SDP - Why are PAP so afraid of an open debate?
-
Why are they so afraid of an open debate? Part 1 
THURSDAY, 31 MARCH 2011 Vincent Wijeysingha
I represented the Singapore Democrats on Channel NewsAsia's (CNA) political panel discussion which will be aired on Saturday, 2 Apr, at 10 pm.
The state-run media have demonstrated a pattern of blacking out the SDP from their reporting and programming. And no wonder. Over the years, the Singapore Democrats have emerged as a credible political force, translating an effective party machinery and sound political philosophy into policy documents.
In November, we published our alternative economic programme at our second Pre-Election Rally, itself an unparalleled event in Singapore’s political history. Entitled It’s About You: Prosperity and Progress for Every Singaporean, this alternative sets out our party’s socio-economic philosophy based on a deep-structure critique of the problems Singapore is facing at this time.
The publication is a result of intense analytical exercise around our nation’s challenges, and takes an in-depth look at why these problems have arisen, and the role of the PAP’s ideology and priorities in generating this crisis.
It puts forward both an alternative framework of political-economic assumptions and a set of polity alternatives to benefit all the people of Singapore.
In March, the party again decisively occupied the political landscape with the publication of its Shadow Budget, again the first time in the history of our nation that such a document had been produced.
Entitled Empowering the Nation: Shadow Budget 2011, the document made clear proposals for the financial year 2011, carefully based on our party’s philosophy of Competence, Constructiveness and Compassion.
The overall thrust of the Shadow Budget is contained in three policy elements emphasising productivity and sustainability, trimming the bloated costs of government, and creating a home fit for all Singaporeans to live in.
With our productivity consistently failing to improve over the years (despite various policies designed to enhance it), government expenditure that is spiraling mainly due to the world’s highest wages and bonuses that minister pay themselves, and the rapid increase in poverty, inaccessibility of public services due to the profit motive being implicated in our housing, healthcare and education, the Shadow Budget puts forward a sensible and coherent programme that, in fact, manages to be costed at less than the previous year’s PAP budget.
My purpose in going through these publications is to make the argument that in a democratic society and one where the government party of the moment is not insecure of its own positions and popularity, it would not shy away from a free and open policy debate.
The PAP, on the other hand, is highly apprehensive of the electorate. After years of mismanagement of the economy, the hundreds of billions of our money wasted in ill-judged investments, the crippling of access to public services through the introduction of the profit motive, I would be too.
And yet it continues to reward itself quite out of measure with its failures.
If I were guilty of such a track record, I too would hide behind the now obvious ban that the PAP-controlled media have imposed on discussing SDP’s programmes. I hear that in the past, DJs at Caldecott Hill were not allowed to mention Dr Chee Soon Juan's book Dare To Change on air.
My point is that even though the SDP had brought out unprecedented policy documents, both SPH and MediaCorp have refused, despite calls from this website to do so, to carry detailed analyses of our proposals.
All this seemed to change when we were invited to CNA's programme. However, all was not as it seemed with the forum.
First, as has been reported on this website, the host insisted that all participants should fulfill three criteria: they should be a member of their party’s Central Executive Committee (CEC) and an office-bearer, and eligible to stand for election.
Its justification was that it wanted participants who had a stake in the coming elections, an unstable line of reasoning since all members of political parties have a stake in elections: the winning of seats in Parliament is one of the key tasks of a political party.
No doubt, the criteria set by CNA were designed to keep from participating in the programme the SDP’s Secretary-General, Dr Chee Soon Juan, by far its most eloquent and compelling advocate.
However, the SDP complied with CNA’s criteria and appointed me to represent the party, and I considered it an honour to address my fellow citizens on what the SDP is able to offer the nation.
Prior to recording on Caldecott Hill, I asked the CNA executives if both the PAP participants (yes, the PAP was allocated two places, the opposition parties only one each) met the criteria set by CNA and I was assured that they did.
The PAP’s representatives were Josephine Teo, MP, and Finance Minister, Tharman Shanmugaratnam. It is curious that while other forums have included rank and file PAP MPs, this forum, the first to feature the SDP, caused it to send a cabinet minister.
No matter. Having led on the SDP’s Shadow Budget, I was eager to debate Minister Tharman, a call that many netizens have made since our Shadow Budget was published.
I had asked CNA for the names of the other participants; this information was not given to me. So, I only found out who the PAP reps were on the day. The following day, I checked up the PAP website and found that Josephine Teo meets only 33% of CNA’s criteria, ie she is eligible to stand for elections. She is neither a CEC member nor an office-bearer within it.
I telephoned the same CNA executive who had refused to give me the names of the other participants and was first told that Ms Teo was an MP. I reminded my interlocutor that this met only one of the criteria.
