What is the SDP trying to pull down?

Home

News

Singapore

Wednesday, 13 April 2011

Singapore Democrats

In the televised forum last night, the first topic that Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong spoke on was the political system. He was responding to a question which asked if the PAP accepted that the opposition in Singapore had the good of the nation at heart.

Mr Lee jumped right in pointing out the distinction between opposition parties that "work within our system and play a constructive role" (emphasis added) and opposition that wants "to pull down the system and bring it to disrepute". He added that the PAP treats these opposition parties differently.

No prizes for guessing who the "constructive" opposition parties and who the "destructive" ones are.

To be sure, this sentiment is not new. Mr Lee Kuan Yew had long tried to make the point that while Messrs Low Thia Kiang and Chiam See Tong were constructive, Dr Chee Soon Juan and the late J B Jeyaretnam were destructive - and had to be demolished.

Many Singaporeans who read no further than the SPH newspapers and watch nothing else other than MediaCorp programmes often buy into this propaganda - that the SDP is out to bring down Singapore while other opposition parties are constructive.

Note that the question asked if the PAP accepted that the opposition had the good of the nation at heart. Mr Lee jumped to the assumption that the questioner referred to the political system which the PAP had put in place.

In other words he had, quite deliberately, conflated Singapore with the PAP. If the two are the same, then any opposition party wanting to defeat the PAP system would also be pulling down Singapore. Now what Singaporean would want to bring down her own country or, for that matter, support a party with such intentions?

In framing the issue thusly, the PAP is effectively ensuring that it remains in power in perpetuity. Yes, the opposition may criticise it (after all, no system is perfect) but everyone should accept that the PAP is Singapore and Singapore is PAP which also means that no one should work to defeat the PAP.

Mr Lee openly stated that there were opposition parties that "work within our system". The SDP proudly admits that we are not one of those parties. The reason is simple as it is clear: Singapore is not the PAP.

Quite the contrary. The Singapore Democrats want to replace the PAP system with the one laid out for us in our nation's Constitution, one where elections are genuinely free and fair (unlike the one that presently exists), where the media is free and pluralistic, and where the legal system is independent.

To work within its system is to acknowledge that the PAP's policies are essentially good for Singapore. The SDP does not accept this premise. The structure and direction of our economy, the treatment of our poor and elderly, and the monetary reward our ministers lavish on themselves do not benefit our nation.

Indeed, it must be said - and repeated - that it is only when the PAP system is stopped that Singapore will progress and develop.

The folly is to accept Mr Lee's claim that only opposition parties that work within his party's system are constructive.

Readers of this website will testify that the SDP has been at the forefront of making alternative policies that address the problems that Singaporeans face, policies like reducing the GST, employing Singaporeans first, cutting down class size in our schools, etc.

The PM may not agree with what we propose. But that's very different from telling voters that certain parties are out to pull the country down.

Share this article:

Comments (18)

Wed 13 Apr 2011 5:22 PM | freedomT

Agreed. The PAP has only 1 view and that is, are you with us or against us. With us, you bloody shut up and follow our orders blindly or you are against us, you are a traitor and must be destroyed if not Singapore is finish with you around. The late JB is dead, everyone can see how happy are Lee kuan yew and his son. One down and one more to go. Now they target Dr Chee till the end. But Dr Chee is younger than LKY, who do you think will go first. I will support and agreed with whoever has my best interest at heart and that is the opposition. Self come first not others. Singaporean come first and NOT foreigners. PAP is wrong to say Singaporean are traitors. Dr Chee is a true blood Singaporean compared with the Health Minister Kwah. Dr Chee is a rare talent. Who say Singapore has no more talent. PAP is finish already.

Wed 13 Apr 2011 6:14 PM | King Cobra

Absolutely! It's Singaporeans Singapore to decide which party they want, prior to governing Singapore, rather than PAP giving instructions, as to how opposition parties are to function within their stipulated policy system. That's rediculous and crazy!

Well, this clearly indicates that the PAP is still thinking Singaporeans are still childish and without brains, and hence, needs pampering and guidance throughout. What a shame and pity!

Perhaps, blame PAP for our education system failure, in being non-creative Singaporeans for all these years, so much so, that we have to bring in FOREIGN TALENTS to help and guide Singapore.

Perhaps,in the not so distant future, we may even have to replace the whole PAP government with FOREIGN TALENTS, in ensuring Singapore economical success throughout.

