SDP under Chee: From a well-respected opposition party to a pariah shunned by all

[Porfirio Rubirosa]

Perhaps use to have class, but not anymore

That one got class.

 

[one2unite]

At the same time, if WP thinks their methods are better, then that's their choice.

Yeah, WP's method is to vote for the PAP while contesting against the PAP!

By the way, who's the common enemy for WP?

 

[Wisely]

Yeah, WP's method is to vote for the PAP while contesting against the PAP!

By the way, who's the common enemy for WP?

Yeah, SDP's method is to fight the WP while contesting against the PAP. You telling me they're any better?

 

[samurai1110]

Perhaps use to have class, but not anymore

Whatever, but many many many times better than that highly educated petty thief!

 

[The_Latest_H]

Yeah, WP's method is to vote for the PAP while contesting against the PAP!

By the way, who's the common enemy for WP?

Finding opponents within all the opposition parties is just meaningless, in my opinion. As I said, the goal is to create a workable, cooperative coalition, not to find opponents within groups who believe in the same cause.

I don't believe in making enemies out of friends for the sake of it. For the good of the country, we should believe in that. That's why unlike most of the western democracies, our Asian democracies are flawed when we take things too personally.

Thailand, and in some cases, Taiwan, Philippines and in Malaysia have shown that politics taken personally poisons democracy, and that has led to politicians bickering among themselves and forgetting that their main job after being elected is to work for the country and not for themselves.

Lee Kuan Yew has evidently not understood this. That's why he hit JBJ and CSJ personally and in different methods. All the more so to put in the seed of discord among the opposition ranks later. And that has damaged the opposition and weaken the cause of the opposition.

 

[one2unite]

Finding opponents within all the opposition parties is just meaningless, in my opinion. As I said, the goal is to create a workable, cooperative coalition, not to find opponents within groups who believe in the same cause.

Does the WP believe in a common cause? How can a WP leader vote for the PAP while contesting against the PAP? This raises the question as to whether WP is really an opposition party or just an outfit to confuse the people in order to perpetuate the PAP stranglehold on power.

 

[The_Latest_H]

Does the WP believe in a common cause? How can a WP leader vote for the PAP while contesting against the PAP? This raises the question as to whether WP is really an opposition party or just an outfit to confuse the people in order to perpetuate the PAP stranglehold on power.

I think its pretty funny when some of you guys accuse WP of not being SDP enough. Shouldn't WP have the right to disagree with some of SDP's methods if they think its too idealistic?

WP isn't here to follow SDP, and SDP shouldn't insist that all parties should emulate them in order to be considered to be part of the opposition. We are here to find common ground, not to remain deadlocked on issues such as this.

And besides, to win, you have to win the HDB heartlands and to win part of the electorate who remains conservative. Being pragmatic in what is politics is wise for the long term.

 

[leetahbar]

sdp is just sore loser jealous of other opp parties, esp wp.

 

[guavatree]

sdp is just sore loser jealous of other opp parties, esp wp.

bapok fake monk PAP dog

why are you jealous of SDP?

 

[samurai1110]

Maybe for the same reason u so jealous of him Pak Kia Head.

 

[Avantas]

How come Yaw is so quiet now ? He should be defending his idol Teo Ho Pin !
:oIo:

Does the WP believe in a common cause? How can a WP leader vote for the PAP while contesting against the PAP? This raises the question as to whether WP is really an opposition party or just an outfit to confuse the people in order to perpetuate the PAP stranglehold on power.

 

[Avantas]

Yeah, I agree with you.

WP is indeed very "pragmatic":

1. 1 seat in Hougang for 17 years.

2. Low Thia Kiang admits WP will not be able to challenge PAP in next 20 years.

The following parties are NOT pragmatic enough by WP "standards":

Malaysia's PKR: won only 4 seats in 1999 elections, now the biggest opposition party in Parliament.

Thailand's (now defunct) Thai Rak Thai party: founded in 1997 by Thaksin, won over 300 seats in its maiden election 3 years later to form the government.

Taiwan's Democratic Progressive Party: banned in 1985, formed the government 15 years later in 2000.

These useless "opposition" parties should have learned from WP and be contented with 1 seat in Parliament, right ?

LOL !!!

I think its pretty funny when some of you guys accuse WP of not being SDP enough. Shouldn't WP have the right to disagree with some of SDP's methods if they think its too idealistic?

WP isn't here to follow SDP, and SDP shouldn't insist that all parties should emulate them in order to be considered to be part of the opposition. We are here to find common ground, not to remain deadlocked on issues such as this.

And besides, to win, you have to win the HDB heartlands and to win part of the electorate who remains conservative. Being pragmatic in what is politics is wise for the long term.

 

[The_Latest_H]

Yeah, I agree with you.

WP is indeed very "pragmatic":

1. 1 seat in Hougang for 17 years.

2. Low Thia Kiang admits WP will not be able to challenge PAP in next 20 years.

The following parties are NOT pragmatic enough by WP "standards":

Malaysia's PKR: won only 4 seats in 1999 elections, now the biggest opposition party in Parliament.

