Lee Hsien Loong doesn't want to debate

Home

News

Singapore

Monday, 24 August 2009

Singapore Democrats

Last week the SDP's secretary-general wrote to his PAP counterpart, Mr Lee Hsien Loong, inviting the ruling party to an online debate (see here).

This came after an exchange between Dr Chee Soon Juan and Foreign Minister George Yeo in Facebook. Mr Yeo had suggested to Dr Chee that he write to the PAP if the SDP wanted a structured debate on key national issues on the Internet.

PAP's Executive Director Mr Lau Ping Sum replied on the Prime Minister's behalf and declined to the debate, citing that the Internet is "but one channel" for debate. He cited other avenues such as Parliament, mass media and public dialogues.

Of course, Mr Lee conveniently forgets that the Government controls the mass media and that public dialogues are not the forums where political parties can go toe-to-toe on the issues and where both sides can ask pointed questions and rebut answers.

Parliament is such a venue. But, the reply points out, the SDP did not get elected.

What it doesn't say is that during the elections, the Prime Minister and his father sued the Singapore Democrats and went to the extent of obtaining a court injunction to stop us from discussing the National Kidney Foundation scandal and the Government's role in it, which we had indicated was going to be the key issue for our campaign.

The PAP also does not say that Dr Chee Soon Juan was prevented from campaigning for his party candidates and was even barred from going on stage to speak at his own party rallies.

The mass media, of course, did its best to portray the Singapore Democrats in the worst light possible.

This is why the SDP is asking for an online debate where the mass media cannot manipulate the information. This allows for the strengths and weaknesses of either side to be seen without censorship and readers can then judge for themselves who they want to support.

The fact that Mr Lee shies away from this medium tells Singaporeans that the only way the ruling party can beat the SDP is by controlling and censoring information about the Singaore Democrats.

This is not a sign of a confident ruling party. It is not even the sign of a ruling party, only one of a paranoid and out-dated autocracy.

The PAP concludes that there will be "ample opportunities for the SDP to debate the PAP again." But when there was a chance for Mr Lee Hsien Loong to answer questions from Dr Chee and Ms Chee Siok Chin during his lawsuit hearing last year, the PAP secretary-general chose to remain silent (see here).

So much for ample opportunities.

Mr Chee Soon Juan
Secretary General
Singapore Democratic Party

Dear Mr Chee

SG PAP has asked me to reply on his behalf.

The PAP engages Singaporeans on the whole range of issues that affect their lives through a multiplicity of channels including Parliament, the mass media and public dialogues. Cyberspace, though important, is but one channel.

In Parliament, the PAP engages members of the Opposition which by the decision of Singapore voters at the last GE does not include the SDP.

However, at the next GE, there will be ample opportunities for the SDP to debate the PAP again.

Lau Ping Sum
Executive Director
PAP HQ

Share this article:

Comments (32)

Tue 25 Aug 2009 6:26 AM | BryanT - As expected...

[color=red]"This is not a sign of a confident ruling party. It is not even the sign of a ruling party, only one of a paranoid and out-dated autocracy."[/color]

I am not referring to the rejection by the PM. That was already a known fact before SDP composed its letter.

Instead, what had been [b]expected [/b]is SDP's response once their totally ludicrous and misplaced request had been rejected.

As I had stated in another post, SDP had known all along that it's request would be rejected. It is meant to provide itself with the opportunity to paint itself as victimised, and deprived of opportunities to present its case to the people and that the ruling party is afraid to have a debate with it.

It's a paradox to make accusations of paranoia when one has to resort to devising such a (paranoid) scheme.

Tue 25 Aug 2009 6:22 AM | BryanT - I stand by my 18 Aug comments..

