-
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.
Is NSP's Malay Bureau the reason why Goh Meng Seng left NSP?
- Thread starter paulhong
- Start date
so u all decide whether he has a big chinese ego a not. :*:
The bilingual policy is a double-edged sword meant to cut both ways. English is the common language as unifying and communicating language but all so-called designated mother tongues must be maintained to keep the races separate from political unification. Unite and screw, divide and rule.
Look at Thai Chinese in Thailand. Thailand has a single national language education policy. It's up to Thai Chinese themselves to learn Chinese if they wish to keep it. It's up to Thai Chinese to keep their Chinese names or Thai names. It's up to any Thai to learn English if they think it useful in advancement and globalization. Thai keyboards from typewriter to computer are in Thai. Whomsoever Thai, speaking Thai as mother tongue identifies them as Thai.
It's the same in even bigger countries founded on migration, like USA and Canada. In USA, in the founding era, do you think all were English speaking British? No, a sizeable minority were Germans and Dutch and Scandinavians. They accepted English as the majority first language and founded the first 13 states of USA that later expanded to the 50 states of USA today. Language is a very powerful tool to unite. Languages are very powerful tools to divide. Tower of Babel. QED.
In Canada, there's a slight difference. The ethnic French mostly in Quebec province insist on keeping French as official language. Canada is still not united like USA today. Every few years, somebody in Quebec would call for an independence campaign. Every few years, somebody in Canada not in Quebec would call for a campaign to kick Quebec out.
Look at Thai Chinese in Thailand. Thailand has a single national language education policy. It's up to Thai Chinese themselves to learn Chinese if they wish to keep it. It's up to Thai Chinese to keep their Chinese names or Thai names. It's up to any Thai to learn English if they think it useful in advancement and globalization. Thai keyboards from typewriter to computer are in Thai. Whomsoever Thai, speaking Thai as mother tongue identifies them as Thai.
It's the same in even bigger countries founded on migration, like USA and Canada. In USA, in the founding era, do you think all were English speaking British? No, a sizeable minority were Germans and Dutch and Scandinavians. They accepted English as the majority first language and founded the first 13 states of USA that later expanded to the 50 states of USA today. Language is a very powerful tool to unite. Languages are very powerful tools to divide. Tower of Babel. QED.
In Canada, there's a slight difference. The ethnic French mostly in Quebec province insist on keeping French as official language. Canada is still not united like USA today. Every few years, somebody in Quebec would call for an independence campaign. Every few years, somebody in Canada not in Quebec would call for a campaign to kick Quebec out.
Last edited:
Good post.
Maybe the Chinese Bureau is for TOC, not NSP which has enough Chinese.
In the meantime, NSP has turned into a shadow.
SDP 12 CEC members, only 4 were candidates. SPP 17 CEC members, all 7 candidates are in there. I can understand both parties are small and mostly background people in the leadership.
NSP 16 CEC members, 13 of them stood for election. The biggest oppostion in GE2011, yet all they have is a members seminar, a small forum and irregular open houses.
Both SDP and NSP are operating along the the same lines Pre-GE. Many of the candidates that were fielded by them were pretty much event driven. New candidates were looking for parties for their branding and logistics and the parties wanted a GE profile. Essentially things have not changed that much.
In a sense, true. The number of seats won turned out to be the same, hence cannot be helped.
If WP did not win the GRC and just a single ward or anything, it might be in an even worse shape because expectations were running higher.
Parties and politics are essentially success driven as well.
I was itching to provoke someone. Perhaps it's time to stop, for now.
Every new candidates were looking for parties for their branding and logistics; WP new candidates included. Every parties wanted a GE profile, WP included. Nothing wrong with that.
NSP has "regular" open house though not weekly. I am not sure what do you mean by "event driven". Well, maybe I get it. Are you saying WP candidates are not active in any events? Some people helping out in WP actually complain to me that they are only asked to help in attending temple dinners and such. It seems that there isn't any "real political activities" for them to engage in. They are expecting more policy talk, discussion, seminars and such but all they get are just going temple dinners, tours etc. If "political event" is what you are talking about, yes, maybe you are right about that. SDP in particular, has more political event and their people are mostly driven by these events.
Well at least NSP and SDP as political parties are still talking about politics after GE. Engaging members and public on political issues may look like "insignificant" but I guess that is what political party should be all about. As far as I can see, SDP and NSP are still active in issuing comments and press releases on various political issues even though they have no seats in parliament. It is a healthy sign. Many people complain opposition parties don't do "ground work" off election period but they cannot list out exactly what kinds of ground work they are referring to. Are they expecting something like PAP's grassroot activities and events?
To me, any opposition parties without a seat in parliament should be "politically active" in raising issues and putting up comments about current affairs as and when it seems fit. On top of that, putting up their views via Internet as well as their own newspaper publication, regular sales of their papers etc. That would be the most important thing to gauge whether these political parties are serious about political work or not. It is no use to just get into parliament but remain mostly silent while the PAP MPs are sounding more opposition than opposition!
Well it seems that WP has an advantage in the sense that they have MPs in parliament at this moment. But it could just turn into their liability if they are not preforming up to the expectation of voters who demand more questionings and active debate in parliament. It is still early to grade WP MPs' performance in parliament but so far so good, though there are some inappropriate analogies used along the way.
I feel that we should not underestimate the role SDP and NSP are playing. There will be more people joining opposition parties in the coming months and years. Rest be assured that SDp and NSP will grow with new recruits as well.
