But the key issue is not the right to voice our views, which all of
us enjoy, but the quality of the political system, the substance of
the political debate and how decisions made can improve the lives
of ordinary citizens.
but our rights are not the same, as our leaders have admitted
before, some are more equal than others and therefore enjoy a
louder voice than the rest of us. also, who should be the one
passing judgement on the quality of our political system and
substance of our debates? you? and about improvement of the lives
of ordinary folks, no matter your attempts on the surface, we know
that ordinary folks will need to serve a lifetime of servitude just
to own a roof over their heads, a roof that will be taken back from
them in just a few decades.
Singapore has a hard-won international reputation for its high
standard of integrity and competence in its politics. The PAP
ensures this by insisting on honest, capable political leaders who
fulfil their promises to the people. This has served Singapore and
Singaporeans well.
but singapore is also a laughing stock when it comes to its
reputation as a 'democracy' as every foreigner you meet will have
no qualms about ridiculing our impeccable dynastic succession.
again i really have to ask, who decides that we have been served
well? you? or us? who decides capability? you? or suzhou?
In such a clean and transparent system, all allegations are
investigated and lies refuted. Politicians who make scurrilous
remarks must be able to back them up with facts. This applies both
to the PAP as well as the opposition. This way, voters can decide
better to whom they can entrust their future. Mr Cai forgets that
Mr Chiam See Tong and Mr Low Thia Khiang have been in politics for
over 20 years without suffering any
consequences.
just because you say our system is transparent therefore it is? we
don't even have an effective watchdog to check what you're doing
how do we know you're as transparent as you claim to be?
strangely, every allegation that are being refuted always refer to
the same party and individuals. is it possible that so many
different individuals have been wrong and always wrong and the same
plaintiff has always and will always be right? just like the NKF?
all these years, Durai was always right, always clean, always
transparent and everybody else who spoke against Durai were
severely punished. looked what happened now.
how are we to know if Mr Chiam and Mr Low had not suffered in
silence having been wisened by the examples of JB Jeyaratnam and
the like?
Our system is not perfect, but it is far better than the chaotic
and dirty politics found in many other countries. Would Mr Cai
prefer the political ferment in Thailand and the Philippines, where
distrust of the ruling party's action and public conflict are ever
present? Or the corruption of so many Asian countries, which have
'freer' political systems and media than
Singapore?
i wonder which is better, a chaotic but balanced system that
ensures that we are not being taken for a ride or a supposedly
'clean' one that leads us by our noses, even if it is to our own
graves?
The PAP Government and its MPs have gained the respect and trust of
the people over the years. This is something
special.
that is what you would like to believe. get rid of the GRC and we
shall see.
In the United States and Britain - where political debates and
scandals dominate - cynicism with the political system has become
widespread, resulting in declining voter turn-outs in their general
elections. Politicians rank lower than used-car salesmen in public
esteem.
but absence of scandals could simply mean the lack of transparency
and deliberate cover up of stupendous mistakes by our leaders in
the name of 'responsible' news reporting.
According to the book, The Vanishing Voter, by Mr Thomas Patterson,
a key reason for the voters' cynicism in the US is that political
campaigns seem more like theatre or entertainment than something to
be taken seriously. In Singapore, we take our politics
seriously.
ours? a stock exchange where you buy votes and sell upgrading
programmes? except our stupid stock voters don't realise that the
upgrades they're buying are actually theirs rightfully in the first
place.
we take politics seriously? then how come reports show that young
voters are indifferent to politics and don't even know who their
MPs are?
The PAP is not afraid of different views and, in fact, encourages
this. When I was interviewed to be a PAP candidate for the last
general election, I made it clear that I disagreed with some of the
PAP's policies. Still, I was selected, and I still maintain these
views.
more like it is not afraid to stamp out any dissenting views.
Indeed, if the PAP wants to silence dissent, why should it
introduce the Non-Constituency MP scheme to give opposition members
at least three seats in Parliament? Because of this scheme, Mr
Steve Chia, who lost in the last general election, could still
enter Parliament as the 'best loser'.
to silence critics i suppose. non constituency MPs do not have a
support base and therefore do not constitute a threat.
All Singaporeans are free to voice their opinions and form
associations and, indeed, are encouraged to engage actively in
politics if they feel so inclined.
yeah right, to the extent of providing a speakers corner that
nobody goes to.
However, we all have to play by the same rules and be held
accountable for our words and actions.
same rules? more like your rules isn't it? under which one side has
always been penalised heavily while the other side enjoys total
protection.
Mr Cai could even consider putting these ideas to the people by
contesting in the forthcoming elections himself. After all, this is
a democracy.
but the contests are hardly fair and going against the political
regime often means being hounded and ruining one's own life,
something that would put off even the most convicted of persons.
after all, this is only democracy.