[color=red]"CSJ knows that PAP has many reasons NOT to accede to this request for a debate. Let me list a few.

a. PAP has nothing to gain from a debate with a party that [b]deliberately breaks the laws to achieve its ends[/b]. Even after CSJ agrees to debating guidelines if a debate were to happen, but what are the assurances against him breaking those as well?

b. PAP has no reason to give SDP any advantage over the other opposition parties, least of all [b]a party that has repeated failed at the polls[/b].

c. CSJ's track record does not indicate that he wants or is able to [b]conduct a debate on a cordial basis[/b]. (refer to taunts in facebook exchange with GY)

As CSJ composed the letter above, I am quite confident that he already expects a non-affirmative reply. He has already preemptively prepared a few letters or postings to raise hue and cry that PAP does not practise what it preaches, to allow him some airspace."[/color]

In case anyone missed it, I stand by and reiterate my comments above made on 18 Aug.

Tue 25 Aug 2009 5:08 AM | maxchew - A craven coward.....

PM Lee Hsien Loong ran away with his tail between his legs.....so much for the leader of a "developed" nation in the year 2009.

Tue 25 Aug 2009 5:15 AM | guy2100

What an arrogant reply! This is making me really upset. He does not want to debate with another opposition party. SDP should muster all their resources to get into parliament the next time and debate with them on all issues. Winning a GRC is within your means. Remember that many people here are former PAP supporters. We have lost confidence in the PAP these past few years. There are many people like me. SDP shouldn't shy away from competing against them. Winning a GRC is like kicking them in the ball. Maybe you guys can come to West Coast GRC (my hometown). Let us welcome you with open arms.

Tue 25 Aug 2009 5:33 AM | quantum

BryanT:
If you are not happy , you can always try to get into the SDP and replace CSJ. See if the party cadre will elect you or not. LOL.

Tue 25 Aug 2009 6:49 AM | | seebeng - PAP rubberstamp

The authoritarian PAP is afraid of any meaningful debate affecting the people, either inside or outside parliament.

Here, a look back into recent history would help to understand the inability of the autocratic PAP to engage the opposition in debate.

In 1965 the Barisan Sosialis had 13 elected MPs but the then Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew refused to engage the opposition party for a debate in parliament on Singapore's independence from Malaysia. Repeated calls for the convening of parliament by BS fell on deaf ears. The standoff went on for more than a year.

Now, the PAP has the cheek to challenge the SDP to get elected to parliament before challenging it for a debate. What a hypocrisy!

Dictators avoid the people. They remain in power through instilling fear in the minds of the citizenry. To keep this fear at a heightened level, tyrants need to bring under their control the entire state machinery including parliament, the electoral system, the civil service, the police, the judiciary and the media.

Recent events in Parliament where ministers like Lee Kuan Yew and Tharman refused to answer legitimate questions show that the House has been effectively turned into a PAP rubberstamp.

Tue 25 Aug 2009 12:21 PM | Robox

What's not entirely surprising, though ironical, about this is that the same people who don't hesitate to "kill chickens" turn chicken themselves when the slightest challenge is issued to them.

Bloody cowards!

Tue 25 Aug 2009 4:43 PM | BryanT - quantum - SDP's strength and weakness

[color=red]"If you are not happy , you can always try to get into the SDP and replace CSJ. See if the party cadre will elect you or not. LOL."[/color]

quantum, let me surprise you with a statement : "CSJ is the strength of the SDP. Without him, the SDP would be just another has-been in the Singapore political scene. Currently, only he is able to differentiate SDP from the herd"

Let me surprise you with yet another statement : "CSJ is also the weakness of the party. His current strategy based on confrontation, vindictiveness and appealing the people's sense of a party victimised will not work. It risks being ostracised"

As to your kind suggestion for me to get into the SDP and replace CSJ; no thanks, I have never had and will never have any political ambitions and I have no inclination or need to stoop so low to have to appeal to the SDP members. Sorry to have to spoil the fun for you.

A quote from the erstwhile Vice-Prez, Dan Qualye : "Votes are like trees, if you are trying to build a forest. If you have more trees than you have forests, then at that point the pollsters will probably say you will win."

