Singapore Democrats

Wow! I am looking forward for SDP’s version of economic model for this tiny-black-mark. Mind you, as the despicable million-dollar nerds have “FORECASTED” that double-dip recession is unlikely for Singapore or simply the world and Singapore is on the route of recovery for its economy so, it will be easy for the contemptible nerds to claim credits and lambaste the opposition’s proposal being frivolous and not viable if SDP’s alternative economic model “churns out” at the time of robust recovery.

Let’s compare whether lhl’s forecast is more accurate or the other’s prediction is closer to reality!

By the way, keep it up and do not slacken down because of pervious set back, smooth sailing liken to lhl’s political career will not toughen a “sissy boy’s” endeavors only journeys of roughness will make a man of virile, burly and chunky qualities!

First let me congratulate SDP for devoting some some attention and time to some of these things-that-really-matter. Limited resources should not be spent picking on outdated street names in our laws. See article "Police ignorant of law but charge activists anyway".

Like any advertising campaign we see (and tire of) everyday, the big words – equality, equal opportunity, realistic, workable – are already out. But we should give SDP the benefit of the doubt until we see the beef on the table. SDP should understand why we remain skeptical until we pop the flashily designed can, and tasted what's really inside – we have had Coke-Zero, Vanilla Coke, Cherry Coke, Lemon Coke et al. None of them match up to The Real Thing, and they usually just fizzle out (quite fast).

Focusing on the economy is a wise step, now that the recession is almost over. I hope SDP's analysis will not just be about what went wrong over the last few years. As they say, hindsight is 20/20. Even I, the biggest non-economist in my estate, can say a few wise words about what went wrong. SDP's proposals must not only be realistic and workable for the past, or promote equality and equal opportunity only because some of the current policies did not give these priority.

Nobody can ever claim that his policies are perfect. Impacts of policies can never be total and they almost never meet everyone's needs and wants. Policies that serve short term needs or advantage the people immediately might be detrimental to the long-term prospectives for the country.

There will inadvertently also be side-effects and some unintended outcomes. In order to be balance (and realistic), SDP's proposals must cover these as well, otherwise what we have would just be textbook theories.

We wait with bated breath what good and fundamentally different ideas SDP now throws ….. instead of past stony ones and a misspelled form of Egalitarianism*.

Note*: see first word of the article :)

"First let me congratulate SDP for devoting some some attention and time to some of these things-that-really-matter. Limited resources should not be spent picking on outdated street names in our laws. See article "Police ignorant of law but charge activists anyway". "

BryanT, you have to understand that firstly, in a democratic country, political parties and activists are seen separately. However, in a non-democratic one such as ours, it is essential that the political parties that are concerned about the country's freedom, serve another role at the same time, as activists, otherwise there will be no one left to do that job.

I believe that the SDP's stand on this issue has remained the same throughout the years, but the main reason for their publishing of this article is to make it clearer to people like yourself that you can't accuse the SDP of only crtisizing the government's policies without providing viable solutions.

vipersonic, thanks for your comments.

I humbly, but totally, disagree with you.

Political parties such as SDP should be constantly putting forth alternative solutions and proposals because they WANT to play a constructive role in political. These justify their existence.

They must want to do so because they feel they can do better than the ruling party, and not due to any external compulsion.

As such, the "main reason" for doing so must NOT be to make it "clearer to people... who accuse SDP of only criticising... without providing viable solution".

Otherwise, it will look rather reactive, something that opposition parties often accuse the ruling one of.

Anyway, I concede that SDP is a party that few can accuse of being reactive or lethargic. Compared to other opp parties, it's online communication of its ideas and ideology is probably unmatched in scope. There are however, two shortcomings, in my view: firstly, the communication is one-way. The no-reply-no-comment policy is anachronistic. SDA, WP and RP are ahead in this respect; secondly, the ideas and ideology it promulgates are offbeat. But I have spoken enough about that previously and shall go no further (at the risk of going off-topic and antagonising the moderator).