WELL, THIS CLEARLY SHOULD BE THE RISE AND FALL OF PAP. TOO BAD! MAY GOD BLESS SINGAPORE!

Thu 14 Apr 2011 12:51 AM | Worker - Not so clear-cut

SDP's assertion that it is the only opposition party that wants a total overhaul of the PAP system seems accurate, bearing in mind how LKY had once remarked that JBJ had to be destroyed because he was attacking the system, as opposed to attacking policies, which is what the current opposition MPs are doing.

But on closer examination, it may not be so clear-cut. After all, WP's manifesto does call for some radical changes, like abolishing ISA and passing a Freedom of Information Act.

Thu 14 Apr 2011 3:42 AM | Stanley - Lee Hsieen Loong the charmless man

Boycotted the show yet watched it on YouTube’s TowerTV and 154media channels.

Reasons are that these channels allow for comments.

On PAP’s Youtube, comments are disabled.

Can you imagine if comments were allowed on Tin Pei Ling’s propaganda video?

What an irony. PAP can’t even accept suggestions, comments, constructive criticisms on YouTube.

PAP just does not listen.

Lee Hsieen Loong was so quick to shut everyone up with his one-sided views.

Seriously, Lee said himself PAP will want to raise GST in case GIC, Temasek Holdings and the PAP town councils lose more money in toxic investments.

PAP is so non-transparent. Each GST, rise in transport always happens after a GE and a PAP pay increase. Why increase GST to fund your own salaries and then explain it as a way to help the poor?

Kurt Wee did the best and quite frankly, he seemed unconvinced by Lee’s weak rebuttals. Same here.

Thu 14 Apr 2011 4:37 PM | Robox

"[Lee Hsien Loong] had, quite deliberately, conflated Singapore with the PAP. If the two are the same, then any opposition party wanting to defeat the PAP system would also be pulling down Singapore."

This is just another of the PAP's pre-election fear mongering tactics to make Singaporeans feel that without the PAP, Singaporeans can only look forward to a life without safety.)

Lee Hsien Loong did in fact conflate the two. But for a specific purpose.

What he failed to enunciate was that his father's PAP system is really a system of fascism - Confucianazism. Thus any opposition party, the SDP specifically, that wants to defeat the PAP system is really one that wants to defeat that fascism.

But not Singapore.

And what's wrong with that if the SDP wants to replace that fascist system with a more egalitarian one in which equality of access and equality of opportunity reign supreme?

What Lee Hsien Loong is NOT saying despite the empty PAP rhetoric of late is that he is adamant about preserving the fascist system of extreme stratification of society held together by elite structures who have a vested interest in keeping that hierarchy intact. Because they have been paid to do so.

Thu 14 Apr 2011 8:45 AM | Tan Tai Wei

Notice also that, on the issue of "difficulty" in getting "persons they want" into the PAP, Lee was less than honest in not mentioning what must be a key consideration.

He reasoned as if it is the differences between private and public sector work commitments, and political office, that had been the crucial factors that caused persons they approached not to cross over.
So he said private sector personnel would have more to adapt to, the differences in office being larger, and this explained why they were able only to get them mostly from the civil service and military.

But if salary weren't the sole or, at least, another crucial factor, why has it been deemed important to raise ministerial pay to such heights as to even risk losing ground support for the Party?

What LHL deliberately left unsaid was that private sector persons either already were, or had the potentials to be paid more than Ministers, whereas the public sector persons they succeeded to "persuade" to join, and now offer to the electorate, would or had the potential to get big jumps in pay.

Thu 14 Apr 2011 9:09 AM | Robox - This should be regarded as another instance in whi

But this the part that Lee Hsien Loong was actually being quite truthful:

"Mr Lee jumped right in pointing out the distinction between opposition parties that "work within our system and play a constructive role" (emphasis added) and opposition that wants "to pull down the system and bring it to disrepute". He addethe PAP treats these opposition parties differently."
d that the PAP treats these opposition parties differently."

How true.

My emphasis is on the last sentence, that 'the PAP treats these opposition parties differently'.