Tue 25 Aug 2009 6:29 PM | firepower - Hiding in the parliament - Help Daddy!

Fabrication of a paradox or not is irrelevant, the bottom line is, it’s effective and obtains its results. Getting into parliament is also irrelevant the value is wining the heart of the people. The parliament is only a stage but the real show is outside. In fact it seems to be a much better show outside the parliament. Frankly, how many Singaporeans really watch the parliament debates. BUT! The news? YES! The Internet, yeah!

It is the freedom of speech that the government can’t handle. Transparency of the internet is too hard for the PAP to hide.

Tue 25 Aug 2009 8:01 PM | Kit

Perhaps the PM needs reminding that 1/3 of his GRC did not vote for him. Not only did those voters cast out his MPs, but they also rejected him as PM.

Is that voice not important? 67% in a democracy is a landslide. 33% in an autocracy is a deafening chorus.

Tue 25 Aug 2009 8:48 PM | Tan Tai Wei

I don't fo;;ow the logic.

Because cyberspace is but only one channel for public debate, PAP needn't engage citizens on it?

PAP have no obligation to dialogue with citizens who have not entered parliament?

Wed 26 Aug 2009 12:49 AM | BryanT - Kit - Get your facts right!

[color=red]"Is that voice not important? 67% in a democracy is a landslide. 33% in an autocracy is a deafening chorus."[/color]

Kit, you are wrong!

In AMK GRC, PAP won 60.42%. But nation-wide, PAP obtained 66.60% of the votes contested.

This means that the PM's team faired worse that the rest of his party members. And remember that most of the opposition WP's team of 6 were in their 20s and the constituency was contested for the first time in 15 years. I think some bucking-up is due.

So, this calls for a quote from Dan Quayle: "A low voter turnout is an indication of fewer people going to the polls."

PS. I still think the below par performance was due to that table tennis association president.... what's her name...

Wed 26 Aug 2009 1:31 AM | BryanT - Kit - Demo-autocracy

[color=red]"67% in a democracy is a landslide. 33% in an autocracy is a deafening chorus."[/color]

Kit, very interesting statement above.

But I would like to counter-propose: In a democracy 50.01% is approval, but 100% is impossible (ie. people never agree totally).

In an autocracy, 0.01% is unanimity (ie. only the dictator decides)

Comments anyone?

Tue 25 Aug 2009 10:28 PM | NissanViP - BryanT - I stand by my 18 Aug comments..

[color=blue]Court: IRRELEVANT !!

Court: LHL(PAP), to answer CSJ(SDP)call.

Court: BryanT, are you PAP member to speak on behalf of LHL? If you are not, please stand down.[/color]

Wed 26 Aug 2009 12:25 AM | quantum

Hi BryanT:
[quote]I have no inclination or need to stoop so low to have to appeal to the SDP members.[/quote]
Are you looking down on SDP members? Please clarify.

Wed 26 Aug 2009 12:43 AM | tangeo

quantum,

Do not let this BryanT distract you and other readers from the content of the post. This guy waits and baits. Debate on the contents, not his baseless opinions.

Wed 26 Aug 2009 1:26 AM | BryanT - quantum - in normal english, no.

[color=red]"Are you looking down on SDP members? Please clarify."[/color]

quantum, in layman english, does not having to appeal to someone mean one is looking down on the latter?

Not in my dictionary anyway.

Wed 26 Aug 2009 5:46 AM | BryanT - tangeo - Me, a fisherman?

[color=red]"Do not let this BryanT distract you and other readers from the content of the post. This guy waits and baits. Debate on the contents, not his baseless opinions."
[/color]

tangeo, first NissanViP sends me to courts, then you try to make me a fisherman (who "waits and baits").

Must life be that complicated? Yes, I agree.

Let's debate the contents but we are also free to express opinion. Your assumption that my opinion is baseless is also....an opinion.

Let's discuss where you disagree with what I said or have an alternate view. I'd rather not be the subject of discussion - it's not fair to other readers.

