Singapore Democrats

My impressions that youths nowadays are an apathetic lot is fading away.

My advice (for all its worth) to the group is that politics is about credibility. You should stand up for what you believe, but back it up with clear and robust reasoning.

Shouting and taunting do not win arguments. Ultimately, the lay citizen is the judge and they will see through your intents, altruistic or otherwise.

Good luck.

PS. too bad that craggy (hopefully not crazy) old men like me can't qualify for YD membership.

All the best. Never mind what people say. Politics is not just about reasoning. It is also about sentiments. People like you, they vote you.

In the midst of knocking my keyboard and replying to Seelan, quantum and Jaslyn, whilst simultaneously reading a book, I came upon this quote in the book that is relevant to this article:

[i]"The answer lie within you. Do you want a personal way out in a safe job in an advanced economy, or do you answer the call of your family, friends and fellow citizens to lead the fight for a better Singapore?"[/i]

Anyone want to venture to guess who said it?

[color=red]"People like you, they vote you."[/color]

MS, I agree that politics is not [b]just [/b] about reasoning, but I believe good reasoning for your actions and words are a pre-requisite.

As for your point that people will vote for those they like, I totally agree. But I like people who make sense, and not those who mistake "loudness in voice" for "clarity in thought".

I'm not trying to intimidate anyone, and besides I think the guys are brave. I'd admit I was not so brave when I was their age.

This is good news for all Singaporeans.

Hi BryanT,

Its none other than MM Lee, then SM addressing to our varsities students back in 19 Feb'2009.

Should read as back in 19Feb'2003!

AN - you are correct! It was the then SM, but now MM Lee. Except for a technicality - it was in 2003.

It seems that some, such as those in YD, have found that"[color=red]answer lie within[/color]" them. Well done, guys!

BTW, I was saying that when I was at their age, I was not so brave. I think we were even more apathetic then. What about you?

This is exactly the reassuring news I like hearing because it speaks to my anxieties over:

1. the success (or failure) of the PAP campaign to [b]scare[/b] people away from the party;

2. [b]growth[/b] - I learnt two new SDP names today;

3. [b]continuity[/b] because of the ages of the ... erm ... boys; and,

4. [b]diversity[/b], and I don't just mean the PAP-manufactured one-dimensional diversity in skin colour although it helps - my concern is mainly about the diversity in skills/academic training etc.

Congratulations to the new office holders, and I hope that young SDP women members will also make themselves more visible.

I think you have the perfect strategy to learn about the issues that affect people, and help the parent party to aggregate those interests into policy etc:

1. ...members expressed that it was important for the YD to conduct community service and extend a hand to those who have been left behind under the system; and,

2. They also indicated that they would reach out to younger Singaporeans through social events.

The most all encompassing definition for "politics" that I have encountered is that it is the "art of influencing opinion". Thus when you are in the act of influencing opinion, you can be said to be influencing opinion.

And let's remember that this is the [b]job[/b] of both politicians and those aspiring to office either in their own capacity or on behalf of their parties.

The question then becomes: what's the best way to influence opinion?

Well, we go on forever debating this and it will never end; that's why [b]it is called an art and not an exact science[/b]. But there are some things that most people can agree on and something like "reasoning' is just one of them. But there are so many others.

In the exchange with George Yeo, Dr Chee is just doing his job of influencing opinion to garner support for his party and the issues that they stand for. It's not a criminal act, and I feel we really should steer away from yet another of the PAP's efforts to cause harm to others in the course of doing their job by criminalizing political debate. There can only be more SDP members in Parliament only if they are allowed to do their job of influencing opinion and garnering support first.

That's why I would disagree vehemently that Parliament is the only place where debate can occur; we would be putting the cart before the horse. Political debates should occur year round for the simple fact that issues affect people year round.

George Yeo's job is a year round job too, and he is accountable year round.

I agree there are high expectations of the three leaders, all in their 20s.
See Through the task of expanding the YD's membership and to promote political change in Singapore.

Well done Young Democrats. Your coming together under SDP debunks the PAP myth that our youth as well as the adults shun politics and remain apathetic.

You're the trend setters who have risen above the PAP propaganda that is constantly at work to control and manipulate the minds of Singaporeans.

For a start, why don't you engage other youth groups, including the Young PAP and those in tertiary institutions?

[color=red]"The most all encompassing definition for "politics" that I have encountered is that it is the "art of influencing opinion"."[/color]

I agree that a substantial part of political involves influencing opinion. It is the means to market ideas and win people over. I also agree with you that it not an exact science. Politics will never be science because it has to do with sentiments and unfortunately, emotions sometimes.

