Dear Moderators,

I am posting this as a new thread rather than as part of the previous one by Atobe because I don't want this post to sink in the middle of 5 pages of long debate.

Basically, this is a letter that I sent to TODAY 2 days ago, which apparently got ignored by TODAY (or censored away by its editors anyway).

I am going to be trying to send this in to the Straits Times too, although I sincerely doubt that they will publish it.

Rgds,

the (returning pikamaster)

The Letter is as follows:

(letter length: 497 words)

LETTER TITLE: Why the Mistakes, MinLaw?

I am a citizen who is sorely disappointed with the quality of MinLaw's criticism of the IBAHRI after reading the full text of the IBAHRI's report.

Para 2 of MinLaw's 9 July response admits that it only perused the Executive Summary. If it had bothered to read all the first 30 pages, it would have seen 5 substantial quotations from its 9 April response, which it says was ignored by the IBAHRI. And there are more following.

PERC is quoted in a two-liner on page 21 of the report. The Report does not quote extensively from PERC has MinLaw would prefer, but it provides Transparency International's and the World Bank's comments, which run along the same lines.
 
Para 5 of MinLaw's reply pounces on one single comment on page 70. In my view, that comment is a protection against the evasive "but it has not happened before" response. In fact, the monetary  tables on page 60 are sufficient to substantiate IBAHRI's "grave accuasation".  Why is there a $307,350 disparity between the total amounts awarded to the PAP litigants and those awarded to the non-PAP litigants? And why is the highest litigation award for a PAP member - MM in this case - $500,000 (1994) which is 5 times as much as the maximum awarded to a non-PAP litigant (1995). Is it that some allegations can be more "scurrilous and untrue" than others?

MinLaw's assertion in para 7 is simply untrue and totally ignores the IBAHRI's report, which goes at length to rebut and clarify inaccuracies in the 9 April letter by MinLaw to IBAHRI on its report. For instance, it notes Justice Brooke's full comments with regard to the Privy Council in 1989, articulated on pages 31 and 32, in which is stated that "In due course the Privy Council was to be critical of the decision of a district court judge not to transfer the retrial to the High Court" and thus puts the comment that the verdict was "unusual" in a formal, rather than critical, context.

In addition, most of paras 7 and 8 are focused on shoring up the government's superiority, not in providing any fresh counter-criticism to any part of the content of the 72-page report. In general, it seems that MinLaw aims to focus exclusively on an East-West divide, without taking to heart IBAHRI's exhortation "to engage with the international community in a more constructive manner". MinLaw has clearly failed to engage IBAHRI in a proper meaningful discussion.

I hope that the Law Society can offer a more informed response than MinLaw did, being as professional as their critics from the IBAHRI. I do hope that the Law Society's reply would not regurgitate any of the sections of its 25 April letter quoted on page 68 of the IBAHRI report.

At the end of the day, MinLaw's reply only reflects poorly our ability in engaging in healthy political discussion. I do hope our authorities can be more cosntructive and mature in the future.

Originally posted by hawkeye1819:

Hey guys/gals, I think it's been a long time since anyone asked this question:

"What kind of opposition do we want to see?"

Forummers have got younger compared to 10 years ago and there could be a new mindset.

1. Do we want to see opposition comprise of one united party? I.e. merger of all parties into Workers' Party or a new party with new name.

2. Do we want to see several opposition parties, each with their own style? Like SDA/NSP very moderate, WP moderate, SDP confrontational and maybe JBJ's new Reform Party moderately confrontational. Offering S'poreans more choices.

3. Or do we want to see somewhere in between, a strong party to fight PAP but have other parties act as a check on PAP and the strong opposition?

hawkeye,

1) A new mindset indeed, among some. Sadly, not among all.

2) I would like to see more synergy between the WP and SDA. One can offer the details, and the other the overall structure. I also support JBJ's new party. Perhaps the other parties are getting old and tired, no matter how many times they change leaders. We need a new ideology for a new century.

3) in that case I rather see more independents.

4) A very good suggestion. two thumbs up from me.

Rgds,
the pikamaster

Originally posted by oxford mushroom:

Singaporeans will whine and rant but thankfully most of them elect the party that is most able to ensure the continued prosperity of Singapore. Opposition party members are like many in these forums: kpkb about everything under the sun but add little value to the economy.

most of them elect? The last I heard, 50% of locals didn't even get to vote, not because they were ineligible, but because they lived in "walkover" zones.

