tend to agreed wif u on nicole...hope she get's an ncmp spot...gd exposure n experience...
any views on Tony n Hazel?
any views on Tony n Hazel?
-
IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here. The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.
PAP wants George Yeo to lose
- Thread starter serenditpity
- Start date
Ho Kwon Ping's op-ed in 4/5 ST
Towards a First World electorate
A NEW generation will decide
Singapore's future in a few
days. One of the ruling People's
Action Party's (PAP) concerns
is to find a future prime
minister from this generation. The opposition
must also fill its ranks with voices
from the future, not the past. And as a nation,
the baton that was successfully
passed from the founding generation to
its custodians, the baby boomers of my
generation, is now being handed to Gen
Y.
Across the entire world, Gen Y - those
in their mid 20s to 30s - is coming of political
age. They have already made their
mark in the Arab Spring, though arguably
their inchoate, even naive democratic ideals
may not translate altogether successfully
from the street to the halls of government.
In China, Gen Y is still more concerned
about economic self-improvement
than the future of the Chinese Communist
Party, though they too are demanding
more accountability from their
government.
How should governments that have enjoyed
more than a half-century of uninterrupted
and unopposed rule respond to the
winds of change with a firm yet enlightened
touch? Political science textbooks
provide no answer. Established liberal democracies
with routinely rotating ruling
parties have no such dilemma at all.
Current events have not been inspiring.
Arab leaders have no qualms about
quashing youthful dissent with bloodshed
in order to perpetuate their rule. Halfway
across the world, China's response is to
simply clam up, with arrests of dissidents
representing more a lack of imagination
about how to deal with the imperative for
change than a clearly thought through policy
of repression. Besieged Arab governments
and stubbornly recalcitrant Chinese
leaders are certainly more reactionary
than proactive.
The history of former colonies in the
Third World trying to achieve First
World economic and socio-political maturity
is replete with failures. To achieve
consistent economic growth with
broad-based gains for entire populations
has hitherto been a rarely scaled hurdle.
To maintain exemplary, transparent governance
with an entrenched ethos of incorruptibility
is even harder. The Singapore
that the PAP built has already risen
to the top of the list of successful newly
independent states with these two accomplishments.
Can it remain in power with
a clean sweep of all the seats on Saturday,
denying the opposition the role of a
"co -driver7' ?
If history is anything to go by, this
task will be daunting. History has not
been very encouraging - whether it be Israel's
founding Labor party, India's Congress,
Taiwan's Kuomintang or Japan's
Liberal Democratic Party. Ruling parties
have generally foundered after about a
half-century, then lost their original visionary
leadership and mandate to rule.
Some have been voted - usually temporarily
- from power, others have splintered.
The only ruling parties with zero challenges
to their authority, even after a
half-century of rule, are those that do not
subject themselves to elections at all. If
the PAP can buck the trends of history, it
will have set a new paradigm.
And it is by no means impossible that
the PAP will do precisely that, but possibly
with greater difficulty than it took in
achieving its earlier goals. The PAP may
have to amend its aims and accept - if
not in this general election, then in the
next - that a robust multi-party system
with a single dominant ruling party but
several responsible opposition parties in
Parliament may be a rnore sustainable
and stable prospect.
With the PAP possibly holding the
world record for the longest, uninterrupted
stint as a governing party, the Singapore
story may provide an example of
how other countries can make a successful
transition from what has been called
"developmental authoritarianism" to a robust,
sustainable multi-party system.
But everyone in the game must cooperate
to make this happen: an enlightened
ruling party less obsessed about its own
dominance than the survival of the system
it helped to create; opposition parties
peopled by pragmatic, capable idealists;
and most of all, a demographically young
yet emotionally mature electorate.
Whether the PAP should continue to
rule without its efficiency being hamstrung
by a "co-driver" - or whether the
car can bear the weight and lower speed
in exchange for the extra safety and insurance
that a co-driver will bring - is what
Singaporeans are essentially going to
choose on Saturday. Despite the importance
of issues such as housing, transport
and cost of living, the drama and the significance
of this general election is the
prospect of Singapore moving towards
a First World electorate - in an evolutionary process that may
take another two or three elections over thenkt two decades.
