/b]

"Repression takes many forms, and too many nations are plagued by problems that condemn their people to poverty. No country is going to create wealth if its leaders exploit the economy to enrich themselves, or police can be bought off by drug traffickers. ... That is not democracy, that is tyranny, and now is the time for it to end. ...

[b]AFRICA DOESN'T NEED STRONGMEN[/b]
"Across Africa, we have seen countless examples of people taking control of their destiny, and making change from the bottom up. ...

Make no mistake: history is on the side of these brave Africans, and not with those who use coups or change Constitutions to stay in power. Africa doesn't need strongmen, it needs strong institutions. ...

Mon 13 Jul 2009 12:18 AM | jbeji

posts wif interestg reading,where's e action for it speaks louder than words,i agree e 'grilling' in parliament is not enuf,also smetime wayang so,i heard tat election comg & i shall be bck to vote if my area is given a chance,BT Timah,now let's see is after all these posts,articles & reality of suffering abt Singaporeans life & e pathetic state they are in, will this election change course of future for SE & pple,at e end,is e vote tat counts so whoever u r,speak real up at the voting box & not juz blah blah here, no pt cuz u talk & talk but cannot effect anything at all,smetime here also wayang...

Mon 13 Jul 2009 4:12 AM | | seebeng - Dear BryanT

Singapore has been reported to be the ‘tax haven to attract money’ from those shady characters, especially the money launderers and economic criminals. And it’s strange that you’re ignorant of this widely publicized operation for which Singapore ranks the regional hub.

Now, about JBJ. Did you know that Singapore’s judiciary was used to throw JBJ out of parliament after he was elected to a second term as MP with overwhelming majority? The dirty tricks of the PAP was exposed by the Privy Council, then Singapore’s highest court of appeal, for having put JBJ through a series of mistrials for ’offences’ that he did not commit.

The electorate had all along recognized the contribution of JBJ and it was only the PAP and its subservient media deliberately ignored JBJ during his lifetime.

It’s only after his death, the PAP and its bootlicking media had decided that it was safe for them to acknowledge JBJ and his contributions. The PAP, in particular LKY, did the same thing to Lim Chin Siong. When Mr Lim was alive, he was vilified but was praised for his courage and steadfastness by none other than LKY after his demise. Such is the propaganda effect of the authoritarian PAP and its controlled media.

The PAP crucified and dragged JBJ through the compliant judiciary when he was alive but praised and held him in high esteem after his death.

Finally, MPs have to be elected and selected.

Mon 13 Jul 2009 8:47 PM | zah - Seelan

I agree. Nothing heard of huge losses! Why???

Mon 13 Jul 2009 10:49 PM | BryanT - Seelan

Seelan, the Westminster model is apparently quite closely followed by ours, and posing of supplementary questions does take place in our parliament. (I've just checked www.ipu.org)

I suppose you (and I too) are not too impressed that many of the ruling party MPs had an easy deal and entered parliament via walkovers. I really hope the opposition is not so forgiving in future and allows this to happen in the next election.

Last but not least, I dare venture to say that in many more livelier democracies, despite having voted in their representatives into parliament, the people are then turned off or indifferent to the proceedings there. Some are even more shocked by the activities of mic-grabbing and projectiles throwing happening in their parliaments.

I suppose the grass is greener on the other side.

PS. Personally, I think the odd flying shoe is not a convincing way to win a point. Of course, a large MP allowance to buy shoes does come in handy.

Tue 14 Jul 2009 8:54 AM | zah - Hugh Losses

SL
I agree when will we be told the truth.

Tue 14 Jul 2009 7:47 PM | Seelan Palay - To BryanT

We are talking about parliament in Singapore. As one understands, parliament has to be a body of elected members by a supervisory mechanism that is non-partisan, in other words, an independent elections commission to hold free and fair elections. Furthermore, for elections to be fair, the traditional media has to be free and pluralistic to let the electorate know of the various options open to them in an election.

It's only through these basic criteria fulfilled or put in place, we can go to the next level of whether there is parliamentary democracy in Singapore or if it's based on Westminster model. Elections do not make a parliamentary democracy.

It was through an independent elections commission that the PAP first came to power in a free, fair and democratic election back in 1959. If the conditions that exist today were prevalent in those days, Lee Kuan Yew and his PAP would not have been allowed even near the then Legislative Assembly by Chief Minister Lim Yew Hock.

After having brought the election machinery under the prime minister's office (supervised by civil servants taking orders from the ruling party), having brought the media to its heels, and constantly gerrymandering the system through dubious means such as the GRC fraud, exorbitant deposits and redrawing of boundaries at the last minute, the PAP is firmly entrenched in power against the wishes of the electorate, majority of whom remain disenfranchised on Nomination Day.

To use an Englishman's idiom: This is not cricket.

Wed 15 Jul 2009 6:43 PM | BryanT - Seelan

The last time I checked, our parliament allowed supplementary questions as well.

I agree with you that too many of the current lot of MPs entered parliament via walkovers. I sincerely urge the opposition parties not to condone such an avenue by granting them this bypass in the next election.

Am I mistaken to say that either PM/SM seem to agree that the ruling party's MP-nominatees should be put through the election test-of-fire. At least and at last all parties are all in consonant.

Tue 14 Jul 2009 8:51 PM | BryanT - Seelan

I've tried to reply twice, but the moderator is either very tired, overloaded or trigger-happy with the delete-button.

Sorry.

Tue 14 Jul 2009 9:33 PM | Kai Xiong - re: Dear Kai Xiong

BryanT,

Perhaps you could step out of Zen mode and actually perform a search? It takes only 5 minutes.

If JBJ's contribution was negligible, he would have passed on with little mention. Praises would be reserved if it were outright poor, for those singing them could discredit themselves.

I'm curious. What makes you think Singaporeans are even sure that elections are free and fair? Would their certitude waiver once naysayers have the chance to raise contrary evidence? Shall we put this to a test?

But most importantly, what makes [i]you[/i] think our elections are free and fair? PAP is a clear example of a monopoly. Like its economic counterparts, PAP has every incentive, by all means possible, to raise the barriers of entry into Parliament and no reason to ensure its competition a fair fight.

Wed 15 Jul 2009 3:59 AM | sdp - re: Seelan

[quote=BryanT]I've tried to reply twice, but the moderator is either very tired, overloaded or trigger-happy with the delete-button.

Sorry.[/quote]

Censorship is not our style. You probably did not check the second page of these messages.

Stay away from spamming, gratuitous profanity, and trolling and you'll be all right.

SDP

Thu 16 Jul 2009 3:40 PM | BryanT - re: re: Dear Kai Xiong

KX,

I try to be careful with my words, and not only just when I write a person who has passed on.

I would never have said that JBJ's contribution was negligible. As the first opposition party candidate to be elected as an MP, he inadvertently became a symbol and beacon of hope for many. Some would say that another benefit was that it showcased the vulnerability of the ruling party.

My comments were directed at his parliamentary performance. He may have other higher aims, but his aggressive style within parliament definitely brought out the defensiveness of the ruling party.

Attention was more focused on the histrionics than on the substance of what he said. Yes, it made parliament more lively, but the quality of debate suffered and the losers are the people.