Originally posted by robertteh:

The first step is to put up the outline and objective of the proposed new constitution.

This has been done. If our leaders care about the future of Singapore and want to leave a more enduring legacy, they will revise the current constitution as enough rationale has been put up to justify the revision.

If they are below the best or only caring for their own entrenched power, then nothing will be done and their cyber-agents will be duly instructed to pour water.

Robert,

1 & 2) I think I roughly get the objective, but unfortunately I don't see the outline out yet...

3) I think they are already doing that...

Rgds,
the pikamaster

Originally posted by teraexa:

Well I like this paragraph of yours. It aligns perfectly with what is happening here. I am just a person who neither likes the incumbent nor the opposition. I am still inclined to playing within the rules although that may change. The problem is, I just hate opposition candidates asking people to vote for them simply because they are "non-PAP". That is not a good enough reason to vote for them to any mature voter.

It seems like many of our ideas have a confluence, just that we come from different points of view. At the end of the day, I guess our opposition still has much to improve as much as we would like to see more of them in Parliament.

We can only wait and hope for that day to come.

Here is a good question:

What can the opposition really say except "we are not the PAP"? Unlike Mozilla and FSF, which can argue that they are superior to Microsoft or SCO Systems, whenever the opposition tries and make a statement of what they have which the PAP doesn't, some PAP idiot will steal their ideas and then sue them for defamation, like what SCO did with the Linux Core. Unfortunately, we don't have an independent European Union Fairtrade Commission here to judge the cases for us, so well the commercial party (SCO/PAP) will always win in our case, and the alternative (FSF/Oppo) get blacklisted for no good reason.

I think by now the opposition probably just wants the intelligent voter to fill up the blanks by himself or herself.

Rgds,
the pikamaster

Originally posted by teraexa:

Woot I sound like Wee Shu Min? I should be damned. Sorry for my tone just now cos I was not really in the best of moods when writing that.

Just in case you are wondering where I am from, was from RI, currently in RJ.

And oh yes, back to topic, shall we?

Fragmentation and disunity. My personal beliefs (not too sure if it extends to others as well) are that if the opposition is disunited and fragmented, they certainly ain't giving me the confidence to vote them in. Would I want my MP to be bickering in Parliament, or worse, during my Meet-The-People sessions? Chances are that if the opposition show themselves to be credible, professional and united, my inclination to vote them is certainly going to be higher.

Now onto Gerrymandering (sorry for the earlier spelling error). Oh yes, certainly, Gerrymandering has, is and will continue to be used by incumbents to consolidate their position. I am one who is not blinded by the fact that our media is pro-govt (hey if not why they never ever reviewed The Hatchet Man?) but I am pretty sure that they DID report on boundary changes during elections. Yes, we lack a truly free press in Singapore but that's not really the issue of this point, yet. Anyway, regarding the point on GRCs and gerrymandering. These are both legal tools (within the provisions of the law). The problem is that people often view legality and ethics interchangably. Sure, such tactics aren't ethics, but they are legal (within the laws of Singapore) and without a strong 4th estate to criticise them, we'll just have to leave it at legality.

Next onto the media. It is rather unfortunate that we only get to see the sensational side of protests or public gatherings through the media. However, I went to Taiwan during 2005 when they were holding their local elections. Boy, I saw with my eyes how a 'peaceful' gathering could go wrong simply because some opposing supporter started saying criticisms. Perhaps, it is a case of what we lose out (the chance for free speech) vs what we gain (relative peace?). This, unfortunately, can be argued till the cows come home and we can never reach a consensus.

Regarding the activities of the opposition, it is unfortunate that I lack personal experience with some of the members and that financial support for them is still sorely lacking. However, if the opposition is to achieve anything significant, they will have to reach out to ordinary, ignorant people like me to convince of their votes.

Taxi drivers rants. What a familiar scene. Perhaps, if we listen to them carefully, most of their concerns are mainly economic in nature (rising minister pay, rising GST, rising costs, lower wages etc) but they have long resigned to the fact that PAP is dominant in politics and as long as they are economically well-off, they do not really care if PAP is all-dominating (ain't most people of the older generation like that?).

