 |
|
Friday, May 05, 2006
The Impeccable Character of PM Lee
"Suppose you had 10, 15, 20 opposition members in Parliament. Instead of spending my time thinking what is the right policy for Singapore, I'm going to spend all my time thinking what's the right way to fix them, to buy my supporters votes..."
-- PM Lee, 3rd May 2006
I think PM Lee says it better himself than I ever could.
Posted at 05:03 pm by gaylegoh
Permalink
|
|
Time is GMT + 8 hours
Posted: 04 May 2006 2046 hrs
PM Lee says Singapore's future is key issue in General Election 
By S. Ramesh, Channel NewsAsia
|
SINGAPORE : Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong has said the most important issue in this General Election is Singapore's future.
He asked for a strong mandate on May 6, so that he and his People's Action Party (PAP) team can take the country forward.
Speaking at a news conference on Thursday, Mr Lee made it clear that there are bigger issues at the polls than opposition candidate James Gomez.
The James Gomez issue has dominated campaigning the last few days, and Mr Lee wants to put it aside.
Mr Lee said he should not have waited for the Workers' Party to respond with details of what exactly happened.
He said the PAP had taken the matter as far as it can for now.
Mr Lee said: "I am not letting it go, that's why I am saying after elections there will have to be a proper public resolution. Right now, the more urgent priority is polling and I want people to be in the right frame of mind when they vote, and to have the right considerations as they sit down today, tomorrow, before they vote, to think what they want to do."
The campaign for the 2006 General Election is nearly over, and Mr Lee said he wanted to refocus on what this election is all about.
Mr Lee said: "I called this election for three purposes. First, to secure a mandate for myself and my team. Secondly, to decide on the future of Singapore and thirdly, to endorse a new team of leaders and MPs to take us forward in the next 15, 20 years.
"In one word, this election is about our future. We have presented the manifesto many times and you are familiar with it. What does it mean? Cast it in a different way, it means Peace and Prosperity for Singapore - PAP."
Oh, so now they want to talk about 'key issues' -- with one day left in the campaigning process! Gee whiz, the PAP must be really concerned about our future to devote one whole day to discussing key issues. How sad that Singaporeans only got to pick up their newspapers today and read the PAP's last word on 'key issues' on Friday, when by Saturday night we'll know the polling results.
I think the PAP figured out they can't really pull the wool over Singaporeans' eyes any longer with this issue. Not a single person I've talked to buys the PAP story about how Gomez wants to 'wayang' his way into deceiving everyone. Everyone's sick, tired, scornful, and now they want to talk about 'key issues'. My dad would say: my toe can laugh.
I don't think we've seen the last of the Gomez issue. But for now the PAP is beating a tactical retreat to get in the last word on the key issues that have swung this election. But I don't think it'll work. I think they went too far this time, and that the Opposition, in contrast, has conducted themselves in a far more dignified and honourable manner than Them Who Shall Not Be Named. The Opposition's concerns have been consistent and pushed for: Healthcare costs. Upgrading. Means testing. Transparency. And what is the PAP doing? Running away. On the issue of healthcare costs: no answer. On the issue of selective upgrading being unethical: no answer. On the issue of means testing: we'll talk about it later, and anyway maybe we won't implement it after all. On the issue of transparency: Gomez, Gomez, Gomez -- which people don't buy.
Tomorrow we'll know if Singaporeans decided to let them get away with it. I hope not. I think not. I think tomorrow we'll make them hurt, maybe not too much, but enough for them to know that they can't play this game with us for very much longer. No landslide victory, no 75% mandate this time round.
Singaporeans, please let me believe in you. Lee Hsien Loong got one thing right -- it is about our future. That is the real 'key issue': if we want our future to continue to be one of being bullied, cowed, and distracted into being yes-people, or if we can find it in ourselves to be something more. Something greater. Not just a rich country behind whose back everyone laughs at, but a country with real dignity, who can't be pushed around.
They wanted me to care. They said they put me in a cream-of-the-crop education system and spent money on me so I would care. They wrote in my Social Studies textbook that I had to care. Now I care, and I dare them to tell me to care in any other way.
Melodramatic? Yeah. Angsty? Rather. It's not that I'm not self-aware ;) I generally disdain ranting and raving and white-noise diatribes. But I think tonight, I have that right -- no, I have that obligation, to dare to feel something for the key issue of our future. And I will make no bones about it, nor apologies. Cheers everyone: tomorrow we will know.
Posted at 03:20 pm by gaylegoh
Permalink
Thursday, May 04, 2006
What Really Happens in the Straits Times?