Wed 26 Aug 2009 3:44 AM | NissanViP - BryanT - Comtempt of NissanViP Court.

[color=blue]Court: BryanT, you insisted to debates with persistent argument, despite I have mentioned to you earlier. If you are acting on behalf of PAP (LHL), please be upfront.

This is no "Kangaroo" Court.

Court: Debate exchange adjourned.[/color]

[color=red]Let's debate the contents but we are also free to express opinion. Your assumption that my opinion is baseless is also....an opinion.[/color]

Wed 26 Aug 2009 4:48 AM | quantum

[quote]angeo, first NissanViP sends me to courts, then you try to make me a fisherman (who "waits and baits").[/quote]
You have earned it all. Serve you right, saboteur.

Wed 26 Aug 2009 6:38 PM | BryanT - NissanViP - Proclaim not

[color=red]"If you are acting on behalf of PAP (LHL), please be upfront."[/color]

NissanViP, maybe you have not noticed, I have stated it here quite a few times - I have no need for any political affiliation and take it more as a liability.

But why should you believe what I proclaim here, or for that matter anybody's proclamation? You should just take each one's words for what they are worth.

Wed 26 Aug 2009 5:16 PM | BryanT - quantum, tangeo, NissanViP

[color=red]"You have earned it all. Serve you right, saboteur."[/color]

quantum, tangeo, NissanViP, thank you all for your interest in my comments, my political background and whether I get well paid by the government.

I don't mind repeatedly restating my position with respect to my comments in this website or my unrepentantly lack of party affiliation in this small local political arena.

But I think this fruitless banter over the colourful labels such as sockpuppet, saboteur, lackey, PAP IB (I've still not figure this one out), is doing a disfavour to other genuine readers here.

It detracts from the issues being discussed and strain the eyes and minds in trying to follow the arguments and opinion offered on the topics proper. Heaven forbid, but it could reach a point where it turn readers off and then shut themselves off from this website. Then all of us would be guilty of killing the proverbial golden goose.

I hope not to give false interpretation when points go unanswered - you know, the silence-means-consent thing. So I have religiously entertained by replying to everyone when points are marked to me because I regard it is as basic courtesy to reply and do so with pleasure.

But I hope you get understand the lethargy when it gets a tad repetitive. I hope also not to be the topic when there are obviously more important things to deliberate and ponder over.

Rest assured that sticks and stones may break my bones, but labels hardly cause a kink. By all means puncture my arguments when you disagree with what I have to say, but pinning labels does not deflate the views.

Also rest assured that I will still reply to all queries about my background or conspiracy theories about my postings, courteously and with gratitude. The poor camel's back is reportedly still unbroken.

Thu 27 Aug 2009 6:25 AM | quantum

BryanT:
You can continue your meaningless rant...but just remember to watch your language and give the people here some respect.

Fri 28 Aug 2009 11:00 AM | NissanViP - BryanT -What I have found out about you and your m

[color=blue]BryanT,

If you have notice already, you spend too much time replying each threads although you've claimed that you are semi-retired and not related to any political party.

I have assessed carefully and followed every each of your replies and begin to apply my previous investigating experiences into practice to work.

I think any layman can tell you are aggressively defending Govt/PAP weaknesses and where it hurts you most.

Here is what I have found out more or less about your motives,

1.To bait and lure CSJ out to debate with you so that other PAP members can read and guided you as well.

2.To gain and understand SDP (CSJ) master plan and/or strategy in preparation for battle in the next GE.

3. Your reply is not less than just a diversion strategy meant for both registered and anonymous readers from the truth. (As you have noticed, nowadays singaporean has woke up from their dreamland about Singapore Govt treatment, especially the "Equality" issue)

4.Your reply seems soft (one side your agree, on the other hand you defended = PAP style) but tend to be aggressive whenever it concern too many loophole about PAP (Government).

Filtering is what you have been doing choose not to answer whenever lack of "should I say" knowledge or information to return the debates.

