Comments on: Singapore’s missing pillars of democracy (Part 1): The importance of democracy

By: suk hoi

suk hoi — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 20:09:13 +0000

Youtube – One Nation Under Lee (video)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=17qhGIwyGj0

By: LOL

LOL — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 19:05:55 +0000

@CitizensofSG,@fair and square
I agree with fair and square.
And,Ithink it’s a snide and silly remark made by CitizenofSG to
imply that just because SDP or WP had “internal conflict”,they are therefore not credible?This is flawed argument.
Like fair and square rightly pointed out,even the PAP had their share of ‘GROWING PAINS’ and therefore it is part and parcel of the democratic process.
Nowadays,PAPies MPs simply tow the line in Parliament as there
CANNOT be any sincere dissension.
So,as suggested by fair and square,I borrowed the book he recommended and I think CitizenofSG owe an apology for his uncanny remark and fair and square’s comments.LOL to yourself
CitizenofSG.It’s a shame to pass such unrighteous and biased remarks at Dr CHEE and the others.

I can’t in anyway believe that you support OPPOSTION by saying one thing and mean another????

By: fair and square

fair and square — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 04:26:39 +0000

Just one final observation.
The OPPOSTION was not formed by a bandwagon of crooks but by people higly regarded by folks like you and me.
WORKERS party founded by Mr David Marshall,prominent and good lawyer,our FORNER CHEIF MINISTER.
SDP founded by Mr CHIAM SEE TONG.MP and accredited lawyer of REPUBLIC OF SINGAPORE BAR.
so do not worry,we have crdible people,some are not here in sinagpore for various reasons.

By: fair and square

fair and square — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 04:11:32 +0000

For those who are interested to read more about the OPPOSTION
works and their trials and obstacles in “standing up for the rest of us”-including those who cast doubts on their sincerity-please go to the Library and look up for
Bloodworth,Denis 1986,The Tigers and the Trojan Horse,Singapore:Times Book International 1986.
There,you would find why PAP WAS SPLITTED just like SDP in recent times and WHY AND HOW THE FIRST OPPOSITION was formed by Dr lee SIEW CHOH who later joined JBJ to strengthen the OPPOSTION stand>

By: fair and square

fair and square — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 03:57:15 +0000

As one blog here mentioned if you want PAP to make the change,you can wait till the cows come home?
who says we are waiting for the PAP to make the any changes to
suit the OPPOSITION…/
We are not going to wait for that,we are proposing!
And if we are sincere,we vote for the opposition.
Leaders with heart for the people is better than leaders with mere academic excellence.
And by the way,acadmic excellence need not equate to better leadership.
AND ,htere is no need to highlight on “internal conflict” of the SDP or Dr Chee being made a bankrupt either.

You tell me first that there was no internal conflict amongs the origianl PAP/ THEN why did Dr LEE SIEW chor and a group of other PAP members of parliamnet splitted from LKY IN THE EARLY 1960s to form BARisan Socialists?
Well,like any newly formed organisation,people come from different backgrounds and they are trying to agree with each other.And,that’s democracy at work.Now do you think it is for the good of SINAGPORE when alll members-even if they don’t truly agree – of the PAP said ‘YES” ON EVERY ISSUE TABLED,cos they want to keep their salaries?
Well,wasn’t JBJ also made a bankrupt?This is nothing new and i am sure i don’t need to spell out the simple reason for you?
I say let’s propose to make real changes-vote opposition!

By: Burden of Proof

Burden of Proof — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 02:12:35 +0000

Its clear that there are more than 80 capable and qualified talents in singapore to form a new party to give them a run for the money. In fact, we can say there are thousands.

Many of existing leaders also started from scratch without much experience.

Our beloved MM was an Opposition leader.

Look at how nice this opposition leader turn out to be and how well singapore has developed.

Can a democracy exist healthily and soundly and whiter than white eternally without a strong Opposition to keep things in check?

What is the effect or risk of having 1 party eternally?

Or who can Assure with his life that there will be perfection and flawlessness eternally?

Thankfully, the losses so far is only several tens of billion usd. This means the system is still sound.

If a strong Opposition is needful or useful or necessary in the long term, why start late?

Look at our system, almost zero nepotism , cronism and all succeeded based on their own capability without prejudice or favor.

Well done singapore.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 01:09:16 +0000

@ ah beng on Tue, 27th Oct 2009 7:35 am

…”no sight no sound for so long…….”

YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT. Not one of them come out publicly to take a position on the “wet markets” issue which angered so many Singaporeans.

Why are they there by selection of the incumbent and not election by the public?? Only a one-issue cause they are interested in?

Is this not a public shame of “opposition” inside Parliament when they could, perhaps, do a lot better, perhaps, outside Parliament speaking up on a whole range of issues?

By: ah beng

ah beng — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 23:35:48 +0000

Come to think of it, our 7 new NMPS have all hidding under the rock after the “highfalutin aspiration” incident? no sight no sound for so long….

By: citizenofSG

citizenofSG — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 18:03:15 +0000

Extract from http://www.singapore-elections.com/political-parties.html -
Singapore Democratic Party-
>>>Founded on 6 August 1980 by Chiam See Tong and Fok Tai Loy and officially registered on 8 September 1980, it was once the strongest opposition party in post-independence Singapore with a record of three seats in Parliament after GE1991, becoming the first opposition party with more than one seat since BS in 1963. Due to internal conflict, Chiam resigned as secretary-general on 17 May 1993 and quit the party before GE1997, which saw it lost all its seats. Replacing him was Dr Chee Soon Juan, whose confrontational style defers from that of his predecessor. Owing to hefty legal suits, Dr Chee became a bankrupt and the party now faces the possibility of being wounded up.<<<
At one stage SDP were being considered as the opposition leader of Singapore and they actually had three MPs. Their cartoon behavior in parliament really made good comedy. Fighting among themselves in front of everybody in parliament and on TV, talking cock and bull story.
This kind of incident should not be repeated or else Singaporean will lose their confident in opposition totally even though they needed one badly.
If there is a super strong opposition leader rising, if he resembles something like Obama, then there is hope. Should such a leader exists I am sure just like America, the young will lead the way to revolution and even present and former good PAP people will come and join him because everyone agree we needed change. However we need to know who is leading us to change.
If you want PAP to change the rules to suit opposition and give some chance, you can wait till the cow come home. Politic in Singapore is not so bad if you were to compare it with Zimbabwe. There is no such thing as fighting fair and square. You can dream on. LOL.

By: qussl3

qussl3 — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 17:57:49 +0000

In the current climate the formation of a “credible” opposition will likely be a result of the incumbents incompetence and the voting public’s desire for any alternative rather than the emergence of a truly outstanding individual.

Take it from the individuals perspective, a successful individual will likely have been one to consistently choose the lowest risk greatest reward options throughout his/her career. In our political landscape the greatest risk reward option is to join the incumbent govt, where else in the world can politicians dictate policy with little concern for accountability?

In fact very much like how the mega bankers with their MASSIVE pay packets were incentivized to take short term bets with no concern for long term repercussions as when the shit hits the fan they have already paid themselves millions, our comparatively massive ministerial pay packets could be causing similar problems.

Assuming this kind of asymmetric risk reward payoff, why would a rational individual want to stick their neck out as the opposition?