Singaporean wants TV debate

[theDoors]

Apr 26, 2010
Have TV debates before election
http://www.straitstimes.com/print/STForum/OnlineStory/STIStory_519057.html

ALTHOUGH the next general election is not due until early 2012, there are signs that political parties are already gearing up to do battle. Now may be the time to consider and prepare for a television debate as part of the anticipated political contest.

What I have in mind is Britain's unprecedented series of American-style television debates in which leaders of the Labour, Conservative and Liberal Democratic parties stood toe to toe in front of a studio audience debating issues of national importance.

<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/rk5HvJmy_yg&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/rk5HvJmy_yg&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>

By all accounts, the 90-minute sessions were a resounding success and one more will follow before polling day on May 6, by which time Britons will be better informed about the parties' manifestoes, their strengths and weakness, and the calibre of their leaders.

We could do something similar to complement the usual campaigning. To be held under a similar format and with rules agreed by all major contesting parties, each debate could be presided over by a moderator to ensure orderliness.

The proposed TV debate would reach out to a far larger audience and put all the rhetoric of the campaign trail into sharp focus. What the parties stand for, their thoughts on the road ahead for Singapore, and their views on issues such as the cost of living, health-care costs, the ageing population and national assets would all provide the basis for the voters' decision on Polling Day.

Let's first dispatch a team to Britain to study how to organise such an event that could well turn out to be a watershed in our election history.

Lee Seck Kay

 

[theDoors]

I am sure the best man for the job can win the debate hands down.

If he is not confident can always get his nephew, rated best debator, to stand in on his behalf.

 

[A Shankar]

Yap, anyway we have paid MDA annually of crap shows. Might as well add some political humour on prime time.

 

[theDoors]

Yap, anyway we have paid MDA annually of crap shows. Might as well add some political humour on prime time.

Vacant slots from World cups can be filled up by Singapore's first ever election debate.

 

[HTOLAS]

We've had debates before. I recall in particular JBJ pushing then newly appointed ministar LHL into a corner. It was about elected presidency. LHL resorted to school debater tactics of bombast and laughing at JBJ. JBJ kept his cool and really made LHL uncomfortable.

LHL's salvation came from an unexpected corner - the normally wooden then DPM GCT picked up the point raised by JBJ and managed it.

Some suspect that that was one of the reasons why LHL had to wait 14 years before his seat got warm enough.

http://nathanielkoh.blogspot.com/2009/04/transcript-of-1988-tv-debate-on-elected.html

 

[Char_Azn]

It's basically asking the ruling party to give up their biggest advantage U think PAP is dumb enough to accept?

 

[johnny333]

I am sure the best man for the job can win the debate hands down.

One has to wonder if a debate would be any use. The PAP is the incumbent party. We've seen the result of this: billion dollar losses, flood of foreigners, higher living costs, useless family members in the gov't,....

If Sporeans don't have eyes & ears to see what's going on in Spore, of what use is a debate

 

[theDoors]

It's basically asking the ruling party to give up their biggest advantage U think PAP is dumb enough to accept?

He claims he is the best man for the job. I think this is the best way to prove.

 

[theDoors]

One has to wonder if a debate would be any use. The PAP is the incumbent party. We've seen the result of this: billion dollar losses, flood of foreigners, higher living costs, useless family members in the gov't,....

If Sporeans don't have eyes & ears to see what's going on in Spore, of what use is a debate

PM never had to answer a question directed to him point blank about the losses. It would be priceless to watch on TV he brushes it off as losses are part and parcel of making investments.

 

[theDoors]

This is also priceless

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/a1WhJKsYb50&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/a1WhJKsYb50&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

 

[Rogue Trader]

Vacant slots from World cups can be filled up by Singapore's first ever election debate.

replace one kelong event with another. can we have something different?

 

[Sideswipe]

The only TV debate PAP will have is a debate between Chee and Chiam on who betrayed who back then in SDP.

 

[Ramseth]

Let's say there's a TV debate on political issues, the opposition side may not necessarily win. Many people may think that PAP avoids TV debates because they're afraid of losing. I don't think that's the case. There're more good debators in PAP than apparent, and there're less good debators in opposition than assumed. PAP avoids TV debates because win or lose, it's free publicity for opposition.

 

[aurvandil]

Let's say there's a TV debate on political issues, the opposition side may not necessarily win. Many people may think that PAP avoids TV debates because they're afraid of losing. I don't think that's the case. There're more good debators in PAP than apparent, and there're less good debators in opposition than assumed. PAP avoids TV debates because win or lose, it's free publicity for opposition.

I still remember the "self debate" Minister Mah had on talking pt. Everytime I think abt it, I cannot help but get the image that he is mast******** on TV.

 

[Sideswipe]

Let's say there's a TV debate on political issues, the opposition side may not necessarily win. Many people may think that PAP avoids TV debates because they're afraid of losing. I don't think that's the case. There're more good debators in PAP than apparent, and there're less good debators in opposition than assumed. PAP avoids TV debates because win or lose, it's free publicity for opposition.

Our oppositions have nothing to lose by agreeing to a debate, they are sure to lose the elections overall. A good debate can help them have a few more percentages votes swing.

PAP doesn't need any debates to win elections. That's why they won't do it.

 

[Char_Azn]

He claims he is the best man for the job. I think this is the best way to prove.

lol. Knowing how to Taiji is as important in politics as anything else. They will just push this one away. The son is not like the old man, never challenge anyon to a Cul-De-Sac

 

[Ramseth]

I still remember the "self debate" Minister Mah had on talking pt. Everytime I think abt it, I cannot help but get the image that he is mast******** on TV.

MBT was under pressure to say something about HDB prices even before GMS stirred the issue up even bigger. Later, he could even tongue-slipped "landscarce" to come out as "landlocked." He's defending technically indefensible grounds where even figures all came out not tallying with reality. Technically indefensible doesn't mean politically indefensible, if he regains his composure and grip on the twists.

LHL has also improved a lot since the early 2004-06 days. I watched his interview with Charlie Rose. He handled it very well. He also comprehensively put down LTK in parliamentary debate with the "Do you think WKS should resign" question, and 5 seconds was all he needed to declare "Silence. That settles the issue." That's good technique.

 

[wrcboi]

a tv debate that is not pre planned pre scripted or edited.!!!! it will never happen

 

[streetsmart73]

It's basically asking the ruling party to give up their biggest advantage U think PAP is dumb enough to accept?

hi there


1. when pigs have wings man!
2. when under "attack", sheep use its offence: sue!

 

[theDoors]

MBT was under pressure to say something about HDB prices even before GMS stirred the issue up even bigger. Later, he could even tongue-slipped "landscarce" to come out as "landlocked." He's defending technically indefensible grounds where even figures all came out not tallying with reality. Technically indefensible doesn't mean politically indefensible, if he regains his composure and grip on the twists.

LHL has also improved a lot since the early 2004-06 days. I watched his interview with Charlie Rose. He handled it very well. He also comprehensively put down LTK in parliamentary debate with the "Do you think WKS should resign" question, and 5 seconds was all he needed to declare "Silence. That settles the issue." That's good technique.

If you had watched the BBC debate, it's the audience questions that is the wild card. I think there will be a barrage of questions directed him rather than anyone else.