I wouldn't defend the PAP cos I think they have faults. Yet, I am just perturbed by the confusion between legality and morality in politics. What is immoral can be legal, like GRC, minister pay etc. Yes, some of PAP's actions are ethically wrong and only strong public sentiment can turn that lack of ethics into an issue worth examining, else we are probably resigned to living under a PAP that sometimes skirt around the grey areas of the law for some measures that perhaps lack in ethics.

Just my $0.02.

Teraexa,

1-3) I'm biased against Rafflesians, which is why I chose to go to HCI.

But back to the topic...

4) Hmm, do Sylvia Lim and Chiam See Tong do exactly what you describe in this para? Does the PM's Questions in UK operate like that?

5) Gerrymandering was named after a President something Gerry who drew up electoral districts shaped like salamanders. (This is a historical fact; I am not kidding) But the term is a derogatory term in Western politics anyway. And no, the media didn't report on boundary changes; they only reported on boundaries, which is a different thing. And their "Report" was online, which many people are not rich enough to afford. GRCs are a provision of the law, but then I can always ask the philosophical question: What is the Rule of Law if the Law can be changed at the whim of a political party? And interestingly, why do we not have a strong 4th estate? Never leave a stone unturned.

6) Taiwan is a garbled example actually because of the whole Chinese-imperialism issue. Taiwan is almost an Asian Chechnya, minus the theaters with nerve gas in them.

7) The issue was who the man-on-the-street support, and not what they support for.

Hmmm... and you wouldn't vote for those who would stop the PAP from skirting round those areas?

My $0.02 as well.

Rgds,
the pikamaster

Originally posted by teraexa:

Frankly, I will not vote the opposition just for the sake of voting otherwise.

No doubts, there are problems with the PAP (eg minister pay), but I have to say that our opposition have not exactly helped themselves either by being fragmented and disunited.

Seriously, I read through the arguments here. Very convincing about the electoral, media processes about how the incumbent seeks to enhance and consolidate its position in politics. However, are such measures only restricted here? No no no. In fact, it is so prevalent everywhere, even in so-called democratic havens such as USA, Britain and Taiwan. Jerrymandering (redrawing of electoral boundaries to favour the ruling party) is a widespread practice overseas and the way they do it really make the Serangoon-North-in-Marine-Parade-GRC incident look very very normal. Another example, the first-past-the-post system which were invented by the British and still used here. It allows the ruling party to control the Parliament even though they get the minority of the votes.

Ok, the restrictions on protests and public speeches are a tad too restrictive but I do not wish to see oversea situations of riots and violent protests breaking out here either.

Yes, the ruling party is not perfect, but neither is the opposition. Are there avenues for them to broadcast their political ideas and policies? Yes there are legal ways. Since the last GE, I have not ahd a whiff of the opposition in my GRC. It would have been good if they gone around distributing their newsletters but no, I have not seen them in action. Please give me an opposition that does not disappear during non-election days and only mysteriously materialise during election period.

Give me a credible opposition that bothers to engage the people even during normal non-election periods, not some people who keeps protesting for the sake of protesting and getting into trouble with the law repeatedly.

Seriously, I may not like the ruling party that's not a good enough reason to vote the opposition, not when the quality of some of them I see (some of the GRC teams seem to be just banded together for the sake of elections).

You can go an call me a PAP-centric elitist boot-licking lap dog, but I will tell you that for now, I will NOT vote the opposition, but neither will I vote the PAP either.

You can list all the bad points and shortcomings of the PAP all you want, but at the end of the day, if given a choice to choose between 2 rotten apples, I will prefer not to eat and drink water instead.

BTW, I am only 18. You can label me as a person who has been blinded by pro-govt propaganda and education but I believe if you were to take this to the normal man-in-the-street, chances are, they are probably more likely to agree with my viewpoint compared to yours.

I would not label your views on the PAP as bigotic but it is pretty much one-sided and subjective.

Teraexa,

I am just 1 year older than you, but I'm afraid I have to say that what you say sounds like what Wee Shu Min said to Derrick (Rmb the incident?) With the same pompous tone as she uses. But let me talk to you:-

1-2) They are fragmented and divided. But this fragmentation and division should have no impact whatsoever on who you decide to vote. So plainly, you are going OOT here.