The PAP campaigns actively for 'constructive' parties like the WP as it did when:

1. Lim Wee Kiat praised Sylvia Lim on Talking Point;

2. George Yeo commented that Chen Show Mao had
impressive academic credentials; or,

3. Tharman Shanmugaratnam boosted the WP's Gerald Giam's profile by saying how good it was that the WP was tackling the issue of "productivity" that incidentally the SDP and the RP first raised as a way to reduce the over-reliance on foreigners in the Singapore economy.

Even the PAP's newsletter has gotten into the act. Chua Lee Hoong, the PAP's own Madam Fascism, wrote this recently:

http://blogs.straitstimes.com/2011/4/4/we-must-give-the-pap-48-wake-them-up

[Quote]

Q: Why do you support the opposition?

“I support the WP. They are a responsible, mature party. I listen to them in Parliament. Low Thia Khiang and that Lin Rui Lian (Sylvia Lim) , they don’t talk nonsense.

“Unlike the Singapore Democratic Party. Chee Soon Juan was standing here (pointing to the a small square in front of the block) talking in the last election and I didn’t even bother. The WP is different, they talk sense.”

{Endquote]

But their tack seems to have adjusted, quite possibly because of the charges I have made.

Now, Wong Kan Seng, while claiming neither to promote nor criticize the WP's elections manifesto, actually draws attention to it by saying that the WP's manifesto should be scrutinized; only the WP should be taken seriously.
thhttp://www.straitstimes.com/GeneralElection/News/Story/STIStory_655153.html

Not so when it comes to the SDP's Economic Alternative nor its shadow budget.

You see, the WP - the 'constructive' opposition - is always worth dignifying with a response; with the SDP
on the other hand, it should be very clearly communicated that the PAP is too high class for a party that fights for the poor and the disadvantaged, which should tell the same poor and disadvantaged exactly where they continue to stand in the eyes of the PAP.

For ignoring the party that stands for the poor and the disadvantaged is tantamount to ignoring the plight of the poor and the disadvantaged themselves.

It is exactly for that reason that Vivian Balakhrishnan "sees no need" for public debate with SDP despite his typically PAP false bravado just a few days earlier declaring the exact opposite.

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/1122360/1/.html

Thu 14 Apr 2011 10:10 AM | Prime Citizen

There are creative destruction and there are imaginative destruction. I am incline to believe that SDP is in the creative'destruction' , while the present ruling party is on imaginative destruction.

Say what you may, Mr Lee H L, I have come a long way to recognise who really stand up for the poor supressed citizens.

I urge all voters to give the opposititon parties a try for one term and see who can do a better job to salvage the identity of Singaporean First.

Thu 14 Apr 2011 12:30 PM | Prime Citizen

review this article and you must agree that SDP is not merely creatively 'destructing' PAP elitism but also to level the political playing field in Singapore if SDP/other oposition ne Singapore New Government.

Good to have your views since no many can pick our way through the constant and habitual haze of present govt misinformation and disinformation.

They continues to insult our intelligence with their so-called pre-election pork barrel ‘freebies’ that basically and without fail always boils down to giving you some scraps before/at election time to buy your votes and within a wink grab it back from you with higher taxes AFTER the election AFTER they have fixed us with the short hand of the stick and fixed themselves for MORE GOOD YEARS of Million $ salary.

Thu 14 Apr 2011 1:48 PM | A Simple Singaporean

I am not eloquent and I don't know how to use big words. All I can say is that the PAP's "constructive, elitist system" has been destructive for me. I'm now a first-class Singaporean living a third-class life. I cannot even be compared to the so-called foreign talents who are working as receptionists and clerks. My children cannot even afford to buy "public" homes. The public transport system has already become more expensive than a meal. I cannot even try to earn a living through hawking food since getting a stall now requires tendering. All these are already common knowledge but nothing has been done to correct the flaws in the system. A system can only be constructive if it can help the common folks to at least live a decent simple life at the minimum standard. Mine has fallen far beyond that because of the current system. I want a party who can speak up for me because my one-voice is too weak. I want a party who can take action to help me help myself improve my standard of living because my one-person effort is not strong enough. How is that so destructive?