While I do not see what is misspelled in the word "egalitarianism", nevertheless, for someone who frequently commits grammatical and spelling errors, and make senseless statement such as "but we should give SDP the benefit of the doubt until we see the beef on the table", to pick on a spelling mistake is hilarious..where have you hiden your mirror BryanT, you need it. If you ask me, you should read your comment and tell me which part of it can be considered as a form of "added value" to the forum. Personally I see none other then arrogance cum gross misinterpretation of the subject matter. Any normal intellectual person would be able to see that this article is not one about "hindsight" but rather one to highlight SDP's "foresight" which some, like yourself, have eyes but are never able to see or appreciate. So stop blabbering irrelevancy or make nonsensical analogy because it only makes you sound even more silly..so what is the "real thing"? PAP or BryanT? OMG you are such a crap.

Anyway SDP, keep up the good work..to me, you are definitely one the most, if not the most, constructive and progressive political party (opposition or otherwise) Singapore has ever seen.

BryanT says: "Political parties such as SDP should be constantly putting forth alternative solutions and proposals because they WANT to play a constructive role in political. These justify their existence."

What you have stated is absolutely true in a democracy where there is respect for pluralism, including a free and diverse media, and where the government of the day is accountable and transparent through a parliamentary process that is independent and autonomous.

But in Singapore which is under a family fiefdom where everything originates from a tyrant, political parties and groups have to take on the daunting struggle of overhauling the corrupt, nepotistic and crony regime.

Of course, there will be proxies of the dictatorial regime acting as agents of change, but in reality they are for retaining the rotten system.

SDP ..or rather SBP (Singapore Burmese Party), DON'T LIE !!

your economic proposal must have hidden agenda for foreigners to dominate singapore.

you even fought for those morons from Myanmar to turn Orchard Rd into their political battleground of their homeland's domestic issue.

AngMoh Suckers!! Party of Losers!!

It's great to see that SDP finally acknowledged that the general public's perception of SDP is that of "a party that merely obstruct/criticise and has no ideas of it's own"; no thanks to the propaganda by our mainstream media.

But it's also saddening to see that even staunch people who are staunchly anti-PAP at other alternative media sites, such as The Online Citizen, or Temasek Review; commenting along the lines of "PAP sucks, but what to do? Do you think SDP can do better? They have no ideas of their own!". This could not, as mentioned, be further from the truth.

Apparently, this negative perception of SDP as a party of obstructionist is deeply ingrained. This will be the greatest challenge to SDP if it ever wants to get elected.

Here are my 2 cents on what SDP can do to hopefully change this negative perception is:

- Actively engage online media sites such as Temasek Review; possibly work with their admin to and publish similar articles to "educate" on the alternative policies offered by SDP. Such sites have high visit rates and would boost the visibility of SDP. (Of course, presuming that they dare to work with SDP)

- Have a section on this site dedicated to alternative policies proposed by SDP. Back it up with stats and figures etc; PAP or the mainstream media will have a hard time mis-interpreting anything that is true. (If such a section already exist, then it is not obvious enough; make it more obvious)

- (This one is controversial) Give less focus to issues such as civil disobedience and freedom of speech. Sadly, no thanks to the relentless propaganda, "civil disobedience" and "freedom of speech" has been equated to something that causes chaos, riots and bloodshed. While obviously not true, such issues can be championed more easily once enough oppositions get elected to the parliament. Otherwise, SDP will always be regarded as radicals or "fringe groups" espousing a dangerous course.

Of course, I cannot claim to be some PR or election expert; but these are sincere opinions that I hope would help to get SDP elected.

@cute_jammie

You are obviously a troll, but still I take issues with you on a few matters.

First you insinuate that SDP's economic proposal will ultimately benefit the foreigners, despite having no proof and the proposal itself being strongly against the flooding of Singapore with foreign labors.

Your assertion would be more credible if you can prove how the policy will eventually make foreigners dominate Singapore.

Next, you link this economic proposal to something that is totally irrelevant; as in your example "fought for those morons from Myanmar to turn Orchard Rd into their political battleground of their homeland's domestic issue".

