Singapore Democrats

Rather chivalrously, SDP states that it will fight for the residents.

It then reminds us that the residents have some form of economic power that they must exercise to fight back.

Besides all the talk and sending out letters, one wonders whether SDP's way of fighting for the resident is simply to urge them to fight back.

Otherwise, SDP could also be planning to carry out yet another round of petition signing, which incidentally got nowhere the last time round. Of course, I am sure it will also NOT fail to seize the opportunity to sell more of its newsletters as form of side-income.

Incidentally, will it be carrying all these fights(hopefully legally) as part of the series of activities to joyously celebrate its 30th Anniversary?

(By the way, I am also wonder whether the letter sent to Mr Teo Ho Pin really had a photo of a rather jovial looking John Tan on it. If so, I am sure Mr Teo would be fuming at the deliberate snigger)

BryanT: It is obvious the SDP wants to contest there again in the next GE. They are doing their political work - a call for votes in order to get into parliament, so that SDP can do more than what you mentioned - just petition signing, selling newspapers, and of course, last but not least, incumbent Teo's remaining silence etc.

quantum, I am quite aware of SDP's electoral interest in Bt Panjang, and hence the inclination to do as much as possible to gain prominence there.

I recognise that the rental hike is a suitable cause to do so, and SDP is definitely right to exploit it. If I were in politics, I would have done likewise.

But as what my earlier comment were attempting to infer, my concern is what SDP does to catch the attention of the voters there.

Also, I noticed that RP has also been quite vigourously making rounds around the same estate. I am surprised that they have not seize the opportunity to do so as well. Perhaps their strategy is different.

Nevertheless, I still hope that SDP abandons law-breaking civil disobedience tactics in the pursuit of its political goals. Residents are likely to assume that SDP is here to hijack their marketing problems for its own political purpose (and that assumption would be right).

A harsh and confrontational approach adopted by SDP will adversely seal the fate of the market as the government is unwilling to be seen to be yielding to unlawful tactics.

In this specific case, I also suggest that SDP will be ill-advised to again try to apply for an outdoor permit to address the resident, since it unlikely to get one.

If the rumour Sheng Siong is connected to the minister's relative, then Teo Ho Pin could not do anything at all.He is asking for trouble if he brings up this matter.He may be axed from the next GE.So what can PAP MPs do to help the constituents ? Other than keeping the Town Council clean,do some letter writing to help people to apply this and that,what can PAP MPs serve us ? He can't lower down the cost of living,he can't lower down the cost of Uni fees,he can't complain about the influx of foreigners? He can't lower down the valuations of HDB flats ? and yet this joker Yeo Shin Leong said he is a good MP.What is his definition of a good MP? He can't help us at all.

If writing a letter like this is considered "confrontational" for an opposition party, then perhaps BryanT should instead be asking the opposition to join the PAP or get into parliament on their terms and "mercy", instead on the conscious will of the people.

BryanT, why don't you join the PAP and contribute to their effort, if you aren't already.

BryanT:
Would you consider yourself to be confrontational toward SDP and Dr Chee?

For BryanT and the PAP, trying to uphold the Constitution and the National Pledge is "confrontational, destructive, and anti-national”.

By the way, why can’t the LHZB reporter or her colleagues in SPH write about the possible nexus between Sheng Siong and a PAP minister?

She seems to be quick to go on a fishing expedition with “foreign funding” that CSJ is rumored to be receiving. Furthermore, the allegation of “foreign funding” and how Chiam See Tong was "ousted" from SDP have been repeatedly raked up ad nauseam by the PAP-controlled bootlicking “media”.

I wonder if the storeholders can take up a class action against HDB and Sheng Siong. Sheng Siong is a competitor to the storeholders and the move to raise the rent so steeply is certainly a predatory action to squeeze out the small time storeholders. This is a case of public interest.

I'd be very surprised if MP Teo decides to speak up against the rental hike by Sheng Siong. After all he's paid obscenely well to look after PAP's interest, not his constituents' welfare. And the injustice is all the more greater considering that his pay is footed by the very people he betrays, not PAP.

"Confrontational" is just code for "lack of reverentiality", the same reverentiality that Emperor Lee has always demanded of us lesser beings while in his Imperial Court.

Fast Forward to the modern age: the feudal attitudes that BryanT is now demanding of the SDP are considered dysfunctional for democratic development.