3) Sure, Gerrymandering may be practiced in other countries, but not as openly as here. And there will be lots of criticism coming from the local press on the govt's abuse of power, sometimes going to the extent of a re-election. Unlike here, where the Straits Times/ TNP/ TODAY doesn't even bother to report changed electoral boundaries, making poor uneducated voters unsure of what GRC they are in from one election to the next. Yes, the first-past-the-post system was invented in the UK. But the UK's FPTP is solely for Single-Member Wards. There is no such stupid thing as GRCs there. It is not like TOny Blair, Gordon Brown and Ruth Kelly could contest as a team in a single ward.

4) Don't believe everything the media shows. One purpose of the media is to sell news, so it usually produces sensationalism. Overseas protests are usually thousands and thousands of people. These people are usually peaceful. The ones causing the riots and other disturbances are usually a small band of fanatics or desparados. And usually, such unrest only occurs when people have been pushed beyond their limit. Put it this way, you can hardly expect inhabitants of a war-torn Iraq to offer the USAF a Christmas present, could you? But most other demonstrations in US and UK and AU are usually peaceful. Sadly, these don't make it to the press.

5) Unlike what you think, the opposition does not disappear during non-election periods. I was with a friend from the WP last week. he had spent an entire week in a walkabout in Hougang. And the SDP sells its newsletters at some of the MRT stations. Unfortunately, they are cash-strapped (unlike the PAP, which can bribe the MNCs) and operate under alot of restrictions which the PAP simply doesn't face. Notice: If a PAP member criticises his Party (like one did last year), he is labelled as giving "insightful feedback"; when an oppo member criticises the PAP, s/he gets charged for defamation or slander unless s/he beats around the bush. Do you seriously expect the opposition to be strong under such an environment?

6) That is just the SDP. Do not lump them together with the other parties.

7) Well, haha, unfortunately voting is compulsory, and I don't think null-voting is acceptable. Then of course you could spoil your vote by drawing the merlion on it. Then again, you may jsut be wasting your time, because you won't even have a chance to vote under the GRC system.

Wow. So Moralistic. Tone down your ego man.

9-10) Nope, they aren't. You probably haven't heard a taxi-driver rant before right? Please look beyond your schoolbooks to truly understand your country. That is all I can say. Notice your SS textbooks never criticise the PAP. The PAP is always made to look like the victim, whether of the British, The Communists, The Alliance, terrorists or the Senseless West. If you were to ask each of these parties for their side, you would probably get a different story. Doesn't this all make the version of Singapore History presented in SS textbooks one-sided and bigoted too? (I am not surprised why we have tensions with M'sia and Indon even now.)

Rgds,
the pikamaster

P.S.: Which school are you from? In case you were wondering, I was from RI, and then I went to HCI.

Originally posted by Fingolfin_Noldor:

The main problem I see is interpretation.

It is fine and well to have a near air tight constitution, but with a Govt, who's ultimate string puller is a lawyer who has shown a penchant for ignoring precedence and interpreting the law and rewriting it as he sees fit to suit his aims. This largely comes because we have a spineless judiciary who is utterly subservient to the Govt and not answerable to the people. The law and order in Singapore is at best described as a facade because no one really pays much attention to it, and lawyers in Singapore have resorted to quick footing to avoid getting entangled with the Govt for the sake of preserving both their livelihood and their lives in Singapore because they know that getting entangled will likely see them exiled. The Govt has no respect for its own institutions of law but rather see them as tools to further their aims. The problem of course, is who will enforce the law, and who will enforce the enforcer? However independent the enforcer claims to be, the PAP has subverted the entire system for its own use.

In this, the Civil Service and the PAP are both culpable to this mess we have here. If we are to ensure that there is better respect for the law, it has to start from the bottom to the top. Citizens must be made aware of their rights and must understand that those rights can be lost. Unfortunately, a combination of fear and apathy has created a population who cares only for material needs and nothing more.

Reforming the Constitution isn't enough. The system must torn apart and rebuilt from scratch. This is all I can see and I cannot think of any other way to resolve this mess. Even the Civil Service must be purged. I would go as far as say, that education is the key. Because Singaporeans are brought up in an environment where thinking out of the box isn't quite encouraged, and that they do not believe in the virtues of freedom and courage, t is quite simply impossible to do anything with what we have now. We need more than just tearing the system apart; we need a revolution in mindset in Singapore. Until we sort out these problems in our country out, I fear that the constitution, which was originally meant to protect the rights of the citizens of the country and to form the foundation for our law, is nothing but a cheap piece of paper.

