As expected, the media's coverage of the NUS Forum - GE 2006
Post-Mortem - is inept, terrible, and inaccurate. It paints a
skewed picture of what actually took place at Guild House last
night.
I will try as much as I can to recall and offer my own report
here.
Catherine Lim kicked off the forum with her characteristic lively
and enthusiastic account of two fictional stories. I will not
recount the details of the two stories here but the point of her
speech , as far as I can gather, is this: If the govt lets go
enough, the people will wise up, and be able to see what is in
their own interest.
Speaking after Catherine Lim was Perry Tong of the WP. His speech
dwelled on what the WP has done and what it will be doing in
future, how the WP perceived the elections.
Dr Chee Soon Juan spoke next. He started
off with a rather good joke.. "I hadn't been able to sleep for a
few days after the elections. I tried counting sheep to help me get
to sleep...but even then, I couldn't...cos even the sheep were all
in white... (the audience broke out in laughter and applause) And
there were all these running dogs around them, trying to keep the
sheep in line and not allowing them to stray..." (Audience broke
out in laugher again...)
Dr Chee then proceeded to his speech proper. He gave the second
longest speech last night (Denise Phua's speech was the longest -
more than half an hour although the chair had informed the
pannelists that each had only 10 to 12 minutes). Anyway, Dr Chee's
focussed on why he and the SDP did not approve of the elections
because of certain thinsgw hich happened behind the scenes.
It was rather revealing to hear him give exmaples of such
'political manoeuvrings' by the PAP govt. For example: Govt
officials had paid the SDP contractors, who were supposed to put up
their rally stage, a visit on the very same morning when the SDP
was to hold its first rally. The contractors then told the SDP that
they could no longer do the work of putting up their stage. The SDP
then had to find a new contractor to do the work. His main thrust
was the media - and how it skewed several incidents to paint the
SDP in a bad light.
One example Dr Chee gave was the picture of him with reporters
outside his office. He had given the media a full 5 minutes of his
time answering their questions then, and photographers snapped away
at him for that full 5 minutes. "Now, 5 minutes to a photographer
is an eternity", Chee said. "But what did we see the next day in
the papers?" He put up a picture on the projector and showed
everyone the picture. "It looks as though I am trying to run away
from answering their questions although I had been answering them
for a full 5 minutes!"
He went on to show pictures of how the SDP was given skewed
coverage by the media. Dr Chee offerred that there cannot be
legitimacy to elections in singapore if the govt continues to
engage in such acts of misrepresentation and misinformation.
Next was Prof Ho Khai Leong. He started off by saying that he is
very disappointed by the elections, and called for several reforms
focussing on the PAP itself, the media and the electoral process,
and also called for municipal, local elections to be seriously
considered.
On the PAP, he suggested (in very strong terms, in fact) that
internal reforms are needed. He criticised the need to have the
offices of SM & MM. These creates illegitimacy for the PM. "Who
is really in charge of the govt? The PM should be the one who is in
charge of everything - including winning back Potong Pasir and
Hougang." (Audience laughed and clapped)
Prof Ho also criticised the manner in which the GRCs allowed new
candidates to be helicoptered in to office. He questioned the bond
and the legitimacy of MPs who hides behind one main minister to win
an election. "You are not voting for the new MP but voting for the
main MP, who is a minister."
Calling for the govt to seriously consider holding municipal, local
elections, he said that this will free up MPs to be legislators at
the national level, and local elections will be for representatives
who will handle local municipal issues. He reiterated that MPs
should not be bogged down with matters such as lift upgrading,
covered walkways or writing letters to depts on behalf of
residents.
Last to speak was Denise Phua. She spent a good part of her speech
relating her own personal experiences and why she chose to join the
PAP. She explained that she had gone from being 'anti-establishment
to being in the establishment' and how her friends and family were
surprised.
Ms Phua speaks well, articulates her words clearly and came across
as a genuinely caring person. It is quite apparent that she is
passionate about her work with autistic children. However, that is
why it is also with a bit of sadness that she was 'arrowed' to
represent the PAP in such a forum. Clearly out of her depth, she
struggled to explain PAP policies and attitudes. Mostly, she
repeated the oft-heard official PAP lines - although she did call
herself a 'non-conformist' at one point.
She focussed her speech on her own personal analysis of the GE and
came to the conclusion that, although some things need to be looked
at, the elections was a good one for the PAP and delivered a good
result for them.
Ms Phua gave a long speech and the restlessness of the audience
became apparent towards the end of it. To be fair to her, being a
first-time politician and being arrowed to represent her party, she
did her best not to stray from her party line.
From sammyboy's forum posted by Pmonkey10