It's obvious that the Singaporean media has a clear bias towards one party, It Which Must Not Be Named. I don't think the newspapers are exactly a propaganda machine, as most bloggers claim -- opposition views do come up, albeit in a less frequent and more shallow manner. Once in awhile alternative opinions are offered. But though the censorship and bias is subtle, it is also apparent. Now, our journalists are educated, articulate, intelligent people, and we can only assume that the editors are too. So why is this bias coming through?
I do know by virtue of association some people who work for the Straits Times, either as journalists or in high-level executive positions. The problem is convincing any of them to speak up, for fear of retaliation from the person who commands the payroll. Former Deputy Prime Minister Tony Tan is the current chairman of Singapore Press Holdings, which publishes the Straits Times, and owns a 40% stake in MediaCorp, who broadcasts television news and publishes Today. That is pretty formidable to journalists, and understandably so. Straits Times journalists are pretty damn well-paid, and this naturally makes it all the more difficult for them to take a step that would jeopardize their careers or the food they're able to bring to the table. This means two things; first of all, no one is going to step up and commit to what's been going on in the press, because that's putting their head on the chopping block. Secondly, even if I hear things -- and I do -- that give me insight into how things work, everything I say will only be hearsay, because I don't have the right to put other people in that kind of uncomfortable and threatening situation by telling the world who said what.
Let me just hypothetically say that the journalists largely exercise self-censorship. When they do not, they hypothetically face the dismembering and disfiguration of their articles. This is because the editors are hypothetically afraid of reproach from the higher-ups. Hypothetically, they justify it to themselves by saying that 'every newspaper must take a stand', and that no newspaper is free from bias. Hypothetically, once in awhile when editors step out of line, they may receive a stern reprimand. But I don't think that there is any active persecution of journalists. I don't think there is anyone telling them what to write and how. I don't even think there are consciously expressed instructions of what is acceptable and what isn't. I think it's more of an unspoken understanding. That's curious about Singaporeans -- a law here, a law there, and they shrink back into their shells. Are we really under so much pressure? Do we do it to ourselves, and have we ourselves to blame?
The white elephant T-shirt incident, where RGS girls sold T-shirts with the white elephant on them in a form of mild political protest, was extremely illuminating. The police issued warnings to them -- but on whose instructions? I don't think the head of the ISD woke up one morning, read about it and went 'tell those girls we will lock them up if they continue to sell those T-shirts'. I think it was more like the police chief thinking, oh no, will I be in trouble if I let this carry on? Is my job at stake? Hence the ridiculous action taken of clamping down on the kids.
We're a society who lives in a self-bounded prison of our own fears. I've always felt that the most important part to freedom is realizing that we are free. What holds us in, what stops us from realizing it, are all arbitrary constructs that very often have little potential to really harm us. Yes, we are judicious. Yes, we are wary. Yes, we are cautious. But it doesn't mean that we should resort to paranoia, or assumption that everyone who speaks out will be persecuted. I have a friend who says her family will be voting for the PAP because her relatives, father included, are in prominent positions in society. Here's a curious thing -- not a single person I've talked to believes that the vote is secret. I'm the only person who thinks it is. Maybe I'm naiive, or maybe I'm right: that the PAP, being such a legalistic party who prides itself on non-corruption, wouldn't put itself at risk by doing that. That the PAP is arrogant enough to feel that they can get by without doing that (and they can). What gives them this license? Ourselves, our fears, our active imaginations, our assumptions, our fetters.
On other news: I heard today from an again unnamed source that more news will be revealed on the Gomez issue, and we're edging closer to a police investigation. That the PAP is unveiling its strategy in stages and we're only in an intermediate phase. Hmm. I have to go for class now, but I'll leave you with that thought.
Posted at 10:19 am by gaylegoh
Permalink
Tuesday, May 02, 2006
Do We Owe Our Existence to the People's Action Party?
We have been hardwired since young to be grateful in everything to the People's Action Party. We have been conditioned to accept the abrogation of our democratic freedoms as a necessary inconvenience for the sake of prosperity. We have been primed to forgive any injustice committed by the ruling elite in the name of continued progress under the guidance of benevolent paternalism -- the government knows best.
I remember the issue being discussed countless times in class. Whether in an honestly indignant manner, or in the form of a light-hearted jest, or even a sardonic diatribe, my peers and I have raised our protests against the form of rule present in Singapore to our elders. Time and time again, I have heard the same answer: that is the sacrifice. Freedom is less important than stability. Stability has given us prosperity.