Precisely. And the way to begin is by tearing apart the education system. And I don't just mean removing chunks off Chinese textbooks. We need to change the social structure of schools as well...

Originally posted by robertteh:

Yes, agreed. I think you have written many times too about the need to change the constitution with proposals to institutionalize citizens' involvements in social and cultural aspect of participation and creating a youth parliament etc. These are good works for it signaled that citizens are now coming out to speak up on wrongdoings or unfair government policies one by one like the little red dots in forums.

We will need many more little red dots, for they will make the difference and even they cannot have the power to change they can paint the whole town red to make the sea change eventually happen.

Robert,

Unfortunately I am almost the only one making those calls. As someone pointed out, changing the Consti is not necessarily the solution. This is because the Consti reflects what the majority of Singaporeans - swayed by "practical" considerations - believe. We need to tackle the root of the problem, which is to educate Singaporeans to have a different mindset. And thus, what we need first is a redesign of the education system. Differently-educated people will surely want to amend what they view as an outmoded Constitution.

And IMHO, you still didn't answer my question in the post you quoted.

Rgds,
the pikamaster

Robert,

Good to see that I finally have managed to get someone to think along my line. But I wonder ... are you quoting the current Consti or your amended version.

Rgds,
the pikamaster (arixion@gmail.com)

Robert,

you do know you are not attracting much attention, don't you?

pkm

Originally posted by Gazelle:

this is not a quarrel, this is about exposing people who fabricate false information to defame our government

Gazelle,

at least Rock^Star and a few others from the anti-camp made reasonable comebacks to my post. Yo on the other hand... please wake up your idea!!

Originally posted by Atobe:

For who claim - ''I dont waste my with losers...... " at 10.37a.m. on 13 January 2007, you seem to be putting alot of effort all the way till mid-day, and still could not resist but to return at 8.00p.m. to vent more frustrated venom in retaliation.

This surely tell us something of your vain pride that you wear on your face, instead of keeping it in your heart and mind.

All of your detractors have stood by what have been said, and all of us have offered information that have been substantiated; but which you arrogantly sweep off with your unsubstantiated claims that all information offered are fabricated and lies.

You have not shown us any counter-argument - nor an iota of information - to substantiate your reasons for claiming our information to be fabricated and lies.

Yet you will expect us not to be spoon-fed by you, and will brilliantly expect us to verify for ourselves the reasons that you refused to give for claiming our information to be fabricated and to be lies.

After your contradictory and hypocritical display, you will have the gall to claim that we do not stand by what we have said ?

The proverbial quote of [b]''the Pot calling the Kettle black'' cannot sound truer and more applicable to you in this instance.

It seems that the only way you are capable of recovering from your weak position is to launch into circumlocutory arguments that leads nowhere, and with each round - you vent your frustration by becoming more vulgar.

What do you hope to achieve with your vulgar suggestion - in your quoted post above ?

If anything, it simply reveal a darker side of your persona of a frustrated adult that simply enter into a tantrum when you cannot get your own ways.

Your worsening position will soon lead you to the Institute next to the Wood Bridge at Yio Chu Kang; or alternatively, CSJ can help cure your psychological problems if you can have a kinder opinion of him.


[/b]

Congrats,

this is your most objective post so far.

Originally posted by lionnoisy:


ha ha cant u read in just a article,we are treated as small/younger
brother 3 times.

[b]thanks to CSJ for his tireless link to blacken SG!!

2.Our neighbours are implanted with this mind set.
Sporeans,pl prepare to be bullied from time to time.[/b]

lionnoisy,

YOU SERIOUSLY DON"T CONTRIBUTE AT ALL TO THIS FORUM!

1) CSJ is useless, and shouldn't be taken as epitome of opposition. You seem to run into CSJ for all your defenses against anti-PAP diatribes.

2) The more self-defensive we get, the more they do too. It is that simple. If we are always going to think that we are being bullied by M'sia and Indon, we are never going to make friends beyond our tiny island, and we will become an international laughingstock for closed minds. Gee, we might even win a World Record!