(Unfortunately, your persistent character have sold you out.)

5.Your "precious" time dedicated in every thread you have participated, obviously show too much about you and your job. (Although no hard evidence since I have no access to gain information)

6.To divert SDP (CSJ)concentration so to weaken their strength to combat upcoming GE and therefore you thought also think that it will change readers mind in SDP team credibility.

There's more to find out about your motives, I think for now it is enough to reveal your operational mission.

Like I said many times, be honest, upfront, nothing to be shame being PAP and make your confession openly if you are working for PAP as spy or one of them.

I am puzzled If SDP is honest and nothing to be afraid of, why can't you (PAP)?

If true you are PAP member, the debate will be more fruitful and I am sure not just SDP members, any readers would welcome this opportunity.

Please re-think about it for the moment.

Thank you.[/color]

Fri 28 Aug 2009 5:47 PM | g_e - Is he the jungle VIP?

[quote][i]This is not a sign of a confident ruling party. It is not even the sign of a ruling party, only one of a paranoid and out-dated autocracy.[/i][/quote]

What an opportunity wasted, I must say. Here was the chance for the PM to lay to rest once and for all the scurrilous gossip that he is so dumb that he - [i]allegedly[/i] - cannot poop and chew gum at the same time (which is why chewing gum was been banned in Singapore, of course) and what does he do? He ducks and dives and behaves like a political coward for all the world to see. [i]Cheh[/i]! damn malu man.

Our dearest bro BryanT kindly points out it's because SDP deliberately breaks the laws to achieve its (sinister) ends, it's a party that has repeatedly failed (miserably) at the polls, and CSJ couldn't conduct a debate on a cordial basis if his life depended on it.

Well! If that's true, then what does it look like when the mighty PM, absolute ruler of all he surveys, nervously flinches from taking on and demolishing a born loser like that, eh?

Should be bloody child's play to publicly shred SDP's silly Tak Boleh Tahan antics, silence CSJ's annoying voice with a few deftly-chosen remarks and stroll away triumphantly just like Barack would.

But instead he's acting like a bucket of Colonel Sanders original recipe crispy fried chicken, all crackle and no pop. Tch, tch. I'm so disappointed I think I'll vote SDP next time, see if I don't.

Fri 28 Aug 2009 11:08 PM | BryanT - g_e - Oral and anal, where got connection?

g_e,

I must express grave displeasure at the unsupportable insinuations you have just made. I can confirm that oral and anal muscles can and do function independently and the human species has been scientifically proven to be capable of operating more than one orifice simultaneously.

How can you malign the government's good intent in banning chewing gum? It was to dissuade gum-loving, loud-mouthed, liberal-minded westerners from migrating here. Who knows, they might mistaken the SDP for the GOP.

As to whether anybody or anything can silence CSJ's annoying voice, I doubt even a whole lot of chewed chewing gum will do the trick. Besides, I declared (loudly) my abhorrence of any attempt to silent any opposition party member, loud-mouth or otherwise.

I must qualify that there has been rumours that there are some characters in the website trying to affect CSJ's concentration so to weaken [his] strength to combat upcoming GE and therefore.... change readers['] mind in SDP team['s] credibility. I would why anyone would go away with that idea.

Sat 29 Aug 2009 10:41 AM | g_e - Send in the [proctologist] clowns

Well BryanT,

If you claim there is no connection between your mouth and your bottom, then I recommend you see your doctor as a matter of urgency. And if you do accept the association (as I think you must) then you understand the significance of that elegant phrase 'ass-kissing', I'm sure.

Be that as it may, a swift Google will prove to you that no less a person than Lyndon B. Johnson made the gum-chewing reference about Gerald Ford, though he did admittedly say 'fart' instead of 'poop'. So it wasn't a figleaf of my imagination and is a perfectly logical conclusion to draw as I'm sure you'll be the first to agree.

I realise LBJ does not rank quite as high in your estimation as your hero Dan Quale, but he was 2-time President of the USA while Dan was a failed vice-Presidential contender, so his view must count for something, surely?

