Singapore Democrats

Dr Catherine Lim on “cooling-off” day: PAP must be feeling very insecure

http://www.temasekreview.com/2010/01/14/dr-catherine-lim-on-cooling-off-day-pap-must-be-feeling-very-insecure/

"The point is that change necessitates perseverance. Perseverance encompasses repetition of action (even though that action may be refined and improved along the way). And repetition of action draws more participants in to the campaign."

Exactly.

History is replete with numerous examples of just a handful of dedicated persons setting out to change authoritarian/dictatorial regimes.

Dictatorial regimes in themselves don't depend on the support of masses. Tyrants control the people through fear, intimidation and disinformation/misinformation through castrated propaganda mouthpieces.

Let's learn to remove this fear. Change does not take place by merely staying in your room in front of a computer and griping about the system. Worse is to criticize the few who are actively engaged in CD to change the regime.

I remember briefly reading about Giovanni Sartori and his analysis of political parties and their systems. His view is that an opposition is likely to behave responsibly if it expects that it may have to “respond”, that is, to give execution to what it has promised. Conversely, an opposition is likely to be the less responsible the less it expects to govern (eventually).

Also, a ‘real opposition’ opposes the government, not the political system as such and acts quietly and constructively, by opposing but not obstructing. On the other hand, the anti-system opposition challenges the very legitimacy of the regime as it is. This latter acts “irresponsibly” as it has no chance to be called to power and to respond.

Perhaps there is some element of Sartorian truth when compared to what SDP is advocating, especially with regards to CD.

First, it's new year message urged its supporters to “cast (their) eyes beyond the elections”. It provides hints of the party's non-expectation to win many votes, any seats, or eventually, the right to be called to power.

If the electoral chances are (almost) nil, there is conveniently no need to “respond”. Then according to Sartori, behaving responsibly is no longer a imperative. Anyway, someone else will have to clear up the social ramifications of promoting CD. The agitators probably end up in jail, but that is something highly desirable, as it adds further to the CD storyline.

As I had said earlier : although SDP may profess that its CD is of the non-violent variant, it will only achieve its intents when sufficient agitation (read "violence") takes place on the streets. Only then will it will be able to draw sufficient attention (and sympathy) to its causes.

"As I had said earlier : although SDP may profess that its CD is of the non-violent variant, it will only achieve its intents when sufficient agitation (read "violence") takes place on the streets. Only then will it will be able to draw sufficient attention (and sympathy) to its causes."

You seem to conveniently ignore that protests, marches and demonstrations all help to raise public awareness on issues.

SDP professes that its CD is of the non-violent variant and it will stay that way.

The only violence occurring would be that meted out by the authorities. But perhaps when that happens you'll come here to justify it as well, along with all the other PAP nonsense that you usually justify.

"As I had said earlier : although SDP may profess that its CD is of the non-violent variant, it will only achieve its intents when sufficient agitation (read "violence") takes place on the streets. Only then will it will be able to draw sufficient attention (and sympathy) to its causes."

You seem to conveniently ignore that protests, marches and demonstrations all help to raise public awareness on issues.

SDP professes that its CD is of the non-violent variant and it will stay that way.

The only violence occurring would be that meted out by the authorities. But perhaps when that happens you'll come here to justify it as well?

Dear Satorian truth BryanT,

I'm not sure what it is you're smoking today but I definitely want some.

What Dr Chee is written in these two articles is about bringing much needed change to our political system, no matter how much time it takes. At the heart of his thesis is the recognition that our political system is flawed. You can dispute this all you want, but both Dr Chee and his supporters have facts to back up our case.

What do you mean by saying a responsible opposition only opposes the govt, but not the system? Besides being vague, are you implying that we should not challenge the system no matter whether we think it is flawed? If we know the system is flawed, and we do not challenge it but merely put up token resistance to govt policies, we are in fact turning a blind eye to errors and injustice, and ultimately helping the ruling party perpetuate a flawed machinery for its own self-interest.

What do you mean by acting quietly and constructively? You are just regurgitating the rules that PAP wants to impose on the opposition.

In reality, acting constructively should mean presenting your case with facts and reason, and demonstrating how the masses can peacefully bring about the necessary change that will better their lives. That is PRECISELY what the SDP has done.

The PAP version of "constructive opposition" however means playing along with the self-serving rules that they make up and which they have the freedom and power to change from time to time as they see fit according to their own agenda. I will never respect an opposition can accedes to such a standard, because such an opposition only acts to entrench the ruling party and does not truly do what will better the lives of Singaporeans.