Groan,
pikamaster

Originally posted by Jontst78:

Hmm, what I would like to see, I guess you can call it a wish list of sorts

1. Veto powers reinstated to the President of Singapore.

2. Independent non-partisan Judicary Council(including president) to appoint judges.

3. Bring back the Jury system.

4. Abolishment of GRCs

5. Independent non-partisan Elections Committe

6. Article 5(2a) - to be enforced and not held in abyence(which it is at the moment) which makes all changes to presidential discretionary power only amendable by 2/3 majority of a national referrendum.

7. Minimum wage laws.

8. Abolishment of Films Act.

9. Abolishment of Newspaper and printing presses act.

10. Reinstate appeals to the Privy Council

11. Presential pardons for Francis Seow, Tang Liang Hong and all other politcal exiles.

12. Reinstate power of the courts to inquire into detentions under the ISA.

Perhaps,

we could do something: write a mock New-Constitution for Singapore. Hmm...

Hey ppl,

it appears the mods are not giving (informed) comments here, so i think I shall make a few comments:-

1) People like the starter of this thread should refrain from using such strong terms as "defame", especially since they are bound to incite strong and unconstructive comments. It is rather ironic that the starter of this thread and his/her supporters later castigate the anti-PAP camp for being blind or being too emotional. Calling somebody defamatory does not solve any problems or misunderstandings; it just adds to the hostility and breaks the harmony in this forum. And interestingly, why is there ever a need to defend somebody's reputation? Will not the person's actions and words and treatment of others be testament enough? Which is why - on an interesting side-note - I have always found the intent of a libel/slander/defamation law to be quite sinister.

2) Gazelle and Company, you all do not contribute to the quality of information in this thread. By making baseless accusations like "opposition destablilise the government", Gazelle is merely attracting flaming. If you support a policy, do your homework, and come up with reasonable statements, rather than evasive quips like "they are just doing their job" or quoting trite propaganda statements that will just get the anti-Camp infuriated. That way, the Anti-camp will have less reason to get angry. Many of them are genuinely frustrated, but I don't think they will turn away properly-provided explanations. These might ease the tension too. THe problem is that you ppl on the Pro-Camp seem to repeat the smae point over and over, even when it has been rebutted on several occasions. After which, you rub salt in the wound by telling the anti-Camp ppl to do their own homework, when soemtimes you haven't done yours too.

3) As for the anti-camp, mind your manners too, will you? (human), creating most interesting equations do not improve the quality of your posts. ceecookie, heaping nicknames on the PAP simply attracts the people-who-think-they-are-so-objective, and invites a flaming war. Rock^Star, you do have reasonable criticism, but the quality of some of your posts might be improved if you stop swearing. Same goes for others like foomwee88. Rane, stop taunting others with childish implements like "meow, meow, what sort of cat are you?" ShutterBug, express your views, but tone down your language, or you will tend to incite more of Gazzellian Pro-Establishment rhetoric. And please all of you, beware that you ppl do not get sucked into an SDP propaganda trap. I believe all of us do want to do your bit to improve our country, but we need to take a more tempered approach and do our research, so that pro-estab junkies will have less ammo to throw at us.

I don't think I have time to comment on posts beyond the first 7 pages, but just my 2 cents' worth (I'm sure there are more where all these came from.

Regards,
the pikamaster (who is really sick of useless arguments in this forum)

Originally posted by maggot:

Think of the bright side

There will be a ripple effect downwards which means almost everyone's salaries will go up a bit

really? will there be?

Originally posted by soul_rage:

let me see
aside from your normal 4 A level subjects, I think you have S papers, where you can get more As. In my time, its 6 A's max, now I wonder what is the 7th A.

But that aside, I find it so childish after I started work, that we whine so much about the results. There are so many other things that can determine your success in life. Thinking back, I cried coz I missed my 1st class by 0.001, I think I am also being childish.

In the end, I think we are brought up in too boring an env, that all we care about are results., and we don't care about any things in life, such as the sports (don't know about now, but most of the straight As students are clerks in my time), the arts, the fun, etc.

We are such a boring place to be in.

The other day, I was watching Discovery Channel, and they were naming the top 50 places to visit in the world. I see Hong Kong (rank 19), San Francisco, New York, Shanghai, etc. No Singapore (hahaha). The point is, we are REALLY Boring on a whole as a nation and as people. It is probably the people that make the place fun, and since we are boring people, Singapore is a boring country.