Thailand's (now defunct) Thai Rak Thai party: founded in 1997 by Thaksin, won over 300 seats in its maiden election 3 years later to form the government.

Taiwan's Democratic Progressive Party: banned in 1985, formed the government 15 years later in 2000.

These useless "opposition" parties should have learned from WP and be contented with 1 seat in Parliament, right ?

LOL !!!

There's a difference between here and the countries you have mentioned: they are pretty much genuine arguable democracies. Ours is nothing, just a pseudo-democracy. As such its harder, and takes decades to overturn an entrenched ruling party that has been in control for nearly 50 years.

Even Malaysia has more democracy than us, and Anwar Ibrahim, as a matter of fact, while now an effective opposition leader was also once a DPM under Mahathir. He has administrative experience because of his previous record, and thus Malaysians trust him more compared to Badawi.

Here we have to start from zero, and plus LKY is still alive. And besides, SDP has been around for more than a decade..since Mr. Chiam created it. And if you're talking about poll results, and number of MPs- if you really want it- can you compare SDP's own record to Mr. Chiam's and Mr. Low's?

To many in the electorate, poll results matters a lot. And Mr. Chiam and Mr. Low still has the poll numbers. That matters more to them than anything else. Others don't until you have achieved something in the poll results and an MP seat.

 

[yellow_people]

Perhaps not brain washed but politically aware. Dr Chee has chosen a differing route and in that he has disagreed with what JBJ believes in.

There is intellectual dishonesty in your argument. You have not made a single mention of LTK or his WP leadership.

JBJ and CSJ's methods and party affiliation may have differed but their shared a strong common bond and had the utmost respect for each other. They fought for and continue to fight for the people and are truly the people's representative. WP under JBJ WAS a great party and the party I WAS a staunch support of.

However under LTK is has become instead a "PAP friendly-opposition party". JBJ was openly critical of LTK and how the party has strayed from its founding objectives.

My own view is that he has to decide whether he wants to be, a politician or an activists but he cannot be both at the same time.

And where is this stated? The PAP rule book that LTK reads religiously?

JBJ could win seats and could pose a threat to a PAP GRC despite the odds, the comparison between that and Dr Chee is stark and all revealing.

Under LTK WP GRC could only muster 43.9% and failing. Believe it or not I voted for the WP in 2006 in Aljunied. One vote lost already. Under JBJ they managed over 49% and 47% then in Eunos GRC.

Even if you disagree with the present bunch of opposition MPs, the challenge is to elect or to put in a bunch more agreeable to your political viewpoint.

Still playing by the PAP rule book?

Here is an excerpt from Alex Au from Yawning Bread:

The SDP arrived at the conclusion a few years back that the PAP will never allow themselves to be defeated electorally. The rules will be rewritten as necessary, the levers of mass communication will always be used to advantage and as many people as they can entice will be co-opted (with high salaries) to deprive opposition parties of talent.

I don't think anyone can prove the contrary. Certainly, none of the other opposition parties have yet made any significant inroads to even begin to cast doubt on this reading of the PAP's bottom line. In fact, I would say, at least half, if not three-quarters of Singaporeans would generally agree with this analysis.

The complete essay can be read here:
http://www.yawningbread.org/arch_2008/yax-892.htm

Civil disobedience for it to put pressure has to be mass. Dr Chee at this moment whilst gathering a group of supporters both on line and off has not demonstrated either mass or an ability to harness that support to increase votes in a manner that puts the fear of god into the PAP.

The least that could be said of CSJ and his SDP is that they are trying their best at great personal cost. The arrival of Tan Kin Lian at Hong Lim Park during the mini bond saga, the concession of the right to protest in Hong Lim park by the govt must be directly credited to CJS and the SDP. Without their civil disobedience that would have been no pressure on the govt to allow protest anywhere in Singapore period.

The question I've asked before and I ask again; so far no response other than living in the glory of JBJ's shadow - What has WP and LTK done since 2006?

 

[Wisely]

Freaking SDP fellas again. I'm not with WP or SDP, but can you clarify some of the "truths" you said?

Thanks for reminding us. We all know that WP likes to get down and play dirty to achieve its political agenda.

When? Pls elaborate.

I'm pretty certain that's the reason why LKY is LTK's idol.

Can you prove this statement?

He even sounds like LKY when he says Singaporeans do not want Western style democracy.

Can you find us the quote pls?


They can't be bought at a price unlike LTK and his WP.

Can you prove this?

If the Chees and his SDP had not defied the PAP with their numerous protests and civil disobedience, there wouldn't be a designated corner to go protest. A concession by the PAP and the full credit goes to the Chees and SDP.

SDP claims credit for other people sucess. You call that moral fibre??

 

[yellow_people]

WP has TWO seats in Parliament.

WP has one seat in Parliament. Sylvia Low is a NCMP; a PAP fabricated opposition in Parliament, in the event PAP makes a clean sweep.

