By Eugene Yeo
A reader posted a comment on our site lately castigating us for
only knowing how to criticize without coming up with any “better
solutions”. Another emailed us imploring us to offer “constructive
criticisms” instead of ranting relentlessly at the
government.
What exactly is “constructive criticism” ? I have searched
through all major dictionaries and can’t seem to find a definition
for it. The term itself is an illusion concocted by the PAP to
limit the boundaries in which they can be criticized and to
preserve and perpetuate the myth about their “capabilities”.
In the PAP/SPH, jargon, “constructive criticism” must fulfil the
following criteria:
1. The identity of the critic must be known so
that: he or she can be easily threatened, sued, bankrupted
or fixed into submission which will take the sting out of the rest
to exercise ’self-censorship’ when criticizing the
establishment.
2. Criticize them in subtle / diplomatic / friendly
manner in order not to make them look bad so that they can
continue to justify their exorbitant high salaries simply by
proclaiming themselves as the best talents that Singapore will ever
produce. Have a live debate in public between PM Lee and Dr Chee
and the fake aura of invincibility which the PAP has so cleverly
enshrouded itself will vanish into thin air instantaneously.
3. Offer better alternatives and solutions so
that they are able to demolish you if your proposals are unsound or
steal your idea to become theirs in the future without giving due
acknowledgement or recognition.
An old dog is incapable of new tricks. It is the same old
“divide and conquer” strategem employed over the years to split and
weaken the opposition camp.
Opposition politicians who give the PAP a “passing grade”,
defend its laws as “fair and just” and express their pride in
voting for them in previous elections are “constructive opposition”
to be given a positive spin by the state media to increase support
for them amongst unsuspecting opposition supporters.
Those who dare to “call a spade a spade” and criticize them are
hauled up in courts, sued for defamation, bankrupted and demonized
by the state media as “destructive opposition” bent on destroying
the nation.
How can an opposition politician destroy the nation by
shouting ‘where is the money’ in public ? Or does one do so by
really losing tonnes of money overseas and still dare not account
to the public ?
The primary purpose of an opposition is to check on the
ruling party, not to make life easy, nice and cozy for
them to run the show with impunity. In fact, they are supposed to
make life difficult for them to ensure that they are accountable to
the people.
The opposition exists for the sake of opposing.
This is the eternal truth everywhere else in the world, but under
the distorted “spectacles” of the PAP and the state media, it is
wrong to “oppose” for the sake of “opposing”. Then what is the role
of the “opposition” ? To be a flower vase to wayang in Parliament
so that the PAP can continue to masquerade Singapore as a democracy
to the world ?
Under the PAP dictionary, the word “opposition” has become a
dirty word because they do not like to be opposed. The Longman
dictionary defines the word “oppose” as “to regard a
suggestion or planned course of action with strong
disapproval.” Is there anything wrong in disagreeing with
the PAP ? Must we always see eye to eye with its actions all the
time ? If what they have been doing are perfectly free from blame,
will there be any grounds for us to oppose them ? Is the opposition
opposing them because of their party’s name or logo ?
It is not the duty of the opposition to come up with alternative
policies to challenge the government for it does not have the
manpower, finance and most importantly, the
necessary information made available to them in order to
do so.
Can anybody tell me there is any opposition in the world, be it
the Conservatives in the United Kingdom, the Republicans in the
United States, the BJP in India or the Pakatan Rakyat in Malaysia
which exists to not to oppose the ruling party, but to be a
“constructive opposition” offering alternative policies
without embarrassing the government?
If the PAP government, with the entire civil service at its
disposal still needs a “constructive opposition” to help them in
policy-making and formulation, then perhaps they are redundant
after all and undeserving of their high salaries.
An opposition leader who dare not confront or challenge the
ruling party out of fear of offending them and yet call on
Singaporeans to vote him into Parliament to be a “watchdog” of the
PAP is in fact a “running dog” which has betrayed the trust of the
people !
Over here, we do not mince our words when we criticize the
establishment and it is for our readers to judge for
themselves the merits of our critiques, not the PAP, the media or
its proxy blog TOC to pass summary judgements and teach netizens a
lesson in “credibility”.
If what we post here is complete hogwash without any meaning,
you can be sure that our faithful and astute readers will cruxify
us immediately on the spot without mercy.
A real tested political leader will be able to pass through the
baptism of fire and withstand any bullets shot at him by his
detractors. If you cannot take the heat, for goodness sake, just
leave the kitchen !
Nobody force you to be in politics. You are in the game because
you claim you want to serve your family…oops, I mean the people and
so stop whining like a faggot and threaten to fix
your opponents when they expose your inadequacies because they
are just doing their job.
A “constructive critic” if there is such a term, is one who
points out the follies, mistakes and oversights of the government
directly and fearlessly so that it is held accountable for
them.
Very soon, the state media will come up with a new definition
for “credible bloggers”, those who are known in real life, plays
around with semantics to attract official attention and
prostitute themselves for cheap media publicity. You bet that these
shenanigans will be constantly promoted, appraised and
adulated to dilute the influence of vocal blogs which dare to
criticize the establishment.
In my humble opinion, a “constructive” opposition / critic /
blogger should posses the following attributes:
1. Courage to criticize, challenge and confront the
establishment based to the best of one’s knowledge reasonably
and truthfully as far as possible.
2. Magnanimity to concede and admit one’s mistakes if proven
wrong.
3. Fortitude to withstand barrage of counter-attacks and to
inspire others to join in the fray.
Critics exist to criticize the government, just like the
opposition exists to oppose the government. If the
government wants us to based our criticism on substantial evidence,
then it must be forthcoming with the information in the first
place. It is ludicrous to expect ordinary citizens to spend time
doing “proper research” before they are allowed to criticize. Maybe
MICA should consider muzzling every citizen with a dog mask and
only allow those with a “permit” to open their mouths.
This “constructive” opposition / criticism is an
illusion which only exists in the dreams of the PAP. They
can only play such tricks on the minds of the electorate in
Singapore where a majority of the populace has been
brainwashed after 40 years of “national education”. If
they try to repeat the same bullshit in other modern democracies,
they will be jeered, ridiculed and lampooned till they climb of out
of their toilet windows and disappear without a trace like Mas
Selamat.
http://wayangparty.com/?p=5662