It is most kind of you to be concerned but you need not fear for CSJ's state of mind and the annoying tone of his rhetoric. Unfortunately (for some), he has emerged even tougher after 20 and more years of unforgiving PAP harassment and is now more than a match for anyone in the cabinet. Our mollycoddled PM's hasty run-road from the debate shows that all too clearly.

The level of annoyance caused to people by Chee's polemic is directly proportional to, and increases logarithmically with, their proximity to the ruling party, if you remember your school math. So for those far removed from PAP (such as you and I), he's not in the slightest bit irritating whereas for say, WKS, he would sound like the extremely persistent voice of God himself.

Have you forgotten all your Zen training, grasshopper? It's all to do with opening the doors of perception, my dear BryanT.

Wed 02 Sep 2009 11:33 PM | BryanT - g_e

"The level of annoyance caused to people by Chee's polemic is directly proportional to, and increases logarithmically with, their proximity to the ruling party"

g_e, thanks for your wise words and anatomical lesson. But I hope you'd strictly refrain from downplaying the achievements of my hero.

Yes, I will remember to do my regular deep-breathing exercise and mark a danger zone around the PCF Building where the targets of CSJ's invectives occasionally meet.

Tue 01 Sep 2009 8:07 AM | g_e - The tolling of the iron bell...

[quote][i][b]LKY's a Chinoise cat, he's very tall and thin;
You would know him if you saw him, for his eyes are sunken in.
His brow is deeply lined with thought, his head is highly domed;
His teeth are yellow from neglect, his nearly botak head uncombed.
He sways his head from side to side, with movements like a snake;
And when you think he's half asleep, he's always wide awake.

And when the GIC's been looted, or the public purse is rifled,
Or when the evidence is missing, or another dissident's been stifled,
Or the courtroom laws are broken, and the case is past repair —
Ay, there's the wonder of the thing! LKY's not there![/b]

(with deepest apologies to T.S. Eliot)[/i][/quote]

Ask not for whom the bell tolls, BryanT.
It tolls for Lee and the PAP.

Wed 02 Sep 2009 11:33 PM | BryanT - g_e - Ring ma bells!

g_e, I must really thank you for this little ditty. I would certainly like to have a chance to knock those balls.... I mean, bells.

Nah, I'll refrain, in case someone comes to ring my bells instead.

[color=red]Sometimes you love it
Sometimes you don't
Sometimes you need it
Then you don't and you let go

Sometimes we rush it
Sometimes we fall
It doesn't matter baby
We can take it real slow

Cause the way that we touch
Is something that we can't deny
And the way that you move
Oh you make me feel alive
Now come on [/color]

(no apologies needed, to Enrique Iglesias)

Fri 04 Sep 2009 8:24 AM | quantum

[quote]As to whether anybody or anything can silence CSJ's annoying voice[/quote]
You really have some personal issue with Dr Chee, really, and you are now fighting a personal crusade against him.

Sat 05 Sep 2009 6:59 AM | BryanT - quantum - No silent sabo

[color=red]"You really have some personal issue with Dr Chee, really, and you are now fighting a personal crusade against him."
[/color]

quantum, of course I do not have any personal issues with CSJ. The concerns I have with SDP are elucidated in my various entries here. So I will not bore you by repeating them.

Anyway, if you check back, the issue of silencing CSJ came up in jest between g_e and myself.

g_e was joking that it "should be bloody child's play to publicly shred SDP's silly Tak Boleh Tahan antics, silence CSJ's annoying voice with a few deftly-chosen remarks and stroll away triumphantly just like Barack would."

I chewed my cud (and gum) and vehemently disagreed. I then stated that it would be difficult to keep CSJ quiet and even reiterated my "abhorrence of any attempt to silent any opposition party member, loud-mouth or otherwise."

No to worry, your wise and indefatigable leader is safe from any "sabotage" to silent him, at least from these quarters.