I was then told that the criteria only applied to the opposition participants. I reminded her that this was not made known in advance and reminded her also of her reluctance to reveal the names of the other participants. Clearly, they did not wish me to query Ms Teo’s inclusion in the programme, since she did not meet the criteria.
The executive had no further defenses to offer and therefore I was unable to come to any other conclusion than that the criteria were only to apply to the non-PAP participants, and more so that the SDP’s Secretary-General, whom the PAP is so fearful of, should be kept out of the programme.
To me, quite apart from the unpleasantness of dealing with CNA’s perfidy, this reluctance to engage with the SDP except under highly controlled conditions designed to give the upper hand to the governing party, is a sign not of our limitations but precisely a sign of our credibility and the strength of our arguments.
The PAP’s desire to keep the SDP out of the public domain, through its control of the mainstream media, is evidence precisely of its failures and its insecurity. This is a party running scared.
In Part 2, Dr Wijeysingha talks about the arguments he raised at the CNA programme.http://yoursdp.org/index.php/news/singapore/4698-why-are-they-so-afraid-of-an-open-debate-part-1
-
i wish for an open debate too.. because i can see that both the SDP and the MIW will be both equally humiliated
-
Open debate is healthy for it really see how a person response and answered than reading a script out of the context.
-
Originally posted by the Bear:
i wish for an open debate too.. because i can see that both the SDP and the MIW will be both equally humiliated
I rather give them weapons, and put them in a death match cage.
-
Originally posted by Nelstar:
I rather give them weapons, and put them in a death match cage.
Put Dr che against SM goh. -
Nicht nur MBT schuhe günstig für Körperhaltung, sind sie gleichzeitig ein Trainingsgerät für die Muskulatur wie auch ein komfortabler und bequemer Freizeit- und Berufsschuh. Die modischen Barfuß Schuhe von MBT sind bei Damen und Herren beliebt. Im Großen und Ganzen haben viel MBT Schuhe Händler selbst Online-Laden. Im Sommer möchte jeder ein Paar Sandale, die Ihnen zugleich Kühle und Komfort bringen. Wir können auf direkt Online-Shop MBT Sandale bestellen. Das ist sehr einfach. Viele Prominente und Stars wie Paris Hilton, Heidi Klum, Cher und Madonna schwören ebenfalls bereits auf die heilsame Wirkung der MBT-Schuhe und wurden mehrfach mit MBT Schuhe oder MBT Sandale abgelichtet.
-
PAP is a totalitarian government.
What do you expect?
We r slaves of PAP. We r their subjects.
-
what?! It's not live? Then a lot of parts can be cut! Damn it!
-
And how do we stop "Open Debate" from turning into "Use any bullshit excuse to wack PAP" day?
"I rather give them weapons, and put them in a death match cage."
+1 to this :)
At least people will be more careful about talking crap if they know the other guy has a good chance of giving you one in the mouth for it. On both sides.
-
Originally posted by The Samurai Warrior:
PAP is a totalitarian government.
What do you expect?
We r slaves of PAP. We r their subjects.
As a Warrior, you must learn to endure the slavery and abuses, if not, you do not qualify to be one of us, the true Warriors -
this is not a even fight.
if what vincent said is true, which i believe so. CNA has once again prove that they are neither credible themselves to be hosting such programmes. they have double standards.
i wish to see opposition be in power one day and demolishes all this POS running the SPH and mediacorps
-
The reason why PAP ministers are afraid of an open debate is simple,becoz they cant explain why their so many policies are against Singaporeans benefit while they claim its for our own good.
Try to debate 7% GST are helping the poor?
Try to debate minimum deposit of $500 dollars in the bank,which otherwise must deduct $2 administration fees are helping the poor?
Try to debate such a high transport fees whereby if a person is jobless n top up $20 of his/her MRT card will be used up within a week or abit more,who was trying to seek a job taking public transport,is again,helping the poor?
Even the most talented lawyers or debaters cant win this kind of open debate without any fact support what the PAP ministers are doing,to help the poor.Thats why the PAP ministers are afraid of an open debate,or try to limit the questions that can be ask during an open debate.
-
And these are only a few examples that the PAP do to "help" the poor.
-
Originally posted by Kaizer56:
The reason why PAP ministers are afraid of an open debate is simple,becoz they cant explain why their so many policies are against Singaporeans benefit while they claim its for our own good.
Try to debate 7% GST are helping the poor?
Try to debate minimum deposit of $500 dollars in the bank,which otherwise must deduct $2 administration fees are helping the poor?
Try to debate such a high transport fees whereby if a person is jobless n top up $20 of his/her MRT card will be used up within a week or abit more,who was trying to seek a job taking public transport,is again,helping the poor?
