Blackout on Singapore Democrats

Sunday, 31 May 2009

Singapore Democrats

In a report discussing the recent proposals to alter the make-up of NCMPs and NMPs in Parliament, the Straits Times took in the views of opposition parties -- except, of course, those of the Singapore Democrats.

This is despite the SDP stating quite unambiguously our position on the matter -- that the "generous" act is designed to hoodwink the gullible into thinking that the Government is actually moving towards democratising Singapore.

We had pointedly reminded Singaporeans that, through the years, the PAP has done everything to hammer the opposition into comatose with the use of the ISA, defamations suits, and changes to election rules.

And now that it wants to to create more NCMP seats, we are supposed to clap and cheer?

Of course Singaporeans shouldn't be allowed to read and hear such a viewpoint. Hence, the Straits Times' censorship of our statement.

This is not the first time that the newspapers and, more broadly, the media have selectively blacked out news of the SDP. Through the years, they have consistently ensured that our stand on issues and our work in general are not publicised.

Not only do the media not publish our views, they go to extraordinary lengths to distort and lie about the party. Especially blatant was the last GE in 2006 when the Singapore Democrats were singled out for the most biased treatment.

Is this agenda related to the PAP's? In 2007, Mr Lee Kuan Yew repeated his motivation of introducing the GRC system: To keep opposition politicians like Dr Chee out of Parliament. (See here) Mr Goh Chok Tong echoed this sentiment saying that the Government would not give the Singapore Democrats a chance to survive. (See here)

In such circumstances, what should the SDP do? Do we yield to the might of the PAP in the hope of being perceived as "moderates" so that we can gain some leniency and be given a chance to get elected?

Before we answer these questions, it is important to note that the Democrats are not radicals and others are not moderates.

We see the dangers and the futility of pretending to fight as if we are operating in a democratic system. We see the need for urgent political reform, not meaningless tweaks to the NCMP and NMP schemes. More than that, we will do all that is necessary to bring about such reform.

To do otherwise is to play along with the PAP game which will only prolong and strengthen the undemocratic system in Singapore.

But here's what readers should note: If what the SDP is doing is so outrageous and unacceptable to the Singaporean public, why not report our actions and views as they are, and let the people see our foolishness?

But they can't. The PAP knows that if it allows our views to be accurately reported, Singaporeans will see that we make sense and increasingly support us.

This is the reason why the media will continue to black out our news. When they do run stories on us, they will print lies (and then refuse to give us the right of reply) to ensure that the public gets as twisted a picture as possible about the party.

So no, we will not kow tow to the PAP. We will stick to our principles and our strategy of openly and loudly calling for reform.

And we will rely on the Internet to disseminate our views. The new media may not be able to compete with the press and broadcast media, at least not in Singapore -- yet.

With time and technology, we are confident that this will change.

Share this article:

Comments (8)

Mon 01 Jun 2009 3:44 AM | raj

It is increasingly obvious what the PAP govt is trying to do.No mandate is given,nor can be,for the prime minister to change the composition and nature of the highest decision making body in the land without a referendem,take it to the electorate,if you dare.The argument to a have up to another 18 'invited or selected' members to add diversity is an exercise in futility ,especially when 82 so called elected yet neutered PAP members cannot and who have let their electorate down by not forcing issues where harm has been inflicated upon the country:Temasek and GIC losses come to mind.The irony is that the 82 suddenly display robust vigour when a truly elected opposition stands to speak than demanding hard answers from their goverment.Why have the 82 not delivered in terms of diversity the PM is looking for and the accountability the citizens are screaming silently for

Mon 01 Jun 2009 9:18 AM | | ngejay - Time to wake up, mainstream oppo

I hope the mainstream opposition will recognize the fact that the NCMP scheme is no more than a ploy to make them fight over crumbs and miss the forest for the trees.

Time for the mainstream opposition to awaken from their "matrix-like slumber"!

E-Jay

Mon 01 Jun 2009 5:33 PM | tank

E-Jay,

By that I gather you refer to your article, "Worker’s Party’s capitulation to PAP’s NCMP gambit is regrettable".

First of all, you are not an ordinary "voter" but as a former member of the Reform Party, you have been in the shoes of an opposition. Therefore, it would be inappropriate, especially when you have called for unity and also ignored several facts in your article highlighted below.