Thu 14 Apr 2011 2:06 PM | wee family - tes of our wisdom

we all pray and hope that this coming election will be a test of our own wisdom.
time for us to really wake up and grow up.
we as true citizen must learn to discern, which leader really have a VISION for our nation.
for us, we have totally and completely rejected the PAP, because they keep talking to us like kids and idiots, refusing to bare responsibility for all the financial losses and their weak leadership.
maturity and wisdom will teach us, the PAP have no more vision for us, they are talking like some old Chinese grand papa trying to pressure their next generation to feed them forever. ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!!
we believe, without the PAP, we can do better!
a matter of our own integrity.
LKY is not Singaporean, he is 100% traditional China-man, which is why now he open up Singapore so much to China. even wanting to allow RMB trading in Singapore. The PAP under LKY will sell out our own land.
time to wise up, time to stand up for our rightful land!!

Thu 14 Apr 2011 2:23 PM | khdtan - WHOS SINGAPOREAN?

After reading all the comments made, I wonder who are we? Singaporean? Singapore citizens. I wonder what means destructive caused by SDA? I do not think so? Be it SDA, PAP,WP, all these men all Singaporean right? All should be looking after the citizens of Singapore right?

So why would PAP be afraid of SDA comments and their action? If Mr. Chee made their commimtment should they are elected in any GRC or GE, I am sure time will tell whether they would keep their promises. I am sure all Singaporeans would like to see destructive in our parliments?

Right now, because of the election, many(SDP,PAP,WP) comes forward to present themselves. Hopefully this will continues all the way even after election, since we have all these GRC or single wards and so on. But to be frank, the area I lives in, do not heard our PAP really walk around all these 4 years to really mingles with the people. How can they heard Singaporeans voices? Just because that economics is doing well? Not good enough.

Economis doing well does not means that the citizens can fuilfill their wishes. Not all people enjoy the fruits. The rich get richer only. And poor get poorer. Something is wrong right? These people can never said S$10000.00 is peanut.

Lastly when PM said that because the other consituency is under PAP, they get the upgrading piroity. While the others under WP later on. I do not think likewise. Why not concurrently. Afterall, we are all Singapore citizens right? PAP still has the power and budget for all these projects right?

So who ever get elected, I hope they think for the people of Singapore. People comes first then country.

Thu 14 Apr 2011 3:13 PM | Tan Tai Wei

On SDP's campaign for "diversity of views being represented", Lim Boon Heng said he had passionately, within the Cabinet, opposed casinos, in order to deny "goup-think" occurs within the PAP.

But should we, and Lim himself, not wonder?

Ong Teng Cheong, as President, also decided not to do only "group-think", and what happened? He called a press conference to fight back)rather than just weep?) Eventually, he, as former Minister and DPM, even former President, wasn't given a state funeral (while Geok Choo, as only wife of LKY, was).

Coming back to Lim, it has been observed that even he himself had not, expected to be laid off, while the public was taken by surprise, and not only because he is young compared to others still to be retained and has more years to serve in "talent scarce Singapore".

Now, we may concede that the conscious reason to remove him might not be on account of his passionate disagreement. But what about subconscious, even unconscious "drives"? After all, LHL had argued, even consciously, that where two precincts are due for "HDB upgrading", it's reasonable to give PAP constituencies priority.

So, where serving officers had to be removed to make way for new blood, could it be that Lim was given lesser priority, subconsciously because he lacked "group-think"?

Thu 14 Apr 2011 3:51 PM | freedomT

We have to get it straight who are Singaporean. I suggest that we consider those as Singaporean that families have been here since the British times, in Malaysia and at the time when Malaysia expelled Singapore out regardless of race or religion are true blooded Singaporean. Really hope SDP and opposition can bring up this matter if not we are having some Chinese table tennis team imported from China that claimed to be Singaporean by the PAP. Citizenship is not cheap as the PAP made it to be. We should be selfish in this to safeguard our Rights. No country on this planet except for Singapore gives away citizenship like sweets. Even Malaysia control the amount they gives to safeguard their Malaysian's citizen Rights. We need to control and protect our own homes from being overtaken by foreigners. I would suggest that any foreigners that want to be a Singaporean needs to undergo skills tests and language tests. Go through interview. Like what happened in other countries. No suka suka just because you are from China, you become a Singaporean within a week by ICA. I know thise because my family members are working with ICA. Foreigners get Singapore citizenship within a week. I repeat again they get citizenship in a week!!!

Thu 14 Apr 2011 11:56 PM | GodlySpeaking - THIS HOW MERITOCRACY ABUSED

Government should engage Watchdog committee to prevent COVETOUS politicians & civil servants that ONLY work to project yearly good financial report in order to covet high salaries & bonuses.