Now, in the heat of the elections, the same thing is once more on everyone's lips. Freedom is less important than stability. Stability has given us prosperity. We owe everything to the PAP. Without them, we wouldn't be here today. After all, there was a time when people said that Singapore won't make it -- but we did!
Let's do ourselves the favour of honesty today, and ask if what the PAP accomplished for Singapore was really such a miracle. Let's ask ourselves if it's been worth the sacrifice.
Singapore has long been known as one of the four East Asian tigers, which also include Hong Kong, South Korea and Taiwan. These countries were part of the Newly Industrialised Economies, which emerged in the 1960's, mostly a product of decolonization, and faced the challenge of industrialisation and development in an increasingly globalised world where other countries had already had a headstart.
Nevertheless, the four tigers followed a generic formula to success; rapid industrialisation and an export-oriented economy, with the aid available from various external agents including the World Bank, the IMF, and of course the then-hegemonic United States, who had virtually reconstructed the post-war economies worldwide in a colossal, unilateral effort. Their currencies were devalued to make their goods cheaper, and foreign advisers were brought into the countries to offer their expert opinions on the situation (the famous Dr. Albert Winsemius, in Singapore's case). The governments focussed their efforts onto education, as well as expansionary fiscal policies to create jobs and stimulate their infant economies.
Singapore had natural economic advantages to help her on her way to achieve the stunning growth she has displayed. Chief among them, perhaps, was her strategic location along major trading routes leading to the Far East, hence Singapore's invaluable contribution to British profiteering in Southeast Asia during the age of colonialism. Bustling port activity had already given her a headstart in development in comparison to Malaysia. In fact, the different nature of Singapore's far more developed, industrialised and high-end economy in the years of de-colonization as opposed to Malaysia's less developed, more agrarian economy was a very big worry on the part of the British, and one of the foremost reasons raised why Singapore should not merge with Malaysia. Singapore had already displayed not only a potential for, but also a track record of prosperity and development before the PAP was ever in the picture.
It is therefore perfectly understandable why, given these natural advantages as well as the favourable climate of the international economy at that time (it was during the period which has been termed the 'Golden Age of Capitalism', lasting from 1947 to 1974, and flanked by the Marshall Plan and the OPEC oil crisis), the East Asian tigers flourished and prospered. So what, if anything set Singapore apart? What was unique about our development strategy?
The answer comes, predictably, in the form of strict governance -- not in the mere presence of strictness, as some degree of authoritarianism was exercised in the early stages of Taiwan's and South Korea's development as well. But Singapore is unique in the extent of its authoritarianism, and the length of time during which this authoritarian rule has been sustained. Labour unions were de-politicised, collective bargaining power restricted, and trade union interests were subordinated to those of the State. [Note: please don't believe a word of what Lee Hsien Loong says when he tries to make it sound like it's better for workers this way because Union leaders have a place in Cabinet. While I applaud his rhetorical twist and his laudable optimism in seeing the glass as half full, let's not kid ourselves -- they are Ministers in charge of the Unions, not Union leaders in charge of the country.] In addition to the labour restrictions, we also saw high levels of government involvement and ownership in production, financing and marketing through the existence of statutory boards. Beyond economics, we also saw a strong government presence in the media, and tight restrictions placed on the freedom of speech, assembly, protest., and so on.
In South Korea, we also did see suppression of labour movements, but this at least came with a guarantee of a minimum wage; the Singaporean government gave us no such guarantee. Furthermore, the proliferation of government/ex-government ministers in so many sectors -- the media, the union congress, etc., meant a depth of intervention unparalleled in the East Asian tigers. Singapore too has been the only country out of the original four to still hang on to its authoritarianism. South Korea has long abandoned the suppression of the labour movement, since 1987 in fact. What were the results of our authoritarian regime? Lower wages, lots of rich government-linked companies who had access to our national reserves, and people who couldn't complain. Good things in and of themselves, perhaps, but hardly instrumental in Singapore's success. No, that was predicated on the other constants which had held true in South Korea, Hong Kong and Taiwan who had not embarked on similarly interventionist policies, with the exception perhaps of South Korea, where the chaebols crowded out many competing firms in production, contributing towards South Korea's collapse in the Asian Crisis of 1997-1998. Hong Kong adopted positive non-interference, becoming the most extreme example of a free-market economy in the world, while Taiwan took the route of passive interference, with gradually declining government intervention as the years went on. That's with regards to economics -- with regards to things like press freedom, one only has to look to the Reporters Without Borders' index of press freedom today. South Korea is 48th, Taiwan is 60th, Hong Kong is 34th, Singapore is 147th. Please, don't tell me Singapore's economy will die if we have a free press.