Firstly, if any election outcome produced by voters does not "reflect desires of voters", then what would? It is true that Singapore can have a freer media and an independent elections department, but if you think they automatically translate into more seats for the opposition, then I think you are the one being "presumptious".

Secondly, can you guarantee that no other opposition party will take up the NCMP seats if WP refuses them? And why is it not that WP (and other bigger parties like SDA and NSP) would have to take up the seats to prevent independent candidates who have lost their deposits from taking them up?

Thirdly, I am not sure what audacity have you to mention Nr J.B. Jeyaretnam. He is a respectable man but it is a fact that he had also been an NCMP and your point is an insult to him.

Lastly, there are Singaporeans who have sacrificed something while they fought the PAP but there were also others who backed the PAP. It is shortsighted for yourself as an oppositionist to think that you only need to cater to your supporters' views. That would be very much like the PAP. It is also far-fetched to assume that all the people who fought against PAP do not want any opposition to take up NCMP seats.

Tue 02 Jun 2009 2:17 AM | David Wu - Interest of the Ordinary Voter

Yes, former members of any party tend to forget that the performance of past NCMP members had not been geared towards building the opposition in any sense. NCMP positions were just treated as extensions of this craze for the soap box. Does anyone have the interests of the ordinary voters at heart?

All the time we are complaining and grumbling about a lack of this and that, but never about the opposition's standard of behaviour and performance.

The way Kenneth Jeyaretnam was treated on his entry into politics spoke volumes about low standards.

Yours sincerely

David Wu 91466674, 64798278.skype: davidwutzekokzigu

Tue 02 Jun 2009 1:37 PM | Robox

Yes, the omission of the SDP in the news report was glaring.

But a point that I also wanted to raise is the restriction to [b]only 2 NCMPs from any one GRC[/b] - the system producing it was called very aptly called the Gang Rape Conspiracy by a netizen elsewhwre.

1. The status of NCMPs (and I suppose you could include NMPs here), have so far only been akin to that of the other backbenchers from the PAP as well as the opposition parties.

2. However, unlike the very forgettable PAP backbenchers, opposition MPs, NCMPs and to a lesser extent NMPs, are better known to the public; they have the potential to be [b]brand names[/b].

3. If you had more than two NCMPs from any one GRC, then you also have the potential for more than [b]two brand names[/b] running in the subsequent elections in the same GRC. (Compare this with the PAP's tactic so far of using only [b]one[/b] minister's brand name, one that is able to carry five other forgettables to a PAP GRC victory, in any one GRC - the chances of a PAP loss become very real if they had to compete with 4-6 brand names from the opposition. Imagine then, that in the event of an more-than-two-brand-names-opposition win in a GRC comes the introduction of even newer NCMPs in a subsequent election - who will repeat the same process and so on until the limit of nine opposition MPs is reached. PAP domination can start becoming seriously threatened.)

That, in my estimation is the true reason for the restriction to two NCMPs from any one GRC; you may realize that no justification for this restriction was given, unless I missed it.

Why merely "tweak" a grossly mutilated electoral system when what is needed is a massive [b]overhaul[/b] that will return the system - along with other reforms like in the media - to its original, complete with a level playing field?

[i]Note: This analysis is far from being a complete one.[/i]

Wed 03 Jun 2009 2:21 AM | Dick - Why the Black out?

Because you are a real threat. You kick them in the balls where it hurts.

Wed 03 Jun 2009 10:02 AM | spectrum - re: Interest of the Ordinary Voter

[quote=David Wu]
The way Kenneth Jeyaretnam was treated on his entry into politics spoke volumes about low standards.

I think its not about the low standards of the opposition, but more about how the establishment is trying to discredit Kenneth Jeyaretnam before he can even get a proper foot in the door. That said, it is important to be wary of how the media narrates the sequence of events.

They are deliberately trying to undermine Kenneth's leadership and make it seem that he was the cause of ex-chairman's exit although he was not. These tactics are all very old. Look at the way the media keeps spinning the lies about how Dr Chee led to the exit of Chiam. Same old tactics. It important to read between the lines with sophistication and truly understand the insidious "wayang" staged by the press.

Fri 05 Jun 2009 7:37 PM | zah - Hidden Hands

Spectrum I do agree with you. But there are a few hidden players in the game who are on a destructive mission reporting to even bigger players.