Project Work? GP?

Originally posted by maurizio13:

British democracy??

Nowadays British don't allow street protest meh? If workers want to strike, need to apply permit or not? Newspaper controlled by Conservative, Labour or Liberal? If want to speak publicly must apply license?

1) British allow street protest.

2) Striking workers don't need to apply permit, but they need to prove that they have a legitimate grieviance. It's but of the Thatcher reforms in the 1970s. And guess who Thatcher admired?

3) Newspaper not controlled by any party directly. But each particular newspaper is owned by a boss who is an active patron of one of the parties.

4) Don't need to apply license to speak publicly.

Originally posted by robertteh:

On 21.2.2007, I email the youngpap to ask whether I was banned from its website for any of the following 3 reasons:-

(1) My postings contain vulgarities, or lies
(2) I am an undesirable or anti-government
(3) They are afraid of the truths I posted.

I am glad this morning, the ban was lifted as I could now access the site.

I now hope that if it is an administrative error, the matter would be forgiven.

If it is not, I do hope that they will do something about the "20 Major Government Policy Errors" and the HDB/GLCs' profiteering schemes would be abandoned to create a more competitive globalized economy and more jobs and put a check on our past many years of ever-rising costs of living.

I wonder ... maybe sth just wemt wrong with their server prog. Not that I'm defending them or anything of course...

the pikamaster

P.S.: why are you still not replying to my PM? Please PM me back when you are free...:S

Hey everybody!!

I may not be a mod, but I have been here for quite some time already. I - and I'm sure many of the other long-timers here as well - would not like this forum to be ruined by any partisan propaganda attempts, whichever side they hail from. All of us, I am certain, would prefer to maintain the integrity of this Speakers' Corner, given that the other one has already had its integrity vioalted.

Thus, on the behalf of all forumnites, I would request that all Party Personnel identify yourselves by posting an introductory post in this thread. This is done to help you, so that if by any chance you become too propagandistic, any of us can alert you to your mishap. After all, everybody makes mistakes. (Of course, if you make the same "mistake" too many times .... )

Sincerely and with due Respect,
the (centrist) pikamaster

Originally posted by laurence82:

Prime News
PAP moves to counter criticism of party, Govt in cyberspace
Li Xueying
565 words
3 February 2007
Straits Times
English
(c) 2007 Singapore Press Holdings Limited

THE People's Action Party (PAP) is mounting a quiet counter-insurgency against its online critics.

It has members going into Internet forums and blogs to rebut anti-establishment views and putting up postings anonymously.

Sources told The Straits Times the initiative is driven by two sub-committees of the PAP's 'new media' committee chaired by Manpower Minister Ng Eng Hen.

One sub-committee, co-headed by Minister of State (Education) Lui Tuck Yew and Hong Kah GRC MP Zaqy Mohamad, strategises the campaign.

The other is led by Tanjong Pagar GRC MP Baey Yam Keng and Bishan-Toa Payoh GRC MP Josephine Teo. Called the 'new media capabilities group', it executes the strategies.

Both were set up after last year's General Election. Aside from politicians, some 20 IT-savvy party activists are also involved.

When contacted, Mr Baey declined to give details of the group's activities, but he outlined the broad principles of the initiative.

It was necessary for the PAP to have a voice in cyberspace as there were few in the online community who were pro-establishment, he said.

As such, the committees aim to 'observe how new media is developing and see how we can use the new media as part of the overall media landscape', he added.

'How do we facilitate views that are pro-party and propagate them through the Internet?'

The approach reflects comments by Rear-Admiral (NS) Lui at the PAP's party conference in December. He called on younger activists to put up views 'to moderate the vitriol and balance the skewed comments' on the Internet.

But this can only work if activists are not 'too obvious' about it, Mr Baey said yesterday. Otherwise it comes across as 'propaganda'.

'The identity is not important. It is the message that is important,' he added.

One activist who is involved said that when posting comments on online forums and the feedback boxes of blogs, he does not identify himself as a PAP member.

He tracks popular blogs and forums to 'see if there is anything we can clarify' on hot-button topics such as the impending hike in the Goods and Services Tax.