If all goes well, the winner in this watershed election may well be
multi-party system in this election or the the system that nurtured them. If anynext
- towards, in other words, what the thing, they claim to want to protect the
Workers' Party calls a First World Parlia- system they grew up in, by playing the
ment .
Whatever happens, three myths have
been debunked by this election.
The first is that because the PAP has
exhaustively searched the country high
and low and its candidates are the best in
the land, there is a dearth of talent out -
side the ruling party. Therefore, a robust
multi-party political system is not sustainable
and even dangerous because
there simply are not enough capable men
and women to make this work.
In this election, the number of qualified
opposition candidates has rendered
this myth difficult to maintain. The opposition
parties have fielded many candidates
who are clearly not the disgruntled,
self-interested and virulently anti-PAP
"bicycle thieves'' of the past.
Some share the same backgrounds as
the PAP'S "star" candidates: government
scholarship holders and senior civil servants,
blue-chip professionals from the establishment
and university -educated professionals
from the HDB heartland, all of
whom have openly praised the PAP and
same kind of role as the elected presidency
does on another front - to serve as a
check on the government of the day.
The second myth - favoured by the opposition
- is that the PAP will do anything
to perpetuate its rule, from gerrymandering
electoral constituencies and
creating ever-larger Group Representation
Constituencies to threats of not upgrading
housing estates in opposition-
held wards. Certainly, in previous
elections, the PAP had adopted a much
more aggressive, no-holds-barred approach
than it has in this.
In this election, the noticeably generous
coverage of the opposition in the
mainstream media, the inclusion of previously
disallowed social media as legitimate
means of campaigning, and even the
unprecedented appearance of a senior
minister in a television debate with opposition
candidates, have clearly not been
the actions of a ruling party that wants
only to perpetuate its rule by any means
possible. The younger PAP leadership has
chosen to liberalise the political landavowed
no interest-at all in destroying scape in Singapore even at the risk of losing
more opposition seats, and even possibly
going against the instinct of the old
guard.
The third myth is that young Singaporeans
are generally apathetic and concerned
only about their narrow interests.
Although the huge buzz in online forums
about the election may represent only a
fraction of yopth at large, although the
large turnout in rallies by young people
may only be for their entertainment, although
the many young PAP and opposition
candidates may just be flashes in the
pan - the myth of apathy that older Singaporeans
may have held about Gen Y is
clearly no longer viable. As the baby
boomers pass into retirement, it is very
encouraging to see young people coming
out and making their voices heard.
Unless we have a freak election with
unexpected results, Singaporeans be
proud both of the ruling as well as oppo>--
tion parties. And of themselves too as an
electorate whose demands are increasingly
shaping the responses of both players.
Singapore may be moving deliberately
yet irrevocably towards a First World
electorate - in an evolutionary process
that may take another two or three elections
over the next two decades - but one
that embraces common values so that the
electorate, not the political parties, demand
civility, intellectual rigour and competence
of all their politicians, whatever
their affiliation.
If all goes well, the winner in this watershed
election may well be Singapore's
future.
Towards a First World electorate
A NEW generation will decide
Singapore's future in a few
days. One of the ruling People's
Action Party's (PAP) concerns
is to find a future prime
minister from this generation. The opposition
must also fill its ranks with voices
from the future, not the past. And as a nation,
the baton that was successfully
passed from the founding generation to
its custodians, the baby boomers of my
generation, is now being handed to Gen
Y.
Across the entire world, Gen Y - those
in their mid 20s to 30s - is coming of political
age. They have already made their
mark in the Arab Spring, though arguably
their inchoate, even naive democratic ideals
may not translate altogether successfully
from the street to the halls of government.
In China, Gen Y is still more concerned
about economic self-improvement
than the future of the Chinese Communist
Party, though they too are demanding
more accountability from their
government.
How should governments that have enjoyed
more than a half-century of uninterrupted
and unopposed rule respond to the
winds of change with a firm yet enlightened
touch? Political science textbooks
provide no answer. Established liberal democracies
with routinely rotating ruling
parties have no such dilemma at all.
Current events have not been inspiring.
Arab leaders have no qualms about
quashing youthful dissent with bloodshed
in order to perpetuate their rule. Halfway
across the world, China's response is to
simply clam up, with arrests of dissidents
representing more a lack of imagination
about how to deal with the imperative for
change than a clearly thought through policy
of repression. Besieged Arab governments
and stubbornly recalcitrant Chinese
leaders are certainly more reactionary
than proactive.
