SDP wrote to Talking Point
-
CSJ asks for SDP v PAP debate on Talking Point 
Thursday, 03 March 2011 Singapore Democrats
Han Chuan Quee
Vice President, Corporate Services
Channel NewsAsia
Dear Madam,
Thank you for your reply. Your letter said almost everything except answer my question of why the SDP was left out of the Talking Point episode that was aired last Sunday evening.
You write that the “SDP’s views on the changes to the electoral boundaries were reported by MediaCorp”, that the episode in question was “prompted by the announcement of changes in electoral boundaries”, that the programme was “meant to be a more qualitative discussion” and so on.
What has all this to do with the SDP being left out of the programme?
You also say that there has been no other single programme which featured the RP, WP, and NSP in one show but “there were different episodes of Talking Point which featured the different parties separately and on different topics.” Was the SDP ever invited to any of these?
The Talking Point programme has been airing for years. During that time, the SDP has never been invited to be on it. Other parties have - repeatedly. And you expect people to believe that there is no discrimination against us?
Just because you say that there is no attempt to discriminate against the SDP doesn't make it true. You need to demonstrate it.
To this end I have a proposal: Talking Point can do an episode where the PAP is invited to present its Budget and the SDP its Shadow Budget with both sides having an intelligent and robust debate on the matter.
The SDP, you may know, is the only opposition party to publish an alternative to Budget 2011. For that matter, we are the only party to have ever come up with a Shadow Budget in the history of Singapore. Given this, it is timely to have such an episode. I am certain that your viewers would be intensely interested to watch an SDP-PAP debate.
Sincerely,
Chee Soon Juan
Secretary-General
Singapore Democratic Party
Dear Dr Chee,
Thank you for writing in with your feedback. We would like to emphasize that Channel NewsAsia, which has reported on local, regional and international news developments for over a decade now, has no agenda to advance, except to carry the news and views which are relevant to our viewers.
Let me also assure you that there is no attempt to discriminate against the Singapore Democratic Party (SDP).
In fact, the SDP’s views on the changes to the electoral boundaries were reported by MediaCorp on several of its media platforms. In case, you missed the news reports, Dr Chee, you were quoted as saying that you did not see a logical explanation in how the boundaries had been drawn and they "seem to have been carved up in a haphazard way to benefit the PAP". Other examples of stories include the report of political parties doing their walkabouts and opposition parties planning to discuss constituency allocation.
The latest episode of Talking Point, which you referred to, was prompted by the announcement of changes in electoral boundaries on the afternoon of 24 February 11, and the program was due for recording the following morning.
Many considerations go into the conduct of such a forum, including the program duration, size of panel, turnaround time and identifying topics of relevance. For instance, one key point of discussion was how new Single-Member Constituencies would affect plans and strategies of incumbent MPs and the parties contesting. The programme was not meant to be a comprehensive report card detailing the reaction of every single political party in Singapore. At the latest count, there are at least 11 active political parties in Singapore. The approximately 40-minute programme, excluding commercial breaks, was instead meant to be a more qualitative discussion, to give viewers a flavour of the different points of view about the changes to the electoral boundaries, as seen from the Opposition camp as well as incumbents from the ruling party.
On your reference to “a previous episode” of the programme which you said had invited the NSP, WP, and RP but not the SDP, we would like to correct this misconception. There has been no other single programme which featured the mentioned Opposition parties in one show. There were different episodes of Talking Point which featured the different parties separately and on different topics.
Last weekend’s programme had received encouraging feedback from several viewers. We aim to produce programmes that add value for the viewing public, and we will continually work to improve our productions. For this reason, when we receive comments, whether constructive or otherwise, they would always be seriously considered.
Thank you.
Yours sincerely,
Han Chuan Quee (Ms)
Vice President, Corporate Services
Channel NewsAsia
MediaCorp Pte Ltd -
PAP no balls wor.........It will be a good thing to let singaporeans compare the shadow budget and the real one. Let singaporeans know what's best and what's not. Obviously, party interests come before citizens.
Vote them out!
-
The ball is in State TV and PAP's court.
Debate between political parties on TV is common in democracies.
If PAP refuses, then they are cowards and I will put a label on PAP and call them cowards.
-
Of course lah, the woman who replied CSJ where got balls.
Since you all know that it is a state TV, why go challenge the unnecessary? Oppositions or SDP, use your brain lah, shift your energy to better thing than doing something that do not bear fruits but more anger
-
All of PAP's elections propaganda must be exposed and destroyed wherever they are found.
Although all mainstream media in this country are directly or indirectly under the control of PAP regime and serves the interests of the regime, the mainstream media likes to put up a falsehood that they are neutral and unbiased.
That is why we must expose this falsehood for the entire world to see.
Some naive people still believes in the propaganda of state media, they are not awakened at all and is still under manipulation of PAP propaganda.
This cannot be allowed to continue and it must end sooner or later.
All of PAP's propaganda must be destroyed.
-
up there, you prefer Singapore to be rule by marxism ? We should also be careful of your communist agenda for Singaporeans.