After talking about Myanmar you then assert SDP as "AngMoh suckers". I don't see the connection here.

Please clear up your brain fart, or at least learn how to properly communicate your ideas across. I assure you it will get you further in life.

AlphaBravo has brought up a few interesting points which I hope he will permit me to comment on.

AlphaBravo suggested engaging the alternative media sites – to serve SDP’s purposes of “education” and publicity. These are related to my earlier point about how SDP communicates with the people.

I believe that TR, TOC and quite a few blogs have already played their parts in what AlphaBravo proposed - either reproducing SDP articles wholesale or writing op-eds on the issues raised by the party. But these sites can only act as avenues to reach the people, including the anti-PAP-but-skeptic-SDP segment that AlphaBravo mentioned. The issue is not with the means, but in the messages themselves and SDP’s underlying intent and strategy.

If a political party’s agenda is centred on issues that do not address the immediate concerns of populace, then it is hard for the latter to identify with the party. Although in truth, SDP does take up bread-and-butter issues, these are fleeting and the perception is that SDP exploits these to buttress its underlying agenda – the struggle for more freedoms. (I challenge anyone to do a count on the proportion of articles SDP publishes on freedom, human rights, CD and related topics, as opposed to other areas.)

The Bt Panjang wet-market incident is a case in point. Although it was originally and rightfully focused on the issue of possible price increases and the livelihood of the stall holders, it eventually reverted (or relegated) to an issue of “freedom” – of whether SDP could get a permit to meet the residents in an open space. The perception given is that SDP’s underlying intent for pursuing the wet-market episode has reared its ugly head, inadvertently or otherwise. The skeptics will assume that SDP just could not resist hijacking the matter for its freedom causes.

The party's ability and interest to challenge the ruling party by offering sensible and feasible and sensible alternatives on issues-that-matter to the people, is hence in doubt. Obviously it spends more time engaging the police, prosecutors and judges then on soliciting ideas from members of the public. The impression is that SDP has sat happily on its hands believing that it has already propounded its ideas and proposals via CSJ’s books. The standard answer when people ask for details of its proposals: all in CSJ’s books.

It forgets one important fact - it's not a matter of whether one has the ideas, but how one sells it. The ideas may be good, but people do not lean towards them if the ideas just mainly sit in the pages.

Yet when the populace profess little interest in its strategy of dismantling the existing politico-socio structure in order for it to be recast using SDP’s mould of democracy, the people are accused of apathy and indifference. The truth is that people are not apathetic or indifferent – they are very concerned about many issues such as education, jobs, the welfare and health systems.

Their apathy and indifference are towards SDP’s core agenda. But these are precisely the hindrances to SDP’s progress of overhauling the system through CD.

It is one thing for the people to feel alienated from SDP’s causes, but quite another to be accused of hindering SDP’s progress. (What! Our fault when we are not interested?)

SDP has arguably the most comprehensive and well-designed website among the opp parties, with a well-crafted manifesto and all the ancillary information about the party. Yet, when it comes to engaging the public directly, its records are abysmal. While other parties frequently make announcements about their open houses, seminars and free legal clinics via their websites and FBs, SDP’s activities are mainly organised and carried out in secrecy (except perhaps to greet the release of its members from prison). The secrecy on most of its other activities is understandable - the information is meant to be withheld from the authority. But the dearth of activities open for participation by members of the public serves to further reinforce the image of a party existing in isolation.

Other parties have designated spokespersons to front their communication needs. They reply to enquiries and comments openly and “manage” divergent views from outside the parties, some more successfully than others. SDP's frontman should be CSJ. We see him often addressing the international audience. But the stony silence to points and criticisms by his fellow countrymen gives the impression that he is on an intellectual level beyond them (even if it is probably true). This is politically untenable for a party trying to reach out to people. Perhaps we now know the root of the apathy and indifference towards SDP.

For the other parties, even if there are no good answers at times, at least there are answers. In contrast, the only communication with the senior SDP leadership is via emails. Whether these get replied is another thing altogether.