Constructive opposition does NOT mean refraining from opposing the system. Opposing the system in turn does NOT mean obstructing. It MEANS challenging the establishment to right its wrongs, so that peoples' dignity and rights can be restored.

It is only PAP propaganda that equates being constructive with being docile and closing one's eyes to the obvious truths that hurt, and equates challenging the system with being obstructive. The reasoning is flawed, self-serving, and unworthy of any serious consideration, just like your comment.

When the SDP calls upon supporters to cast our eyes beyond elections, that is not an admission that it feels it can never win elections. Instead, it is a brave recognition that participating in elections ALONE cannot effectively bring about all the various change we desire, not when elections are controlled by the PM Office and there is lack of any independent oversight. Not when the mainstream media is controlled by the ruling clique and made to serve their agenda exclusively.

Non-violent action can achieve its objective by adhering strictly to non-violence. Only someone like you who likes to twist history to suit your argument will claim that is impossible.

BryanT,

Your so-called truth is only applicable in a place where the political party in government -- elected by the people through elections conducted by an independent elections commission and where the media is free and pluralistic -- respects the role of the opposition.

But in Singapore, which by the way the PAP claims is unique, the prime minister announces "cooling-off period" and other “electoral” changes.

In any other country where the government is elected through legitimate process, such announcements/changes are strictly left to its respective autonomous elections commission. If the head of the government is to transgress his powers, the prime minister will be severely censored by the elections commission for interfering with legitimate electoral process. But not in Singapore.

The "truth" then is there are responsibilities that both the ruling and opposition parties need to adhere.

When you talk about the responsibility of opposition parties, why are you avoiding or sidestepping the role of the ruling party?

In a place where the ruling party or its leader decides how elections are to be run, then these elections can never be free and fair. Such exercise can only be a charade to hoodwink the people.

In a place like Singapore where the prime minister and his father decide how to “fix“ the opposition and “engineer” the election results, one of the legitimate avenues open to genuine opposition is CD.

Don't forget, people resorting to CD believe in non-violence. Only the ruling regime confronts those taking to CD with its fully armed police who do not hesitate to use violence on unarmed citizens. It’s the illegitimate ruling PAP that wants to cling to power by unleashing brute police force on unarmed civilians.

Seelan, thanks for your comments. Three points:

Firstly, I agree with you that CD will raise public awareness. I had already acknowledged that in my hypothesis under Part 1. But my further point was that public awareness is not (yet) the end-state SDP wants, and needs.

Secondly, as I had stated, SDP can insist that its CD actions will be non-violent. If it were able to control all its followers and those who might (and it is a big “might”) be sold on its causes, then on its part, the actions could perhaps remain peaceful.

But I doubt so. Just look at the verbal aggression and desperate taunting we see in comments from its adherents on this website. Its ideology attracts people who trade reason for barbs. Extrapolate this venemence to the instance when they take to the streets, and add that to the inability or unwillingness of SDP leadership to enforce some semblance of organisational discipline, the party has not begun to imagine the mob it would unleash.

And that brings me to my last point, which is the real end-state for SDP. Let's assume that by some chance, SDP is able to place its followers on (reliable) tethers, resulting in CD activities that are non-violent. What it wants now is for the authorities to react with force, so that it gets the attention and sympathies it desperately needs. The authorities will be blamed for the violence and it justifies the causes SDP pursued. That will be the true tipping point that SDP desires.

But as I had mentioned, the tipping point will not come. Already we have seen how the local police force are becoming more confident and skilful in handling the CD actions that SDP can concoct. It is not hard to master. And if ever the cracks in the wall widen, and the SDP supporters rush through the gap, it will find something quite gaol-like. But I acknowledge that that is the acknowledged price for CD.

The police have the duty to make sure that a non-violent, peaceful CD remains as such. The confrontation, deliberately created by the police takes place only when the armed police stop the unarmed CD from being carried out.

In more civilised countries, the police act as marshals for CD to continue without any incident. Only in Singapore and other tyrannical regimes you could come across agent provocateurs and infiltrators to discredit the noble cause of CD.

By the way, CD will not be necessary in Singapore if the "mainstream media" is not a piece of bootlicking trash publishing only PAP propaganda.

Open up the media, have free and fair elections, then the need for CD would disappear or greatly reduced.

Seebeng, thanks for your comments.

I doubt that Sartori intended his views on “real” or responsible opposition to be only applicable for certain types of government system.