All these countries achieved sterling growth, but the important thing to note is that an all-knowing, clairvoyant, authoritarian government that repressed freedoms and compromised on democracy was not necessary to achieving this growth. The 'constants' earlier mentioned which determined the East Asian tigers' success were factors like the access to foreign aid, available 1st world markets, the Confucian work ethic, et alii. The biggest justifications for our enforced stability, which were capital inflow and the benefits of foreign direct investment, were also constants available to these countries, not exclusive to Singapore in any way. Our contemporaries today enjoy success, progress, and stability with a free media, with labour unions, with less government intervention in the economy.
What are the questions this leads us to ask? Can we bear to admit to ourselves that our carefully-constructed world of police permits and suppressed labour unions and government involvement in large corporations did not need to be constructed for us to be enjoying the benefits of prosperity and consumerism today? If we can admit this, then what is our debt to the PAP? One of gratitude, certainly for their astute leadership. But not one of mindless bondage, not one of servitude, and not one of complete absolution and endorsement of the tactics by which they have achieved success. No longer should we say, "of course things should be this way, otherwise Singapore wouldn't be Singapore". If so, then South Korea wouldn't be South Korea, Taiwan wouldn't be Taiwan, Hong Kong wouldn't be Hong Kong, and Japan wouldn't be Japan. All these economies are either in close competition with us, our ahead of us today.
So the next time the PAP cadres stand up and say, our Ministers must be in our trade union in order for there to be progress and stability, the next time they say we must not have free speech or 'too much democracy' in order for there to be progress and stability, the next time they say the PAP and only the PAP can give us progress and stability, let us remember two things. Let us remember firstly that our economic success was due to a range of other, more instrumental factors which had to do with luck, coincidental timing and natural advantage, rather than suppression. Then let us remember also, that progress and stability, movies, toys, games, fabrics, gadgets, dollars and cents, are not the sum and whole of human welfare, which must include always the dignity of choosing the proxies by which we govern our own lives as a mature and civic society free of fear, oppression and systematic propaganda. Let us no longer accept excuses.
Posted at 10:16 pm by gaylegoh
Permalink
Monday, May 01, 2006
Mediacorp tonight was disgusting in its coverage of the Gomez incident. First showing a PAP man asking for answers from James Gomez, answers to stupid questions like "Why did you need a lawyer to draft your apology statement?" (because if not, you'd sue him like you did all his colleagues, numbnuts), then the newscaster/commentator saying "But till now, there have been no answers...On the other hand, the PAP has been consistent since Day One with its message...With one opposition creating more questions than answers, and another with discord in its ranks..." Those were the snippets I could remember, because I didn't have my camera on hand to record everything with. The bias in the news seems to be stepping up in the last few days leading up to Polling Day. If you're wondering why, look at this: PAP rally in Pasir Ris Park, 1st May, where I was at earlier. According to my estimate, the crowd numbered in the hundreds. Then look at this:  Workers' Party Rally at Hougang, on 30th April, which I attended last night. Photo courtesy of gecko. And this:  Alex Au of Yawning Bread estimates the crowd to be about 100 000-120 000 strong.
Honestly, if one were to predict the outcomes of the 2006 General Elections from the amount of interest generated by election rallies, then the Workers' Party and the SDP will be sharing a landslide victory this year. Unfortunately, one can't afford the luxury of such prediction. One would have to consider two sorts of people -- the type who hang around opposition election rallies, laugh and clap and cheer, then go home and vote in the PAP, and the type who stay at home, relying on Mediacorp for all their information. The couch potatoes are key to an approaching PAP victory. Well, I had originally intended for this entry to be solely on the proceedings of the PAP Rally, but I was distracted by the news. On the subject of the rally, which concluded my weekend round in which I visited one rally each by the SDP, the WP and the PAP, I must say the PAP one was the most uninspiring. The crowd milled around, some chatting in low undertones to one another. The most exciting thing I saw all night was this: I asked the girls if I could take a picture of them and one of them promptly said 'no', while the other gestured me to somewhere I could take a picture from without being able to capture any identifying features. It was also hilarious when I found myself and the rest of the crowd being introduced to Comrade Lim, Comrade Low and Comrade Shanmugaratnam during my visit. What's with all this communist allusion? The Red Guards referred to each other as 'comrades'. Let's also not forget Comrade Lenin, Comrade Stalin, and our dear friend Comrade Mao. Does anyone remember Lee Hsien Loong saying he wants to let 'one hundred flowers bloom' in Singapore during his first-ever rally speech? That too was part of Mao's vision for communist China, in letting a 'a hundred flowers bloom, a hundred schools of thought contend'. Comrade Shanmugaratnam gets very excited while telling the crowd about the Outstanding Youth in Education Award (OYEA). Oh Yea, baby.