But he added: 'We don't rebut everything. Sometimes, what is said is fair enough, and we send the feedback on to the committee.'

This latest initiative comes on top of a blog site with posts by 12 MPs born after Singapore's Independence in 1965.

It recognises that more younger Singaporeans are relying on the new media as a main source of information.

An Institute of Policy Studies (IPS) study conducted last year found that younger and better-educated Singaporeans relied on information from the Internet when shaping their voting choices at the last GE.

Among the opposition parties, members and supporters of the Workers' Party, in particular, post regularly on forums online.

But IPS senior research fellow Tan Tarn How wonders about the effectiveness of the PAP's campaign.

He said Internet users who post on forums such as Sammyboy tend not to be interested in 'intellectual debate' and so will not be persuaded by PAP activists anyway.

As for more serious-minded bloggers, he said the views that the activists may put out are already available in the mainstream media.

xueying@sph.com.sg

I got a few salient points from this article:-

1) PAP hates anti-PAP people who post anonymously, but yet is more than willing to let its own people post anonymously. Isn't that hypocritical? Perhaps they are afraid that they might get sued for defamation?

2) "When you can't beat them, join them". A brilliant new slogan indeed. So the govt now realizes that no amount of Amendments to the Constitution or to the ISA or the Computer Misuse Act and no degree of (mal)application of the Sedition Act or the Defamation Act will calm down the online dissent. Good for them to know that! At last they are waking up... a little. But it's kind of sad that they are trying to reform cyberspace, rather than take the road less travelled (for them that is) of sincere self-examination. Shame to teh P-65 MPs too, who are merely giving freshness in terms of hardware, not software. This demonstrates how truely cut off from their other generation-mates they are.

3) I do wonder what they consider to be "fair'. But the more important question is: Does the committee listen, or is it just a dud?

4) I never thought of it this way before, but in this context cheers to the resolve of Sammyboy!!

5) IPS studying voting patterns ... now what does that suggest? PAP trying to copycat WP??

the (far more objective than any P65 MP) pikamaster

can't get into the stupid site. keep getting a timeout error

Originally posted by vito_corleone:

he's not a real gentleman, there's no place for a "gentleman" in politics. he's just a tactful politician

There is no place for a gentleman in POLITICS, but there is a very secure place for a gentleman in NATIONAL LEADERSHIP. POLITICS and POLITICKING should be saved for elections, not during normal times. PROTESTS are not POLITICKING if they have some purpose which is to benefit the WELFARE of some people; WELFARE not POWER POSITION. PROTESTORS seek to be HEARD, not to RUN the government. Only REBELS and REVOLUTIONARIES seek to OVERTHROW a government in power. PROTESTORS will only become REBELS if their NATIONAl LEADERS do not lead. SO I wish Singapore well, and hope that we manage to engage all our PROTESTORS before they turn into REBELS and REVOLUTIONARIES under the lead of DOCTOR CHEE SOON JUAN and the SINGAPORE "DEMOCRATIC" PARTY.

Originally posted by the Bear:

wrong...

although i do not like the idea of not having the right to demonstrate, i sure as hell love the idea of not having the right to riot...

frankly, do you care what others think of you?

have some faith in yourself... if you want to change, start with yourself...

as for countries and people looking silly, look around! every damned country has its stupidities... we are not immune... but we can change it.. and how to change it is not by throwing the baby out with the bathwater

the acid test would be when you are asked to make a stand... would you shuffle away quietly unable to make eye contact? or would you say "Yes! because this is right!" even if you are the only one who thinks so?

most here rant and rant about "freedoms" and "rights" and whatever... would they say any different if the foreign demonstrators/rioters waded through their neighbourhood and left nothing but charred cinders? or would they walk the talk and be one of the brave attempting to stop the violence?

and if the authorities allowed them to demonstrate freely, won't it even be worse because what is allowed to the foreigner is forbidden to the locals? what would that say to you? and to the foreigners whose views so many people seem to hold in high regard?

think man think!!

it is easy to start a revolution and overthrow the incumbents.. but after that, the rebuilding is the tough part... after many decades of "revolution" so many "revolutionary governments" are still struggling to even start...

Bear,

been watching too much CNA?? Try not to use Slippery Slope argument too much; there are more countries in thsi world than Indonesia, Korea, Taiwan and Hong Kong.

the (stressed) pikamaster