-
Originally posted by Wiser:
up there, you prefer Singapore to be rule by marxism ? We should also be careful of your communist agenda for Singaporeans.
a more left wing regime, not marxist.
-
left wing, right wing, chicken wing, who care, just stupid idealistic theories.
-
Originally posted by Wiser:
left wing, right wing, chicken wing, who care, just stupid idealistic theories.
Singapore population used to be more left wing and even PAP declared itself leftwing, later Lee Kuan Yew carried out the policy of depolitisation of Singapore society, destroy all politics etc and thus resulted in the de-ideological state of Singapore politics.
Lee Kuan Yew doesn't care about political ideology. He is only interested in power.
At first he was right wing, with the pro-british progressive party, then later switch to left wing and finally back to right wing.
Which ideology serves his interests of obtaining power, he will follow.
After his education in Britain, Lee Kuan Yew returned to Singapore in 1949 to practise as a lawyer in the law firm Laycock and Ong.
He became the honorary legal adviser for several trade unions after being acquainted with their leaders (in 1951) and subsequently caught the public eye in February 1952, when the Postal Workers Union succeeded, with his guidance, in obtaining important concessions from the colonial government.
According to his memoirs and this website, Lee Kuan Yew then proceeded to form the PAP with the help of the communists.Yet these sources conveniently neglect to mention Lee Kuan Yew's involvement in the Singapore Progressive Party in the 1951 legislative elections.
In fact, Lee acted as the election agent for his boss John Laycock, helping him to manage his campaign and canvass on his behalf. (See here and here for proof) He had thus entered into politics even before he became involved in the trade unions' dispute with the British. (Polling day for the 1951 legislative elections was on 10 April, we can assume that his political activities with the SPP started months before that)
If I may speculate, LKY joined the SPP initially to build up his political career there.However when the Rendel Constitution expanded the electoral rolls to include all local-born as voters, resulting in a significant increase in Chinese voters, LKY decided to jump ship and formed the PAP in 1954 because he saw that the SPP lacked the support of the Chinese working class. (So the next time LKY condemns politicians who change political parties, you know where he's coming from)
Yet the problem isn't solely that LKY jumped ship and didn't care to tell anyone about his great experience in his memoirs.The bigger problem lies in the fact that LKY supported the SPP despite the fact that it was
A) pro-British in both its policies and in its composition of members (mostly English-speaking upper class professionals)
B) unsupportive of achieving independence (it merely paid lip-service to the idea by declaring in October 1952, its objective of Singapore achieving independence through a Singapore-Malaya merger without setting a target date)
Lee Kuan Yew's miraculous change of heart on these issues when he joined the PAP only demonstrates how the pursuit of power can sometimes make one very flexible about their beliefs. Unfortunately for us, this flexibility of LKY's did not extend to the area of political freedoms.http://us.asiancorrespondent.com/secret-blog/2009/09/is-lee-kuan-yew-more-interested-in.html
-
Originally posted by Rock^Star:
PAP no balls wor.........It will be a good thing to let singaporeans compare the shadow budget and the real one. Let singaporeans know what's best and what's not. Obviously, party interests come before citizens.
Vote them out!
I see how CSJ can implement e budgetCut defence spending but want to increase NS allowance or even go into regular army. CSJ say his budget not populist, he's owning himself.
-
I would always say one thing
Whole day say budget cut populist policy... End up you run e govt, I see how you're going to do wat you promised when it comes to that moment.
Neither is it to be pro-PAP or watever. It's all budget balance
-
I want to have a debate with CSJ over the SDP's shadow budget in the speaker's
corner forum of the sgforums.com, can I ?
CSJ claims that SDP has a right to voice its opinion as an opposition party.
So, as an eligible voter, CSJ should give me the right to debate with him over the
shadow budget too in sgforums.com.
Will he respond to a nobody like me ?
-
aiya...that is why our Mr LKY is the top man of a country. Can't beat him, join him lor.
-
Originally posted by Devil7030:
I want to have a debate with CSJ over the SDP's shadow budget in the speaker's
corner forum of the sgforums.com, can I ?
CSJ claims that SDP has a right to voice its opinion as an opposition party.
So, as an eligible voter, CSJ should give me the right to debate with him over the
shadow budget too in sgforums.com.
Will he respond to a nobody like me ?
SDP asks for debate with PAP in talking point
Devil7030 asks for debate with CSJ in speaker's corner of sgforums. com
Why CSJ asks for fairness but he does not practise why he says leh ?
No response from CSJ to a nobody like me.
-
Originally posted by Devil7030:
I want to have a debate with CSJ over the SDP's shadow budget in the speaker's
corner forum of the sgforums.com, can I ?
CSJ claims that SDP has a right to voice its opinion as an opposition party.
So, as an eligible voter, CSJ should give me the right to debate with him over the
shadow budget too in sgforums.com.
Will he respond to a nobody like me ?
Like this, I also want, as a PR and lady here, I also want to have a say in Singapore, CSJ should take the ground from all walk of life, let have a 3 parties debate, and to be fair, I am not a nobody, I got some body in me