I stayed to listen to Tharman Shanmugaratnam and Penny Low address the crowd. Shanmugaratnam gave a predictable deluge of facts and statistics to illustrate how wonderful he's been at his job as Minister of Education, while Penny Low gave another barrage of examples which mostly had to do with widening roads and other upgrading projects with fancy acronyms. One thing about Penny Low: she is one scary woman! She kept yelling at the crowd anti-SDA things, trying to rouse them up into some sort of fervour. "SDA people in their trucks just go round and round and round! No direction! Round and round!"..."WHAT CAN THEY DO FOR YOU?!?", etc. As far as I could see, only the core supporters near the stage would cheer here and there, while the rest seemed to stand silent and vaguely discomfited. I'm very scared of her now :( I kept imagining her chasing after her kids with a rattan cane. That's one part of a larger reason why I left early, during Low's speech. The WP rally left me inspired, thoughtful, reflective, hopeful. The PAP one left me afraid, uncomfortable, and out of place. When the person I was with started to criticize Low, I couldn't help but look over my shoulder at the surrounding policemen in their neon green jackets, and wonder where the recording devices were. Oh well. Tomorrow I return to school, and I shan't be able to attend any more rallies for the rest of the week. I'm grateful in many ways for this weekend and the chances it gave me to both celebrate the presence of democracy, in the wide open fields, and lament the absence of it in the four walls of my living room.
Posted at 10:19 pm by gaylegoh
Permalink
A new online movement seems to have started which calls on bloggers to write e-mails to Channelnewsasia at newseditor@channelnewsasia complaining about the recent coverage of the General Elections. Despite mixed response from the online community and varying degrees of confidence in achieving the movement's desired results, I've decided that since I bear such vitriolic sentiments towards the local media, informing them of these sentiments would only be polite. Hence, the piecemeal and hasty crafting of the following e-mail, which has already been sent: Dear Editor, I'm a 17 year old student who is confident in saying that she is not politically apathetic, and takes a fierce and avid interest in the developments in our nation's political landscape; past, present and future. Given that, however, I am also a disillusioned Singaporean who must confess her disappointment in the way the media has handled the coverage of the General Elections 2006 thus far. Aside from the sheer majority bulk of journalistic space set aside for the PAP, despite the fact that it is only one out of four contenders in this year's elections (the PAP, the WP, the SDP and the SDA), I have also been appalled at the way certain biases seem to manifest themselves in the language of many of your staff. Calling Chiam See Tong's questioning of the government's poor relations with our neighbours Malaysia a 'potshot' on national television is a blatant imposition of prejudice onto newscasting. Furthermore, the existence of this excerpt: " So the ball is now once again the WP's court and it is left to be seen if the WP's top leadership will live up to the standards of accountability that it claims to have set for itself." http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/205816/1/.html...is patently offensive to any reader's basic expectations of a news agency, which is objectivity, integrity, freedom from bias, and proofreading to ensure that important prepositions like 'in' are not omitted. This is but one of countless instances I have noticed where flagrant journalistic bias has been exercised in the selectivity of information, the contrived structure of articles, the prejudiced diction of the articles, and so on.I humbly urge Channelnewsasia to reconsider its role not just in the GE 2006, but also in the nation, as the objective lens through which Singaporeans can make informed and unmanipulated choices as to whom they wish to shape their future. A mature Fourth Estate is a necessary ingredient in any mature democracy.Best wishes and regards,Gayle GohI suggest all of you guys send out a similar e-mail. Singabloodypore even thoughtfully provides a template. Regardless of whether or not it has any real effect, the least we will accomplish is irritating the editor :) Now he will have to delete hundreds of e-mails complaining about unfair media coverage, before going on to delete all the e-mails regarding real and valid Opposition concerns, before finally being able to start his day! Poor man.
Posted at 03:03 am by gaylegoh
Permalink
Inclusive Country, Exclusive Parliament
That was one of the many slogans bandied around at the Workers' Party rally tonight, at Hougang Avenue 4 that drew cheers and whoops of agreement from the crowd. Thousands strong, they thronged the open field, pouring onto any empty space of green, crowding round a blaring loudspeaker for want of an available view of the real stars of the night -- the speakers, which included Sylvia Lim, Low Thia Kang, Goh Meng Seng and Perry Tong. It was a heartening feeling, standing under the night sky, breathing in a neighbour's cigarette smoke, watching the aunties squat and the ah peks spit and the couples cuddle, the disembodied voice coming from the loudspeaker illiciting loud cries of 'Wor--ker's Party!' -- turning my head to watch the stunning sight of the flats nearby crowded with spectators on every stairway, watching from every landing, peering out through the window grills. So very many people! The smoke still soaks my clothes, my ears still ring, and on the back of my eyelids I can still see so vividly, the sheer number of people, and how loudly I could hear them shout from afar.