The history of former colonies in the
Third World trying to achieve First
World economic and socio-political maturity
is replete with failures. To achieve
consistent economic growth with
broad-based gains for entire populations
has hitherto been a rarely scaled hurdle.
To maintain exemplary, transparent governance
with an entrenched ethos of incorruptibility
is even harder. The Singapore
that the PAP built has already risen
to the top of the list of successful newly
independent states with these two accomplishments.
Can it remain in power with
a clean sweep of all the seats on Saturday,
denying the opposition the role of a
"co -driver7' ?
If history is anything to go by, this
task will be daunting. History has not
been very encouraging - whether it be Israel's
founding Labor party, India's Congress,
Taiwan's Kuomintang or Japan's
Liberal Democratic Party. Ruling parties
have generally foundered after about a
half-century, then lost their original visionary
leadership and mandate to rule.
Some have been voted - usually temporarily
- from power, others have splintered.
The only ruling parties with zero challenges
to their authority, even after a
half-century of rule, are those that do not
subject themselves to elections at all. If
the PAP can buck the trends of history, it
will have set a new paradigm.
And it is by no means impossible that
the PAP will do precisely that, but possibly
with greater difficulty than it took in
achieving its earlier goals. The PAP may
have to amend its aims and accept - if
not in this general election, then in the
next - that a robust multi-party system
with a single dominant ruling party but
several responsible opposition parties in
Parliament may be a rnore sustainable
and stable prospect.
With the PAP possibly holding the
world record for the longest, uninterrupted
stint as a governing party, the Singapore
story may provide an example of
how other countries can make a successful
transition from what has been called
"developmental authoritarianism" to a robust,
sustainable multi-party system.
But everyone in the game must cooperate
to make this happen: an enlightened
ruling party less obsessed about its own
dominance than the survival of the system
it helped to create; opposition parties
peopled by pragmatic, capable idealists;
and most of all, a demographically young
yet emotionally mature electorate.
Whether the PAP should continue to
rule without its efficiency being hamstrung
by a "co-driver" - or whether the
car can bear the weight and lower speed
in exchange for the extra safety and insurance
that a co-driver will bring - is what
Singaporeans are essentially going to
choose on Saturday. Despite the importance
of issues such as housing, transport
and cost of living, the drama and the significance
of this general election is the
prospect of Singapore moving towards
a First World electorate - in an evolutionary process that may
take another two or three elections over thenkt two decades.
If all goes well, the winner in this watershed election may well be
multi-party system in this election or the the system that nurtured them. If anynext
- towards, in other words, what the thing, they claim to want to protect the
Workers' Party calls a First World Parlia- system they grew up in, by playing the
ment .
Whatever happens, three myths have
been debunked by this election.
The first is that because the PAP has
exhaustively searched the country high
and low and its candidates are the best in
the land, there is a dearth of talent out -
side the ruling party. Therefore, a robust
multi-party political system is not sustainable
and even dangerous because
there simply are not enough capable men
and women to make this work.
In this election, the number of qualified
opposition candidates has rendered
this myth difficult to maintain. The opposition
parties have fielded many candidates
who are clearly not the disgruntled,
self-interested and virulently anti-PAP
"bicycle thieves'' of the past.
Some share the same backgrounds as
the PAP'S "star" candidates: government
scholarship holders and senior civil servants,
blue-chip professionals from the establishment
and university -educated professionals
from the HDB heartland, all of
whom have openly praised the PAP and
same kind of role as the elected presidency
does on another front - to serve as a
check on the government of the day.
The second myth - favoured by the opposition
- is that the PAP will do anything
to perpetuate its rule, from gerrymandering
electoral constituencies and
creating ever-larger Group Representation
Constituencies to threats of not upgrading
housing estates in opposition-
held wards. Certainly, in previous
elections, the PAP had adopted a much
more aggressive, no-holds-barred approach
than it has in this.