But let me make your day by quoting, for you, his definition of a hegemonic party : “The hegemonic party neither allows for a formal nor a de-facto competition for power. Other parties are permitted to exist, but as second class, licensed parties*; for they are not permitted to compete with the hegemonic party in antagonistic terms and on an equal basis. Not only does alternation not occur, in fact it cannot occur, since the possibility of a rotation in power is not even envisaged. The implication is that the hegemonic party will remain in power whether it is liked or not. While the predominant party remains submissive to the conditions that make for a responsible government, no real sanction commits the hegemonic party to responsiveness. Whatever its policy, its domination cannot be challenged.”

The conclusion is lack of responsiveness, but the saving grace from Sartori is that such entities can (still) be responsible.

*Note - he was probably referring to such parties in the then Warsaw Pact.

BryanT,

In Singapore, it’s a dictator who decides how things have to be ordered, including “who your neighbour is, how you live, the noise you make, how you spit, or what language you use”.

His grip on power has been further reinforced in his recent interview with the National Geographic.

So, there is no political party that is hegemonic, only an individual who wields absolute power for which he employs highly paid, unquestioning minions with grandiose titles trotting around as “ministers”. These “ministers” come and go, but the despot remains firmly in control, even to the extent of putting his incompetent son as prime minister and allowing his equally incompetent daughter-in-law to play around with the country’s huge reserves.

The party (PAP) only exists in name, a convenient vehicle to create the façade that the system that the dictator practices is based on “parliamentary democracy”.

Don’t forget that “parliamentary democracy” has to have certain basic norms, such as a free and fair electoral process, a free and pluralistic media, etc. For Singapore to be called a “parliamentary democracy” none of these minimum criteria exist. Even a single person “protesting” is considered an illegal assembly. Distributing flyers is branded as “demonstrating opposition to the actions of the government”.

There is no such thing as “hegemonic party” but only a family fiefdom.

I really "Tak Boleh Tahan" in Civil Disobedience discussion.

Buay tahan liao.........

Now I'm going to ask this question before we continue again how CD "Civil Disobedience" is possible.

Every Singapore CITIZEN - PINK Identity Card holder are so AFRAID with Internal Security Department that is directly under Lee Kuan Yew / Goh Chok Tong authority, so do you think CD will work?

Anyone??

Here's your rocket science answer, NissanVIP.

"Tak Boleh Tahan" a Civil Disobedience discussion. Can't stand the heat? Simple. Get out of the kitchen.

Too frightened to stand up for your rights because you're scared the authorities know you have a pink IC? Get out of the country if you can summon up the guts to do so.

Not that it will make much of a difference. You'll be down-trodden wherever you go because the smell of cowardice will follow you like a bad odour. You know how they say predators can smell the fear in their prey a km away? That's what you'll carry with you everywhere you go. You'll become a prime target for elimination from the gene pool. And no one will care, not even the chair.

'the anti-system opposition challenges the very legitimacy of the regime as it is. This latter acts “irresponsibly” as it has no chance to be called to power and to respond.'

More twaddle of the turd kind. By the deformed BryanT yardstick, Nobel laureate Aung San Suu Kyi, leader of the National League for Democracy party of Burma is being 'irresponsible' by standing steadfast against her country's rotten system of governance. After all she hardly stands any chance of being called to power in the near future, does she? Presumably he needs to see her give the thumbs up to the massacre of unarmed monks before she wins his Sartorial (emperor, new clothes) approval.

As for Mandela challenging the legitimacy of white South Africa's apartheid system and King fighting systemic American racism, these people must be traitors and not a 'real' opposition - whatever the hell 'real' means to our resident PAP apologist.

Oh what a farcical argument we weave when first we practice to deceive.

PRC woman staged solo “protest” at MOE HQ to transfer daughter to a top Singapore school

http://www.temasekreview.com/2010/01/16/prc-woman-staged-solo-protest-at-moe-hq-to-transfer-daughter-to-a-top-singapore-school/

BryanT says:"As I had said earlier : although SDP may profess that its CD is of the non-violent variant, it will only achieve its intents when sufficient agitation (read "violence") takes place on the streets. Only then will it will be able to draw sufficient attention (and sympathy) to its causes."

As I said earlier. Going by your logic, are you going to go agitate (read violence) to achieve your aim to stop the SDP?

BryanT says:"Also, a ‘real opposition’ opposes the government, not the political system as such and acts quietly and constructively, by opposing but not obstructing. On the other hand, the anti-system opposition challenges the very legitimacy of the regime as it is. This latter acts “irresponsibly” as it has no chance to be called to power and to respond. "

Oh you mean like the PAP oppose the british government but not the British empire.