Democracy entails free speech, so long as one maintains the idea of free speech as a problem solving tool. As a problem solving tool, free speech demands effective communication.

Now here comes the crunch: the reverentiality that the the BryanTs, and all others of a fascist prediliction, are demanding from democrats ACTUALLY SERVE AS A BARRIER TO EFFECTIVE COMMUNICATION.

How then can we solve problems if barriers to communication are put into place by fascists so that they may continue benefitting from the system that they have put in place that is only about their self-serving interests?

Another classic BryanT logic:

BryanT says: "quantum, I am quite aware of SDP's electoral interest in Bt Panjang, and hence the inclination to do as much as possible to gain prominence there."

Starts with a cynical statement. Don't say SDP is trying to do something good but rather has some underlying motive -- i.e. gain prominence.

BryanT says: "I recognise that the rental hike is a suitable cause to do so, and SDP is definitely right to exploit it. If I were in politics, I would have done likewise."

Then sound reasonable, appreciating that SDP is doing what any normal political party should do.

BryanT: "But as what my earlier comment were attempting to infer, my concern is what SDP does to catch the attention of the voters there."

Then here comes the slap in the SDP face; it is not doing enough to catch the attention of the voters.

BryanT: "Also, I noticed that RP has also been quite vigourously making rounds around the same estate. I am surprised that they have not seize the opportunity to do so as well. Perhaps their strategy is different."

Then go on to suggest that other parties are doing better but suddenly realise that his alternative suggesting may be a bit flawed decided to be wishy washy. The classic BUT statement, saying it in a way that people don't know what he stand for.

BryanT says: "Nevertheless, I still hope that SDP abandons law-breaking civil disobedience tactics in the pursuit of its political goals. Residents are likely to assume that SDP is here to hijack their marketing problems for its own political purpose (and that assumption would be right)."

Then comes the classic old chestnut, so-call "law-breaking" issue and SDP only real intention is law-breaking.

READERS WARNING: BryanT himself don't know if any law exists but somehow always default to the position that whatever SDP do it is "law breaking".

BryanT: "A harsh and confrontational approach adopted by SDP will adversely seal the fate of the market as the government is unwilling to be seen to be yielding to unlawful tactics."

Another case of classic BryanT crazy logic. Here if you read it carefully, he blames the SDP for "sealing the fate of the market" -- i.e. forcing the PAP to sell market -- because of their unlawful tactics rather than the fact that the PAP went ahead with the decision to sell.

Ah here he conveniently fail to point out that it was the PAP that choose to sell the market regardless of whether the SDP raised the issue or not.

So if the SDP tactic will not work what is his suggestion. Apparently, if you read his earlier statement, he seemed to be suggesting that the SDP should approach the issue like the RP -- i.e. non-confrontational way. Yet by his own admission that approach don't seemed to yield any result -- in his own words: "I am surprised that they have not seize the opportunity to do so as well."

BryanT: "In this specific case, I also suggest that SDP will be ill-advised to again try to apply for an outdoor permit to address the resident, since it unlikely to get one."

Ok now here comes the classic own-goal. On the one hand he says the SDP is not well known to the voters . So he suggest that SDP attract publicity but must do so "lawfully". And now he is suggesting that going to "lawful" approach is, in his own word -- "ill-advised" -- because the "law" -- that he craves -- would not allow the SDP to address the voters.

Let me summarised BryanT argument -- Do it lawfully but it you did it lawfully it is a waste of time anyway as you will not be allowed to do it lawfully!

So you see what BryanT really wants, for those who read his old posting, is to, using his own words, "to agitate (read violence)" against SDP.

A follow up from my last post: the alternative to reverentiality - primarily because it constrains communication - is CIVILITY.

This letter to Toe Ho Pin is an example of that civility. (Just take a look at that man's face: does he look like he has even a drop of royal blood in him that he, or anyone else on his behalf, can demand reverentiality?)

Only extremists like BryanT who cannot see the middle ground would conclude that any lack of reverentiality must mean the other extreme: rudeness, confrontional, etc. etc.

They will then proceed in their attempts to criminalize that civility.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5xUy2inkGHQ&feature=player_embedded

This is the British parliament. A Member of Parliament does not behave like an Imperial Court Eunuch.