In this election, the noticeably generous
coverage of the opposition in the
mainstream media, the inclusion of previously
disallowed social media as legitimate
means of campaigning, and even the
unprecedented appearance of a senior
minister in a television debate with opposition
candidates, have clearly not been
the actions of a ruling party that wants
only to perpetuate its rule by any means
possible. The younger PAP leadership has
chosen to liberalise the political landavowed
no interest-at all in destroying scape in Singapore even at the risk of losing
more opposition seats, and even possibly
going against the instinct of the old
guard.
The third myth is that young Singaporeans
are generally apathetic and concerned
only about their narrow interests.
Although the huge buzz in online forums
about the election may represent only a
fraction of yopth at large, although the
large turnout in rallies by young people
may only be for their entertainment, although
the many young PAP and opposition
candidates may just be flashes in the
pan - the myth of apathy that older Singaporeans
may have held about Gen Y is
clearly no longer viable. As the baby
boomers pass into retirement, it is very
encouraging to see young people coming
out and making their voices heard.
Unless we have a freak election with
unexpected results, Singaporeans be
proud both of the ruling as well as oppo>--
tion parties. And of themselves too as an
electorate whose demands are increasingly
shaping the responses of both players.
Singapore may be moving deliberately
yet irrevocably towards a First World
electorate - in an evolutionary process
that may take another two or three elections
over the next two decades - but one
that embraces common values so that the
electorate, not the political parties, demand
civility, intellectual rigour and competence
of all their politicians, whatever
their affiliation.
If all goes well, the winner in this watershed
election may well be Singapore's
future.
GMS is a disappointment. The plan to contest Tampines GRC was conceived moons ago and when the stage is set, he fails to deliver. WTF?
Maybe it is the popularity of Nicole Seah made him changed his mind. Thinking that NSP might stand a better chance against GCT's team at Marine Parade. One might look at it as a form of selflessness, putting Party's interest before self. However, I honestly do not believe that the voters of Tampines will view him and NSP's effort positively.
Last edited:
Looks credible to me, despite the fact that this posting is in Sammyboy.com.
For the good of Singapore, do keep us posted with more interesting info.
Just be careful... VPN or anonymous proxy may help. For more info, contact samleong and he may reply. It is possible (although it's very very very cumbersome) to do a trace even without the help of the hosting company of this forum.
Last edited:
dankos
Guest
Looks credible to me, despite the fact that this posting is in Sammyboy.com.
For the good of Singapore, do keep us posted with more interesting info.
Just be careful... VPN or anonymous proxy may help. For more info. For more info, contact samleong and he may reply. It is possible (although it's very very very cumbersome) to do a trace even without the help of the hosting company of this forum.
pap dog issuing a thinly-veil threat.
internet will not offer you Anonymity
who cares :oIo::oIo:
Kishore as PS use to set the tone and other tended to follow. set the tone by trying to define Singapore in singapore terms with Confucious and Eastern philosophy thrown in. GY for some reason did not carry it any further and preferred closed networking and in that sense he did reach out to many countries. Old man did not like it. The interview with Chris Patten really upset old man and they have been loggerheads since. The biggest boo boo was writing off Obama as a non-starter in the primaries.
My sense is that GY is no one's puppet and that is not something that old man likes. He is also in the wrong camp. Tharman is also similar but his sponsor is LHL.
My sense is that GY is no one's puppet and that is not something that old man likes. He is also in the wrong camp. Tharman is also similar but his sponsor is LHL.
Thanks broI am not sure whether GY was planning to ride off into the sunset. But during the last couple of years, his contribution to cabinet meetings/discussions were marginal. He still has great aspirations for Singapore. He has been wanting to get out of Foreign affairs.
GY natural turf is East Coast - serani, english speaking, roman catholics and he stays there. Unfortunately he is very poor in party politics and has poor cadres support. LSS is the king and the darling of cadres.
give GMS a break bro...n i say this as a chap who was previously not too impressed by both his IQ n EQ as a politico...to be fair to him think he has done the best he cld do...all things considered...not really in control of nsp; got a malay bureau going; managed to get tony, hazel, nicole n gang to join nsp;got an endoresemnt of sorts fm tan kin lian(for what it is worth); his elder bro suddenly passing away etc...also must say that his speeches n manner in which he has conducted himself wif msm thus far has been pretty commendable as well...
to GMS u hv my support bro...win r lose u hv done yrself proud...tks for yr effort n i wish u n nsp all the v best for the 7th)
to GMS u hv my support bro...win r lose u hv done yrself proud...tks for yr effort n i wish u n nsp all the v best for the 7th
)any link on this one bro?