But I still hold to my view that the best way to influence people is through properly thought-through and crafted reasoning. As you said, that is not the only criteria for influence, but I think it is a pre-requisite. Anyway, politicians are selling ideas, not snake-oil.

If I may add a personal note here. CSJ is obviously a very articulate and well informed person. He would be a good debater, in parliament or otherwise. His confrontational style will appeal to a small minority, but it does not have mass appeal. And I hope you would agree that politicians have to appeal to the people before they can influence people (freely).

And it is does not just apply to him. Most of us would recall MM Lee's fiery and intimidating style of olden days. Anyone, or even himself, adopting this mode would nowadays turn many people off.

That is why I used the phrase "ra-ra crowd" in my comments under the other postings. This group of people will continue to cheer him on and his support among this group will deepen. The issue is : [b]will it widen?[/b]

Let me take a pause before I reply to the rest of your posting (need to keep tab on the equity market :))

To BryanT,

It's the PAP that is confrontational with its dictatorial streak.

How can SDP and Dr Chee be confrontational for what they are doing?

Since when championing our Constitution and the National Pledge is considered confrontational?

It's the PAP that is trampling underfoot our Constitution and the National Pledge.

It's the PAP that is refusing to let the people have their constitutional rights for free assembly, free speech, etc.

It's the PAP that practices double standards by allowing its approved body CASE to stage protests at Parliament House and denying the same for SDP to hold its Tak Boleh Tahan protest.

It's the PAP that does not respect the cardinal principle of rule of law.

PAP should free the media, free the judiciary, free our CPF money, etc and stop being confrontational.

[color=red]"conduct community service and extend a hand to those who have been left behind under the system; and.... they also indicated that they would reach out to younger Singaporeans through social events"[/color]

Robox, if you don't mind me going back to one of your earlier comments, but it raised something that had been on my mind about SDP for quite a while.

I've seen and read about SDP's ventures at HLP, MOM and of course the series of TBT activities. I assume they are to create awareness among Singaporeans (and foreigners) of societal issues and also that of the SDP as a political entity.

I'll leave aside my comments about the appeal (or repugnance) of those activities in the eyes of the people. While we urge the YD to reach out to the younger Singaporean, I am not aware of the SDP carrying out outreach activities in the social sense, ie. towards "[b]those who have been left behind under the system[/b]".

This is especially important since the repeated message from SDP is that this segment of society has been neglected by the government. If so, besides speaking up on their behalf, has the SDP been able to do anything to provide them assistance directly, even if non-monetary?

I'm sure the SDP is aware how such CSR activities can help towards building up its branding and social image, even if that is not the primary intent.

If it's through my ignorance that I am not aware of such activities, I'd appreciate anyone directing me to the information. Thanks.

[color=red]"It's the PAP that is confrontational"[/color]

seebeng, I'd agree that the ruling party tries to impede the growth of the opposition and that some societal restrictions should be reviewed and relaxed.

You may want to find other adjectives to describe the ruling party, but I don't think the apt word is "confrontational".

In fact, I would say that the government tries to be persuasional and consultative, even if in a somewhat forced way occasionally. Perhaps it's like the persuasive techniques us parents have to employ to convince our children to eat tomatoes and carrots.

We know that confrontation gets us nowhere, and in fact leaves a bitter taste in the mouth, even if tomatoes and carrots are actually quite sweet. Perhaps there some lessons here to be included under [i]Politics 101[/i].

[quote]In fact, I would say that the government tries to be persuasional and consultative, even if in a somewhat forced way occasionally. Perhaps it's like the persuasive techniques us parents have to employ to convince our children to eat tomatoes and carrots.[/quote]
If the government is your parents, they will love you and put in sacrifice. What sacrifices have they put in? What have they done to show you their love?

BryanT,

It's you who'd used the adjective "confrontational" to dismiss the just struggle of the SDP and Dr Chee in trying to uphold our Constitution and the National Pledge.

For the PAP to "be persuasional and consultative", there must first be a free and pluralistic media.

Consultation is a two-way process.

Without being transparent and accountable, all that can take place is "monologue", which we are witnessing amply through the castrated propaganda rag.

It's alright quantum, you can keep to your definitions of "confrontation" and "consultation". Seems like you have your own dictionary.

Good night.

[quote]In fact, I would say that the government tries to be persuasional.[/quote]
And what happens when the people don't agree? What happens when the persuasion fail?
For eg: when they persuade the people to give them high salaries, give them more votes, pay more taxes, let them build Casino, increase utilities, public transport fares and HDB prices, let them import more foreigners, not to criticize them etc

This should come as no suprise, Mr Priveen is in good company with Sha'fie and Khalis. I hope this encourages more NSFs to come forward.