The Community Club (CC) at Bukit Panjang has rejected an application by the SDP to rent its hall for a public forum to discuss the controversy over the sale of the wet market at Fajar Road to Sheng Siong. Mr Colin Leow of the CC replied that he cannot rent out the venue to political parties.
The police had earlier rejected an application by the Singapore Democrats to have the talk outside the wet market itself. They indicated that the talk could be held indoors or at Speakers' Corner.
The only indoor venue that is available for such a forum is the CC at the constituency. But the CC has decided that political parties are not welcome even though the wet market issue clearly involves the community.
What about the Speakers' Corner? Why should a local issue regarding residents of Bukit Panjang be held at Hong Lim Park? Why should residents, many of whom are not young and would find it difficult to make the trip, have to do downtown just to talk about a matter in their own backyard?
This is why the SDP rejects the notion of a free speech venue, a circumscribed area only where public talks are permitted in the country.
This is the clearest example yet of how the curtailment of our political rights affect bread-and-butter issues.
In any democratic country, the people and the opposition would be able to legitimately raise the issue of a neighbourhood market being taken over by big businessman that would put many out of work and raise prices.
Such a public discussion would necessitate the member of parliament to give an account of what he/she would do to help his constituents.
But given the unconstitutional ban on legitimate outdoor political talks, PAP MPs are well protected from the views and sentiment of the residents. The opposition would also be unable to help pressure the incumbent to act in the interest of the people.
The ruling party MPs can safely do as they please.
Dr Teo Ho Pin, MP fpor Bukit Panjang, can afford do little or even nothing, and not have to pay a political price.
The police is disingenuous in calling on the SDP to hold the activity indoors knowing that there is no available venue for such an activity. The Speakers' Corner, for reasons stated above, is also a non-starter.
In other words, there is no avenue for the people to speak up and debate the issues that affect their everyday lives.
So the next anyone says that democracy and political rights have nothing to do with bread-and-butter issues, remember: Sheng Siong, wet markets, and PAP MPs.
If it is indeed true that BPCC rejected the application to rent its hall on arbitrary grounds not published in its booking guidelines, or inconsistently across the political parties, then the decision is deplorable and should be denounced.
CCs are facilities for the community and if the dialogue were strictly confined to issues related to it, the usage can be considered proper and justifiable.
Although SDP may be handicapped by an opponent that holds most of the cards currently, that is no reason to lose the moral high-ground in the eyes of residents and the rest of the nation.
SDP builds its political credentials by being seen to be challenged or tested, and yet resists resorting to vindictive measures or that which indicates political impetuosity. The perception of reasonableness and maturity is enhanced.
The moral high-ground gained is more valuable than the isolated dents it makes on the opponent's armour with each encounter or issue.
I hope SDP will be to find alternative indoor venues around the estate, but minimally, SDP should be applauded for the restraint it shows (or will continue to show).
NissanViP
-
Sheng Shiong & Government Agency.
Mon 02 Nov 2009 2:32 AM
I received information that Sheng Shiong and Government agency secretly coordinating among them.
I believe SS is protected, and even not to “entertain” SDP call over wet market discussion.
Lets watch how SS going to “up” his business and we must decide if we need to boycott SS later.
tewniaseng
-
Mon 02 Nov 2009 11:31 AM
why pap mps can use cc but not opposition parties ?
juzONEsingh
-
Mon 02 Nov 2009 1:30 PM
Dr THP? cum-on, u seriously expect him to be hands-on and cum do work for residents in BP?
i'll have more chance of tio TOTO than him cum-ing, man....
i tink he'll still stand for the next erection... and i will tell my grandmother NOT to vote for him...
Hello, The Right Wings had listed their 4 key point to tackle (S'porean raising Unhappiness) in this coming election.
1)Cost Of Living
2)Affordabilitly of public housing
3)Immigration
4)Re-empolyment of older worker
5)Placing their freshman
As usual the Pork Barrel sweetener will to added
During good times, such spending taxpayers money on targeted project that benefit selected peoole S'porean usually turn a blind eye.
However this is recession time, Sporean want more "tangible things" that help them in running their family "lack of money" and not project the beautify the void deck or lift upgrading
This argurement is important for S'porean to see such project are a waste of taxpayer money
THE sacrifices made by workers to help their companies through the economic downturn might have created a 'sweat debt' which may make for a 'dangerous recovery', said global management consultancy Hay Group.
This insidious debt arose from tightening measures such as wage cuts and freezes to help firms weather the slowdown. Workers who have stretched themselves through the tough times might be feeling frustrated now.
NissanViP
-
STOP LKY and his PAP.
Mon 02 Nov 2009 10:04 PM
I urge Singaporean not to fall into PAP trap anymore.
Unless LKY willing to “pay” us $100 millions to every birth-right Singaporean.
Until then, we must make them (LKY and his family, and PAP) PAY for their evil deed for too many years.
IT IS PAY BACK TIME.......
greyheyn
-
Tue 03 Nov 2009 6:52 AM
There was a bold side of many Singaporean in the 50s. And there is a cautious side after independence. Both have their time and season. Caution is often born of common sense. But there are times when caution is retreat and retreat is dangerous. I have lost count of the number of supposedly intelligent people who said to me - You don't understand Singaporean. They're very pragmatic people. No they weren't actually. They are like the Afghans. Some said they like religious extremism but no they didn't.
Sure, our values aren't western values. But they're human values, and anywhere, anytime people are given the chance, they embrace them.
Some people still have 1965 expectations of the PAP government. They want it to do things for them. In fact today, government can only do things to them. We can't make that change by more law abiding but by just flogging the system harder. We need to change the system.
There's nothing wrong with the old principles of being cautious but if the old ways worked, they'd have worked by now.
“If the work is something that is worthwhile, then, regardless whether we can achieve it or not, make attempt. That is, I think, important. Courageous.”