I was at the NSP GRC rally at Tampines Stadium last night. The NSP candidates representing Tampines did not impress me much with their speeches. It just did not tug at the strings. Syafarin Sarif was quite lively. Not bad with more experience. NSP slate of candidates, and they pride themselves in this, is that their candidates represent the average Singaporean in terms of jobs, social status etc. That's well and good if you have candidates like Nicole Seah who's short 5 minute speech last night really resonated with the crowd. She is a good orator. What NSP really needs to do in the next GE if it wants to continue to stand in Tampines GRC is to have at least one stellar candidate with solid job or academic credentials who can speak well and really connect with the crowd. It's a tall order I know. But it lacks the electricity that the Worker's Party following has.
Good one. Ho Kwon Ping's objective piece, not offending anyone. So if the ruling party loses a few seats, its by design, and not by chance. Good man, got arrested back in his young days under ISA, then toed the line ever since.
Good to have you back as well Bro. Just wanted to give you the perspective on TCH. TCH is part of OCBC inner circle and was PM designate for years. His wife was placed with NTUC and holds a crucial position despite the name suggesting otherwise. OCBC link with PAP cadre members is legendary. As far they are concerned he should have been PM. My understanding is that LHL is not ready to step down and by the time he decides to, TCH will be too old. He is now the powerbroker.
GCT is slowly but surely losing his power base and with the departure of Cheng Bock and company, his legacy will come to pass. In this country, there are 4 things you need to control. NTUC, SPH, PA and the cadres. All the current heads are from the Lees. Alan Chan was appointed during GCT's term but he was old man's most trusted PPS. Both the past and present Lims of NTUC are with old man. PA was with WKS before LHL took direct control. GCT mistake was focusing on the Cadres. He has lost that as well.
GCT is slowly but surely losing his power base and with the departure of Cheng Bock and company, his legacy will come to pass. In this country, there are 4 things you need to control. NTUC, SPH, PA and the cadres. All the current heads are from the Lees. Alan Chan was appointed during GCT's term but he was old man's most trusted PPS. Both the past and present Lims of NTUC are with old man. PA was with WKS before LHL took direct control. GCT mistake was focusing on the Cadres. He has lost that as well.
Agree, the NSP press conference was telling. The inside story of NSP and its genesis is quite telling.
Seems to the million dollar question in the minds of many - why did PAP not do anything despite the slim margin in 2006. WP tasted blood and the rest were bound to circle.
Bro, in this forum I have never doubted your info. It is quite amusing to find how some other hypothetical guesses can be made to sound so real - the power of language.
Dear Scroo
mein gott u know abt that to :-)) the founding of the nsp it's origins in the basement gang,.............................
Locke
mein gott u know abt that to :-)) the founding of the nsp it's origins in the basement gang,.............................
Locke
Who said LHL did not support GY?
GE: PM at rally to support PAP's Aljunied team
What did LTK & gang have done for Aljunied GRC other than taking advantage of the situation where people getting too emotional, may want to vote for the opposition for the sake of having more opposition in the Parliament.
How often did he speak up in Parliament?
Imagine LTK as the FM & represent Singapore as compared as GY.
I can say LTK is more scheming than the rest.
Out of the blue, one CSM who disappeared from Singapore for 'XY' years sounded so connected to people and can promise the sky.
What is the definition of first world parliament har?
GE: PM at rally to support PAP's Aljunied team
What did LTK & gang have done for Aljunied GRC other than taking advantage of the situation where people getting too emotional, may want to vote for the opposition for the sake of having more opposition in the Parliament.
How often did he speak up in Parliament?
Imagine LTK as the FM & represent Singapore as compared as GY.
I can say LTK is more scheming than the rest.
Out of the blue, one CSM who disappeared from Singapore for 'XY' years sounded so connected to people and can promise the sky.
What is the definition of first world parliament har?
Do not worry, GY. The residents of Aljunied are equally happy to see you serve them in the town council and under NSP, if you want. Besides, if you are out of parliament, you have even more time to acquaint with the people of Aljunied to help them and also conduct your private affairs. Honestly, if you want to serve the people of Aljunied, you need to be on the ground more.
Similar threads