Even the most talented lawyers or debaters cant win this kind of open debate without any fact support what the PAP ministers are doing,to help the poor.Thats why the PAP ministers are afraid of an open debate,or try to limit the questions that can be ask during an open debate.
7% GST not enough to help the poor?
10% GST!
-
After this debates, I am sure pap are no so afraid of open debate.
But it is the opposite that shivers.
Experiences count.
-
Dr Chee Soon Juan rebutted PAP's Mr Michael Palmer over the issue of Ministerial salaries and the poor in Singapore during the Singapore Forum on Politics held on 23 mar 11.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mVmDINcyJBY
-
Originally posted by Nelstar:
7% GST not enough to help the poor?
10% GST!
Wait until a desperate assassin use a knife to stab into the fuking brain of LKY,LHL or boot licker GCT,then they will realise the price they have to pay for for keep jacking up tthe GST!!!!!
-
Muse over this:
Singaporeans are losing jobs to foreigners cos of poor policing, untranparency, and the lack of minimum wage policy. A singaporean cannot sustain himself/herself with a job that entails planning for the future, eg, raising a family, buying a house or … with a salary that is way below market realities or that which discounts costs. Foreigners do plan and what-not but not to stay here for good.
Most of these foreigenrs are paid below market rates but ti works for them as most do eventually return home. What is unknown to Singaporeans is this – let me exemplify with a simple eg. A local engineer may need to be paid 5k whereas a foreigner could be paid 3k.
The BIG difference is that the latter pays (or is made to pay) for employers’ mandatory CPF contributions. There are other costs that are deducted from this foreigner’s 3k-salary. He/she is forced to accept such terms, not forgetting longer hours and multi-tasking.
In spite of such terms, he/she can stay on and endure and eventually return home relatively better off. Also, one has to factor in that he/she may have bought a HDB flat and that he/she would make a reasonable profit and bring home these accrued returns after the sale. CPF money is not locked away but brought home after the contract or … expires.Can a Singaporean accept such terms (and even if accepted) and consider a future here with escalating costs from HDB/Transport and many other costs.
The real winners are MIWs cos companies pay higer taxes which props up GDP grwoth which in turn benefits MIWs cos of GDP-pegged wages. Employers benefit cos they save costs via transferring costs to employees.
Real losers are Singaporeans. This charade that they (foreginers) create jobs for Singaporeans is the biggest lie and deception. In fact, Singaporeans are being sacrificed for the benefit of ......
　
The fact that the mainstream media – both print and broadcast (useless and unreliable) is biased and serves partisan interests is enough NOT to expect truth but be content with truth-sounding lies!
Singaporeans hating foreigners is unwarranted and stupidity. If what is mentioned above is actually transpiring, one can safely surmise cos there are no checks n balancing and in a one-party rule how is one to know or verify statistics,claims or what is propagated.
Transfer the hate into votes that would if possible unseat and if and where not possible usher in a two-party or multi-party system n watch the magic work.Ps - IT MAY BE PERCEIVED AS A DIGRESSION BUT IT WOULD CERTAINLY ESCHEW AN OPEN DEBATE
-
Ok, opposition quality has indeed risen but still there are those with less than stellar credentials competing in many wards. PAP's candidates will win hands down on this count. Then again, with regards to PAP pegging their PBs to the GDP......do you singaporeans want this strategy the next 5 years? Growth at all costs....import of foreigners to jack up the GDP.
I think the PAP are still stuck in goh keng swee's mentality. Attracting MNCs to provide employment. We needed them back then because we did not have the skills. Over the years, this strategy did not change. Today we are in 2011, come 2020, it would still be the same if PAP is still in power. MNCs are always on the hunt around the world for cheap labour. If MNCs are the way to go, then our salaries will forever remain low. PM mentioned in his budget that salaries would be raised by 30% over the next ten years? That is IMPOSSIBLE. We should have stimulated entreprenership in the 80s and not waited till 20 years later. We should be having our own Sonys, Samsungs, Hyundais and Acers by now, not depending our foreign countries to invest in us.
Taking another look at salaries, raising median income by 30% is highly possible if PAP continues attracting high income individuals. It's just like our "low" unemployment rate. How can it be so low when we hear of so many singaporeans having difficulties finding jobs? That's because we've got many new PRs finding new jobs, which artificially keeps the rate low. Even if you work a freaking part time $300 a month job, it''s still considered employment. You attending upgrading course from whatever govt agency, it's still employment.
-
Originally posted by Rock^Star:
what?! It's not live? Then a lot of parts can be cut! Damn it!
Imho, if it is a live then there will be no commercial breaks in between right?