Singapore Democrats

We need a good mix of leaders to serve the community.

Our youths should answer Jufri's call. Come and work with the SDP to reform the system.

Well said Mr. Vice President, who shares my name but without the 'e'.

A lot of good arguments were thrown up about paper qualifications for a candidate (Thanks Kai Xiong):

1. Having paper qualifications has little to do with integrity.
2. Political education and savviness is not usually formally taught. (Neither is EQ or empathy)
3. Not having paper qualifications does not mean a person does not have an education i.e. he can be self taught
4. There is also the question of who should decide what the formal criteria for the eligibility of candidates ought to be.
5. The requirement of paper qualifications for candidates reserves the right to rule to the upper classes, which will entrench themselves and therefore undemocratic. (What are the paper qualifications of other world leaders?)
6. Politicians, even ministers, always have a team of specialists which they can consult. It's more important to look at the qualifications of that team.
7. In a system where money has incredible corrupting influence, politicians must above all have backbone, not simply paper qualifications.(Do ours have the backbone?)
8. The quality of candidates should be judged by the people, not by some institution (schools).
9. Candidates with paper qualifications is a bonus, if they are one with the citizenry, they will be elected anyway and hence no requirements for paper qualifications are necessary
10. Having an educated electorate is the priority, not highly educated candidates per se. This leads to a more sustainable political system.

11. Putting point 4 and 9 together, mandating paper qualifications creates an aristocracy/dictatorship that will dumb down the public to maintain their grip on power. This is unsustainable.

PAP leaders have very high paper qualifications, but:

a. they do not know when to step down, well after their due dates expired;
b. they do not know what affordability (for the purchase of HDB flats) mean,
c. they cannot see the difference between foreign talent and foreign trash;
d. they do not have enough humility to admit mistakes,be accountable and say "sorry";
e.they cannot define the meaning of "assembly" and went on to bastardise the word;
f.they have no qualms about trampling over the country's constitution which accords citizens the basic rights to freedom of speech and assembly and movement;
g. they don't bat an eyelid when they keep on changing the conditions for withdrawal of citizens' CPF savings;
h.they have no sense of guilt when they keep on changing the rules of engagement during the general elections;
i. instead of being ashamed when they win elections under their skewed rules they beat their chests and tell the world that the citizens have "renewed" their mandate yet again;
j. they don't feel guilty when they pay themselves colossal sums, amounting to more than a hundred times the average wages of citizens, many of whom are finding it more and more difficult to make ends meet;
k. they don't know how to differentiate between locals and foreigners when allocating state resources;
l. they seem to forget that under the constitution an old toilet cleaner has the same rights as million dollar ministers;
m. they seem to forget that they are where they are because the citizens - which necessarily includes the old toilet cleaner and other lower mortals -have rightly or wrongly put them there.

The above is not exhaustive - can someone else continue?

An honest and courageous down-to-earth person who is in touch and empathize with the people but not too highly educated will make a better leader. Such a leader will always ask himself whether a certain policy to be implemented would serve the interest of the people or only that of his party.

I am very sure those in the GIC and Temasek also have very high qualifications but lack the foresight.

The Malay Muslim MPs, I am sure, also have very high paper qualifications
but sadly to say they lack the courage and moral fortitude to oppose discriminatory policies and the promotion of gambling (casino) which is clearly "haram".

So much about high paper qualifications.

What paper qualification? Khaw Boon Wan aka Hell Minister what really paper qualification he have?? If not because he's the brother-in-law of LKY and uncle of LHL don't dream to be a Minister.Maybe,PAP 'kucing kurap' MP's can.

I only have 1 qualification.

He must not have a record of being a traitor.

On one hand, Jufri expressed concern that the “monotonous propaganda” fed by MOE has curbed the students’ thirst for information and knowledge. On the other, he blindsided himself by recognising that technology has allowed many of our youths to be “aware of the situation that we face”.

In fact, Jufri seems more optimistic (and contradictory) again when he reminded us that with the “advent of the new media, many of our youths are curious and they are coming forward.”

But going forward the youths are, but not anywhere nearer the SDP. They are giving SDP and YD as wide a berth as possible. Otherwise why would Jufri be working, or writing, so vigorously to persuade them to march with YD and batter brick walls together. The youths either consider YD’s more akin to a death march, or that the walls that SDP target are those that our forefathers have toiled over many years to build, even if somewhat imperfectly.

Anyway, the truth is that the humdrum comes not from MOE, but from SDP itself. It subjects us to its tedious and tiring chant that attributes every societal inadequacy to the lack of freedoms and that freedom is the elixir to all our ills.

This is precisely why youths avoid associating themselves with parties such SDP whose monotonous political platform comprises of a lonely solitary plank – that of more freedom and democracy, in isolation from social and economic considerations and reality.

Lastly, Jufri proclaims that we have even been told where to spit according to “certain requirements”. We wonder where he drools from with that foamy statement. Anyway, one interprets that Jufri is probably feeling unduly hindered in terms of where he can eject his sputum.

The (political) parallel to draw here is that SDP members unceasingly decry restrictions against them parading themselves with placards around their necks, and spouting political invectives where ever they want.

BryanT says youths are not anywhere nearer the SDP, but where is his evidence to substantiate the claim? How contradictory when he accuses others of making baseless allegations when he makes them ever so often himself.

In my experience working with the SDP over the past years, the number of youth coming forward to help and join the SDP has only gone up. Actually I don't need to say more, this picture taken just months ago says enough: http://yoursdp.org/index.php/news/singapore/2687-from-strength-to-democratic-strength

SDP never attributed every societal inadequacy to the lack of freedoms. Democracy is the more fundamental value, and freedom (social, political and economical) is a large part of democracy.

The only parallel to draw here is that BryanT comes here with his clear bias against democracy and fundamental freedoms but unceasingly crying out with relation to them whenever his drivel, sorry, comments are moderated.

The real question is can we really change Singaporean’s perception on paper qualification after so many years of MSM/State-media’s relentless commercial propagandas and political rhetoric?

What is the point of ranting and raving vociferously and “cacophonic-ally”, when majority of the main-street-men are adamant about and insisting in giving “mediocrity” paper qualifications to their off-springs to enhance their opportunities to success in the later part of their lives?

Even a parent with “obscene” or “minimum” paper qualification also aspires to have his or her off-springs to attain good paper qualifications so as to achieve reasonable quality/standard of living for his off-spring’s future endeavors.

With most of the ruling party’s million-dollar nerds and elite senior civil-servants having “great” and “boastful” paper qualifications hence, “GOOD” paper qualifications are “surely” to their advantages, do you opine that they will tweak and twist the admiration on paper qualification and abundant the promotion on the receipt of “former” education from so called “ivy-league” universities and, to embrace the ordinary education provided by “normal” institutions or non-main-stream/non-core teaching, don’t you?

Singapore is still Singapore, without the interference of external forces, wait long-long for the society to “EVOLVE”, my dear!

(This is the same as “G-issue”, as gct shamelessly, proclaimed loudly before for the society to evolve so as to buy time for their annual million-dollar remunerations!)