 

[lockeliberal]

Dear Yellow

Lets just say that One believes in the parliamentary route and the other does not. That is as different and as fundamental a philosophical difference as night is from day. LTK may have differed or disagreed about the degree of opposition but they shared a fundamental belief in parliamentary democracy no matter how difficult the road.

The political rule book being quoted is not that of the PAP as the PAP however powerful does not dictate the rules or nature of how politicians or activists function. The rule book is defined by the experiences of other countries ranging from liberal to non liberal democracies.

JBJ played by the PAP rule book when he chose parliamentary democracy. Whether LTK and the WP in its present light is a better choice than JBJ is a question of preference for degrees, more spicy less spicy, more sugar less salt, but suffice it to say that if JBJ had not died and those who wanted a more aggressive style of politics had left the WP ( Senior members) I would probably have left with them.

The truth is that CSJ has not the mass for mass civil disobedience and neither the votes to be a politician. Alex puts forth an interesting viewpoint which I disagree with a) that the parliamentary route is hopeless in removing the PAP and reforming the system as it exists b) two that CSJ can shame the PAP through his actions and pressure into either an internal PAP split or force change in gov policy. Firstly because opposition politics in Singapore has been not about removing the PAP from power overnight in one election but rather about winning enough seats or threatening the PAP with the loss of enough seats such that the PAP as in the case of Dr Chee splits internally or adopts some elements of the opposition platform. This is a necessary first step towards being able to challenge the PAP for power. What is true of Dr Chee through the shaming or mass civil disobedience route is also true through the parliamentary route hence the strong belief of JBJ in parliament despite the overwhelming odds.

For me I would say that if as Alex surmises that Dr Chee seeks to shame the gov into change or into a split, I would argue that Dr Chee represents just one point of pressure to force that change and that economic , demographic and sociological changes bring equal or greater change for political and liberal reform




Locke

 

[Wisely]

WP has one seat in Parliament. Sylvia Low is a NCMP; a PAP fabricated opposition in Parliament, in the event PAP makes a clean sweep.

The no reply is very telling, goes to show some people can't prove a single pc of s**t they say.

JBJ was also NCMP.... but I respect him the same, and every one else apart from Master Chee.

 

[Wisely]

Dear Yellow

Lets just say that One believes in the parliamentary route and the other does not. That is as different and as fundamental a philosophical difference as night is from day. LTK may have differed or disagreed about the degree of opposition but they shared a fundamental belief in parliamentary democracy no matter how difficult the road.

The political rule book being quoted is not that of the PAP as the PAP however powerful does not dictate the rules or nature of how politicians or activists function. The rule book is defined by the experiences of other countries ranging from liberal to non liberal democracies.

JBJ played by the PAP rule book when he chose parliamentary democracy. Whether LTK and the WP in its present light is a better choice than JBJ is a question of preference for degrees, more spicy less spicy, more sugar less salt, but suffice it to say that if JBJ had not died and those who wanted a more aggressive style of politics had left the WP ( Senior members) I would probably have left with them.

The truth is that CSJ has not the mass for mass civil disobedience and neither the votes to be a politician. Alex puts forth an interesting viewpoint which I disagree with a) that the parliamentary route is hopeless in removing the PAP and reforming the system as it exists b) two that CSJ can shame the PAP through his actions and pressure into either an internal PAP split or force change in gov policy. Firstly because opposition politics in Singapore has been not about removing the PAP from power overnight in one election but rather about winning enough seats or threatening the PAP with the loss of enough seats such that the PAP as in the case of Dr Chee splits internally or adopts some elements of the opposition platform. What is true of Dr Chee through the shaming or mass civil disobedience route is also true through the parliamentary route hence the strong belief of JBJ in parliament despite the overwhelming odds.

For me I would say that if as Alex surmises that Dr Chee seeks to shame the gov into change or into a split, I would argue that Dr Chee represents just one point of pressure to force that change and that economic , demographic and sociological changes bring equal or greater change for political and liberal reform




Locke

You're the most likely person in WP the PAP loves. You stand for capitalism, wage exploitation, and all crap.

 

[The_Latest_H]

You're the most likely person in WP the PAP loves. You stand for capitalism, wage exploitation, and all crap.

Let's be honest here: we don't need such labelling. WP, as I said, has its own methods and as such, is sticking to it. And Locke is just being factual that LTK and JBJ has different styles and as such, its more of a how much salt and pepper and chilli one wants for a dish.

The fact remains that if some elements within SDP accuses a fellow opposition party for not following SDP doctrine and then dismiss as not being "opposition enough" because it doesn't follow what SDP has done is rather interesting. I mean, you can't seemingly understand that it cannot be "if you're not with us, then you're against us" isn't it?

The point here is whether one party can tolerate the other's method of campaigning. The truth is that if both take the bigger picture into view, m&d slinging doesn't help both of us. It seems that though WP has understood that politics is not a black-and-white picture, but a grey one, and has worked within those boundaries in respect to that.

SDP has to realise that its black-and-white stance on politics, and that Bush attitude of "either you're with us, or you're against us" would only turn other people off to their demerit. And it will do all of us better if you did practice democracy in public and in private as much as you preach it in public, especially with fellow opposition parties.