The Workers' Party did not disappoint like the SDP did at their rally. They brought up some sound proposals in addition to their rhetoric, though the crowd stayed mostly silent to economic jargon, most of which came from Perry Tong. But the jargon was balanced, in his case, with simple and communicative language, and phrases of Hokkien which drew appreciative whistles and laughs from the crowd. Among his proposals were for the Singaporean government to ask for steep discounts in patent royalties with the biomedical research firms they negotiate with, or for the right of Singaporean companies to manufacture generic drugs locally. He spoke of his desire to make Singapore into a hub for the manufacturing and distribution of medicine, which would dramatically decrease shipping costs, translating into cheaper healthcare and increased jobs and investments. He also suggested that patients with chronic illnesses like kidney failure should only be charged cost-price in their treatment. The biggest cheers came from the crowd when he raised the issue of his desire to see the removal of GST for healthcare.
Most of the speeches were delievered in dialect, which I unfortunately don't understand, but I caught the Mandarin bits. Essentially the party focussed on two issues: healthcare, and upgrading. Sylvia Lim and Low Thia Kang, in their speeches, besides railing against the PAP for being unfair and divisive in their upgrading policies, also attacked the idea of means-testing, questioning the ability for a fair yardstick by which one may measure wealth to be implemented. If one measured wealth by household income, for instance, it might not take into consideration the number of people in the family. If it measured wealth by accommodation, it would hardly be representative. If it measured wealth by an individual's income, that would not take into account his debts, his elderly parents to support, etc., and in any case, richer people pay more taxes under the current progressive system already. So everyone should have sovereignty over their remaining money, to spend it how they like, and to plan for their own futures.
Mohammed Rahizan Yaacob's airtime was the most entertaining to me, partly because it was one out of only two English speeches I remember, and partly because of its inventiveness. He began sombrely with "Friends, I have a grave announcement...yesterday I lost my umbrella. There were so many things to do that I forgot where I had put it." I think the irony was lost a little on the crowd, because he was not totally clear, but I appreciated his sarcasm regarding how the PAP was making a big deal out of a simple mistake. He also ridiculed the PAP for saying how Rahizan would not be able to raise the education of Malays, as opposed to Dr. Yaacob Ibrahim, by saying: "Yaacob Ibrahim is the Minister of what? Water. Why is he asking the Minister of Water to settle this? I thought we were a multi-racial society. We should be asking Tharman Shanmugaratnam to raise the educational levels of Malay and non-Malay pupils. He is the Minister of Education."
I wonder how much of this the Straits Times will cover tomorrow. I doubt very much that they'll cover the portion of Rahizan Yaacob's speech which called for transparency and accountability on the part of the government through allowing for a free and independent media, uninterfered with by the government. Nope, the Straits Times is certainly avoiding that issue. Publishing it would be a bit too meta-journalistic!