There is a group of people who tend to speak up for the party, whether in the alternative media sites or on this website. We see some who are close to the party, but who deliberately remain non-members. This leads to some suspicion.

Others are adherents whose membership status is unclear, but whose usage of abusive language serves more to tarnish the party image more than anything. SDP should be proud of their passion for the party, but internal passion does not necessarily translate to respect from external. All the more, the impression is one of a hardcore group defending their cause, regardless of how it is .... regarded. In other words, detached.

The descriptions used by AlphaBravo, “radicals” and “fringe”, are apt.

PS: I apologise if there are any grammar mistakes contained herein. It's very tiring for an old man with fading eyes.

For those people who are new to BryanT double talk, let me interpret it.

BryanT says: "I believe that TR, TOC and quite a few blogs have already played their parts in what AlphaBravo proposed - either reproducing SDP articles wholesale or writing op-eds on the issues raised by the party. But these sites can only act as avenues to reach the people, including the anti-PAP-but-skeptic-SDP segment that AlphaBravo mentioned. The issue is not with the means, but in the messages themselves and SDP’s underlying intent and strategy."

What he means here is that it does not matter what the SDP say (even if the argument is perfectly sound), there is always a hidden agenda.

BryanT says: "The Bt Panjang wet-market incident is a case in point. Although it was originally and rightfully focused on the issue of possible price increases and the livelihood of the stall holders, it eventually reverted (or relegated) to an issue of “freedom” – of whether SDP could get a permit to meet the residents in an open space. The perception given is that SDP’s underlying intent for pursuing the wet-market episode has reared its ugly head, inadvertently or otherwise. The skeptics will assume that SDP just could not resist hijacking the matter for its freedom causes".

Ok now here is the classic Bryan double speak. On the one hand he complains that SDP focus on using the Internet to deliver their message, BryanT complain, "But these sites can only act as avenues to reach the people, including the anti-PAP-but-skeptic-SDP segment". When the SDP applies for permit to speak and got rejected. BryanT complains that the SDP is doing it for "hidden" agenda.

You see whatever the SDP do it is always in the wrong. Don't like the SDP using words like "freedom" but he himself wants the freedom to criticise.

BryanT says: "The party's ability and interest to challenge the ruling party by offering sensible and feasible and sensible alternatives on issues-that-matter to the people, is hence in doubt. Obviously it spends more time engaging the police, prosecutors and judges then on soliciting ideas from members of the public. The impression is that SDP has sat happily on its hands believing that it has already propounded its ideas and proposals via CSJ’s books. The standard answer when people ask for details of its proposals: all in CSJ’s books."

Ok he says the SDP is not detail in their policy but when SDP say look up the book, not good. Too much detail.

He complains that the SDP spends to much time "engaging" the police, and judges. Yet he conveniently forget that it was the police that sought to "engaged" the SDP not the other way round. By never the fact, just spin.

So you see when the SDP say checkout their books, BryanT says too much detail. The SDP should spin.

BryanT's logic SDP do not spin, no good. Message don't get across. SDP should spin, but that is no good too because it shows up hidden agenda.

BryanT says: "Other parties have designated spokespersons to front their communication needs. They reply to enquiries and comments openly and “manage” divergent views from outside the parties, some more successfully than others. SDP's frontman should be CSJ. We see him often addressing the international audience. But the stony silence to points and criticisms by his fellow countrymen gives the impression that he is on an intellectual level beyond them (even if it is probably true). This is politically untenable for a party trying to reach out to people. Perhaps we now know the root of the apathy and indifference towards SDP".

Another classic.

He claims other parties have dedicated spokesperson but can't name any as an example. In other words, implying SDP don't have a spokesman but strangely can identify CSJ as the SDP front man.

His reasoning is that having a spokesman makes communication more successful, ok reasonable logic (have spokesman == good communication). Now he acknowledge that SDP has indeed a spokesman in the form of CSJ. Suddenly it is no good because he attract bad press (i.e. spokesman good communication).

In conclusion, anyone reading BryanT's comments be aware his intention -- to use his own words -- is to agitate (read violent) the downfall of the SDP