Watchdog commitee must see to that that COVETOUS politicians, who are also involved in retail & other businesses, do not employ foreigners to work only to obtain better profits.

THUS CORRUPTING MERITOCRACY BY DEPRIVING OUR WORKERS JOBS OF SUFFICIENT WAGE FOR SURVIVAL SINCE THEY HAVE TO COMPETE FOR THE JOBS WITH FOREIGNERS AT LOWER WAGES!

READ HOW GOD JUDGED THE covetous RICH MAN TO HAVE LACKED THE COMPASSION FOR THE POOR LIKE THE BEGGAR WHO HAD NOT ENOUGH HELP [Luke C16 - 19 to 31 from the Holy Bible]
AMEN

Mon 18 Apr 2011 12:40 PM | Prime Citizen

Much is made of the fact that the Budget is supposed to help Singaporeans cope with inflation. However inflation on its own is not the problem. The problem is that our wages have barely kept pace with inflation. And the culprit here is relentless population growth driven by this government’s liberal foreign worker policy.

There two kind of citizens in our nation: born citizens and bought citizens. PAP is taking the born citizens for granted while over protecting those bought citzens. After all PAP value the price they pay the bought citizens.

Sat 23 Apr 2011 7:14 AM | carpediem - credibility

I applaud the website and the greater levels of awareness generated by SDP in its desire and quest to ensure that Singaporeans get (and deserve) a more active citizenry and more importantly, better and clearer representation / accountability in parliament.

The good news is that people who are commenting are very supportive of SDP and its views.

The bad news? The bad news is that people who are commenting are too supportive of SDP and its views.

I hope my two cents below is worth its salt.

And that is that, regardless of how fervent or cogent your arguments or "truth"s are, unless you can gradually change the perception of the general public - that you can be credible - and not just aggressive or loud, it is difficult to make people even want to listen.

Worse still, those that do, will become "loyalists" that will defend your policies / attacks on the establishment and find it difficult to differentiate policies that are "populist" against those policies that are essentially good for the nation, now and for the future.

After all, (winning in) politics is also about being able to influence others to (be willing to) see your perspective and consider options and solutions to the problems you perceive.

Broadly, I have no doubts that you have Singapore and Singaporeans at heart. I have no doubts that you mean well and is actually showing tremendous leadership in sticking to your principles and desire to highlight the inequalities in our society.

However, the more aggressive (and defensive - of previous attacks by the media or individuals, rightfully or otherwise) your stance and method of engagement is, the more you will draw these "loyalists" and detract the general public (the majority).

How that is a wise strategy to persist upon, especially one to win elections and to win over the minds and hearts of the majority, is beyond me.

That said, the best judge of the effectiveness of your strategy though will be the actual polling results AND your ability to retain and attract further candidates and volunteers.

I particularly applaud the "listening" approach underlined in your SDP promise - that is however, what all parties resolve and undertake to do, isn't it? Sometimes, it is easy to say, and easy to criticize, but extremely difficult to do, and be introspective and willing to admit failings.

In summary, I appreciate your bravado and directness in highlighting the many issues and rightly so. I do feel however that your appeal will be greatly enhanced by a less "sensational", "populist", "aggressive", "adversarial" disposition.

Col Ang's (or I think that's him) firm, sincere, frank and steadfast disposition in the latest news clips would be a good way to change?

The success, or failure, of SDP's charge at the impending polls, in my opinion, rests on which disposition the public sees (the sensational adversarial or the sincere steadfast) in your party.

Mon 25 Apr 2011 11:16 AM | tom - PM Lee must be accountable first !!

Singapore is the only country where the PM LEE HL used to be also the Minister of Finance. Wife, Ho Ching heads Temasek Holdings. Chairman Lee Kuan Yew heads Treasury.

Did the Lees siphoned monies into personal account is questionable, since there is a clear conflict of interest.

In a first class developed economy. This situation will never happens !!

It's about time we look at these accounts. WHY ? IT'S THE PEOPLE MONIES AND NOT THE LEES !

Lee Kuan Yew need also to account for the people why the default lawyer for all sellers and buyers conveyancing fees is done by Lees and Lees Law Firm since the beginning of HDB public housing policy. How much monies has been amassed by Lees ? Why does HDB still allows this practice to continue to this date ??

Can both LEES explain to the Citizens of Singapore ?

There ought to be a public enquiry on these issues !