Posted at 02:29 am by gaylegoh
Permalink
Sunday, April 30, 2006
| | Time is GMT + 8 hours
Posted: 17 April 2006 0836 hrs
SDA is 'the quantity surveyor'
By Christie Loh, TODAY
|
SINGAPORE : Mr Desmond Lim, assistant secretary-general of the Singapore Democratic Alliance (SDA), has been studying the balance sheet of Pasir Ris-Punggol Town Council. "Whoever wins the election will take over the assets and balance amount of the current town council," he said at a walkabout in the constituency that his unnamed six-member team is contesting. Mr Lim told Today that if his team won, he would use the sinking fund - whose amount is "very huge" to improve the towns of Pasir Ris, Sengkang and Punggol. His list of programmes - that include lift-upgrading, building covered linkways to MRT stations and lobbying for neighbourhood libraries - were drawn up based on residents' feedback, Mr Lim said. He has also crafted a document resembling a manifesto for his campaign in the constituency. Its main points: To bolster family ties, "maximise opportunities for all Singaporeans" and build a more compassionate society. Asked about the similarities between his election agenda and the People's Action Party's (PAP) manifesto, Mr Lim cited a construction analogy where the SDA was the "quantity surveyor" while the PAP was the "architect". This raised the eyebrows of Defence Minister Teo Chee Hean, leader of the Pasir Ris-Punggol GRC team. "Since they agree with us, I would encourage them to come and join our grassroots organisations to help to build a better Pasir Ris-Punggol GRC," said Mr Teo on Sunday at the opening of a senior citizens' corner in Sengkang. "In fact, it's a remarkable admission that they don't have a vision or plans or ideas." - TODAY Singapore Votes 2006: Channelnewsasia.com special coverage >>> Desmond Lim and his colleagues cruised through the streets of Pasir Ris today, in their white truck outfitted with a blaring loudspeaker and white SDA flags. Seeing them stop just outside Loyang Point, which is at Pasir Ris Drive 2, I badgered my father into parking there so I could check it out. We found them in the food court, going from table to table, and my dad and I sat ourselves down at a table near to where he was, so he'd come talk to us. He had with him the balance sheet of Pasir Ris-Punggol, and here are the figures he showed us: the Town Council of Pasir Ris-Punggol has $139 million in funds, and a surplus of $7.4 million. There is a sinking fund of $125 million. Channelnewsasia glosses over these figures in the above article by simply saying he called it "a huge sum", as if he didn't have the exact numbers down in black and white already to back up his claims with. He used the balance sheet to tell us how SDA would carry out upgrading programs in Pasir-Ris Punggol if elected, and complained about how the media had given no coverage to his raising of this issue at his rally the night before.
Interestingly, he also pointed out a withdrawal of $10 million accredited under 'Termination of Fund Manager'. He claims the Town Council refused to explain this withdrawal to him. He called this his 'weapon', which I found vastly amusing. Regardless of whether or not something fishy is going on, calling something 'my weapon' is just funny.
Desmond Lim also told me that what his party needed was more independent volunteers. He alleged that at the Jalan Besar polls at the 2001 elections, he spotted the handicapped and the elderly being influenced in their vote, with those assisting them pointing at 'PAP' on their polling cards. He said there was a need for more independents to monitor the going-ons, and limit instances of cheating.
I wished him all the best for the elections and told him I'd put what he said on my blog. He then said he'd uploaded the PPTC balance sheet onto his website if I needed it, but I haven't been able to find that so far. Oh well, make what you will of the whole business. Me, I was just interested to meet and talk to an Opposition candidate for the first time.
I might attend a PAP rally at Potong Pasir tonight. A friend asked me if I wanted to help usher, etc., like he's doing, as he's been contacted by YoungPAP to help out. He said I just need to bring my NRIC because the police need to know who's doing what. I said sorry, because firstly even showing people to their seats at a PAP rally seems to go against my principles, and secondly registering with the police as a PAP aide is rather forbidding. I half wish I'd taken him up on his offer though, it would have been interesting to have an insider's perspective for a night.
Posted at 03:03 pm by gaylegoh
Permalink
Saturday, April 29, 2006
SDP Election Rally: Woodlands Stadium
I visited my first election rally tonight, held by the SDP at Woodlands Stadium. There was a healthy attendance, with both the bleachers and the field filled with spectators and a group of hardcore SDP supporters near the stage. The highlight of the evening was when Chee Soon Juan arrived. He didn't say anything, as he isn't allowed to speak at election rallies, but his silence in some ways spoke louder than words. I wish I knew how to upload the video on my camera onto the Internet; as it is, here's a screenshot:
Though, as you look at the screenshot, try to imagine it all happening in real time, with crowds chanting " SDP! SDP! SDP SDP!", hundreds upon hundreds cheering and whistling, cameras snapping, and the crowd hounding Chee's heels as he strode past, bearing the red SDP flag. That's what it was like. Bewildering magic. I hold a lot more respect for Chee now than I did in the past, largely because I'd only heard of him through the Straits Times media, with their unflattering shots of him, and how all sentences with his name in it also contained the word 'defamation'. Now, after having read a bit of what he wrote in his book, The Power of Courage: Effecting political change in Singapore through Nonviolence, and also having listened to him speak online, which you should do here, I find myself rather won to his cause and even endeared to his means - well, most of them, and despite the fact that they haven't helped him much. Click on that link and listen to his speech, and perhaps you'll understand why I find him to be a fluent and charismatic man, who is unfortunately fighting a losing battle against the PAP here in Singapore. Not allowed to travel overseas, not allowed to speak during rallies, bankrupted, ranted against, discredited, deserted, disempowered, this man still walks with his head high and a gentle smile on his face. More power to him. Unfortunately, Chee's arrival was the most exciting thing to happen all night. Aside from that brief madness where he was just a few metres from me, before I was swept away by the jostling crowd and the flashing cameras, the rally largely comprised empty rhetoric and pettiness. I think the valuable thing about the experience was not being fired up about the issues they raised, or particularly agreeing with their assertions, but rather the astonishing feeling of wonder tinged with fear at being in the midst of a shouting, cheering crowd fringed with watchful policemen, seen below:
I don't think I've ever seen more policemen in one place here in Singapore. On other news! The PAP is using the defamation suit to distract media attention from covering issues raised by the SDP regarding NKF, as I blogged about below, and now it seems it's using the James Gomez issue to do the same to the Worker's Party. The bias evident in the language is just appalling; they're calling it a "fiasco". Good heavens, the man just forgot to hand it in, and already said he wanted to leave the issue behind before the security footage was ever released, furthermore it doesn't even have any bearing on the election because he's not entering as a minority candidate! (I need a certificate to prove I'm not Chinese, as it's not immediately self-evident to these unintelligent voters, you see). Another Channelnewsasia article I read recently called the WP's mistakes in their form submission to contest Aljunied GRC in the previous election a 'debacle', after having thrown in a slew of upgrading programs etc. that had been launched in Aljunied during the PAP's term there. In contrast, tonight the newscaster said that Chiam See Tong 'took a potshot' at the PAP for not building closer ties with Malaysia. What a potshot indeed! I mean, it's not like they supply our water or anything, right? The media is clearly right in calling it a potshot, that is, "criticism aimed at an easy target and made without careful consideration" (dictionary.com). I'm so glad I have the media to tell me which election issues are debacles, which are fiascos, and which are potshots. God forbid that I should decide for myself. Rubbish like that makes me want to tear my hair out.
Posted at 11:19 pm by gaylegoh
Permalink
Friday, April 28, 2006
Is this genetic or something?
Said Lee Kuan Yew: "If I were arrogant, would I be talking to you?"
(In response to a journalist's comment on My Vote, saying that some people feel him to be arrogant).
I must give him all respect for this undefeatable statement. It is truly a dumbfounding, mind-boggling, flabbergasting masterpiece of rhetoric to which there is no intuitive reply. It is a statement that presupposes his superior status, and confers a notion of graciousness and humility upon the very fact that he would consent to have free and direct dialogue with young Singaporeans. Here I am talking to lower lifeforms. Obviously I can't be arrogant.
Said Lee Hsien Loong: "If I weren't taking this seriously, would I be here?"
(Broadcasted on News 5 Tonight, said to TV cameras while walking the grounds.)
A statement almost worthy of his father's finesse -- his very presence gracing our midst is proof enough that he is concerned and serious about the contest to win our hearts and our votes. The supreme high chancellor himself has deigned to kiss my baby, oh my god he must really care! I wish my daddy could come up with trump cards like that. All he ever says is 'blistering barnacles' :( and I'll say 'thundering typhoons'. On other news, there were three concurrent rallies going on at the same time tonight: one by the PAP, one by the WP, and one by the SDP. Why is it News 5 Tonight only bothered to give coverage to the PAP one? Another thing I found amusing -- the PAP rally had to shift venue because of heavy rain and lightning. A friend and I were discussing the irony of that earlier today, if a lightning bolt struck the PAP, as per their logo, and Thor's hammer struck the Worker's Party, as per theirs. O rain, O doom and ill portent! And the 6th of May is coming, coming, coming...
Posted at 10:16 pm by gaylegoh
Permalink
|
|
 |
gayle goh
profile
Recommended Posts
Do We Owe Our Existence to the PAP?
A Message From a Media Insider
The Bilahari Kausikan Post
Bilahari Kausikan's Reply
Money in Politics, Politics in Money
Workers' Party, PAP or My Living Room Armchair?
My Vision for Singapore
Democracy is Dangerous!
Singapore's Midlife Crisis
Smile, Singapore! WB and IMF Meetings a Scam
Chees' Rally & March; Interview with Gandhi Ambalam
worthy reads
xenoboy sg
students' sketchpad
singabloodypore
singapore mind
young republic
i-do-not-speak
friends
kwee boon
brendan
ben teh
2sa3
gecko
shameless advertising
if you're looking for air compressors and ancillary parts (vane, rotary, screw, etc), my dad sells them! ;)
disclaimer
the author of this site has based all her personal opinions on what is known to her as fact. any error is made of ignorance, not malice, and is accordingly apologized for. any views and opinions expressed by other persons on this site are not the responsibility of the author, nor does she claim to espouse them.
|
|
|