Goh Meng Seng
NSP has "regular" open house though not weekly. I am not sure what do you mean by "event driven". Well, maybe I get it. Are you saying WP candidates are not active in any events? Some people helping out in WP actually complain to me that they are only asked to help in attending temple dinners and such. It seems that there isn't any "real political activities" for them to engage in. They are expecting more policy talk, discussion, seminars and such but all they get are just going temple dinners, tours etc. If "political event" is what you are talking about, yes, maybe you are right about that. SDP in particular, has more political event and their people are mostly driven by these events.
Well at least NSP and SDP as political parties are still talking about politics after GE. Engaging members and public on political issues may look like "insignificant" but I guess that is what political party should be all about. As far as I can see, SDP and NSP are still active in issuing comments and press releases on various political issues even though they have no seats in parliament. It is a healthy sign. Many people complain opposition parties don't do "ground work" off election period but they cannot list out exactly what kinds of ground work they are referring to. Are they expecting something like PAP's grassroot activities and events?
To me, any opposition parties without a seat in parliament should be "politically active" in raising issues and putting up comments about current affairs as and when it seems fit. On top of that, putting up their views via Internet as well as their own newspaper publication, regular sales of their papers etc. That would be the most important thing to gauge whether these political parties are serious about political work or not. It is no use to just get into parliament but remain mostly silent while the PAP MPs are sounding more opposition than opposition!
Well it seems that WP has an advantage in the sense that they have MPs in parliament at this moment. But it could just turn into their liability if they are not preforming up to the expectation of voters who demand more questionings and active debate in parliament. It is still early to grade WP MPs' performance in parliament but so far so good, though there are some inappropriate analogies used along the way.
I feel that we should not underestimate the role SDP and NSP are playing. There will be more people joining opposition parties in the coming months and years. Rest be assured that SDp and NSP will grow with new recruits as well.
Goh Meng Seng
It not something that I agree with. Both parties are led by the same individuals and they are not going to change anytime soon. They have a long history and you can't convince me that Sebastian now prefers Kway Teow to Chicken Rice. It also unlikely that Chee will let go NGOs and foreign links to re-focus on local politics. 20 years ago that chip on the shoulder comment surfaced. It is still there. I tend to agree with Perspective when it comes to political observations. I remember when you both come into this forum. Even then I realised that you both complement each other as your strengths differ but can work when you come together. He can spot things that others seem to miss. You are an achiever and are prepared to move mountains. Just make sure you know which mountain to move and my bet is that Perspective is better at spotting that mountain.
Last edited:
I am not trying to speak on behalf of Perspective. I think that NSP and SDP are "event driven" in the sense that many people come in just prior to election because they need a platform on which to stand. But there is not sufficient time to tell whether they truly identify with the party philosophy (assuming there is one to begin with). WP is different because recruitment and candidate identification appears to begin earlier and there is some kind of mechanism to make sure you agree with general principles first before you become a candidate.
Tan jee say openly mocked CSJ for having repented.
TFBH,
As far as I know, some WP candidates are also "last minute candidates".
Tony, Hazel and their group have been active on the political scene very much earlier, though in another opposition party Reform Party and even WP. I would say much earlier than some WP candidates.
This is actually a false impression. I would say all in all, opposition parties, WP included, are more or less the same, face similar problems and such. WP may be slightly better to have people who have joined the party for a number of years to become candidates but other parties do have such people as well. But joining is one thing, grooming to become effective candidates is another. All parties are lacking that process to groom individuals, especially younger candidates with first time experience, to become effective candidates.
Goh Meng Seng
As far as I know, some WP candidates are also "last minute candidates".
Tony, Hazel and their group have been active on the political scene very much earlier, though in another opposition party Reform Party and even WP. I would say much earlier than some WP candidates.
This is actually a false impression. I would say all in all, opposition parties, WP included, are more or less the same, face similar problems and such. WP may be slightly better to have people who have joined the party for a number of years to become candidates but other parties do have such people as well. But joining is one thing, grooming to become effective candidates is another. All parties are lacking that process to groom individuals, especially younger candidates with first time experience, to become effective candidates.
Goh Meng Seng
To put my points clearly, for instance, the recent MRT issue, only SDP made the effort to comment in a timely manner. Lina Chiam was late but better than never.
It is disappointing, however, not to see NSP responding up till now. WP? 8 MPs but not even a squeak from them.
This MRT situation we have here is one of the biggest breakdown in MRT history. There are a lot of issues we can see from this incident, apart from wear and tear technical problems. Apparently, with the standards demonstrated by the SMRT in crisis management, there is really something wrong. This is only a breakdown, not even a bombing incident.
Public transport is one of the biggest political issue ever but some political parties chose to remain silent. This is really disappointing. In politics, timely comments and pressure is of paramount importance. You don't wait till the war is over then comment on it.
Goh Meng Seng
It is disappointing, however, not to see NSP responding up till now. WP? 8 MPs but not even a squeak from them.
This MRT situation we have here is one of the biggest breakdown in MRT history. There are a lot of issues we can see from this incident, apart from wear and tear technical problems. Apparently, with the standards demonstrated by the SMRT in crisis management, there is really something wrong. This is only a breakdown, not even a bombing incident.
Public transport is one of the biggest political issue ever but some political parties chose to remain silent. This is really disappointing. In politics, timely comments and pressure is of paramount importance. You don't wait till the war is over then comment on it.
Goh Meng Seng
To put on my objective hat, your description of WP's candidate selection process, while true, is not as homogeneous as described. People believe to varying degrees, but the stronger teams would have to be. This can be healthy if the leadership is a wise one, but unhealthy if vice versa. One can safely say that if WP chances of winning was higher, a small number - maybe 2 or 3 of the 23 - might not have been fielded. Because numbers game are also deemed important.
There is also the difference between belief and action. Some carry their disagreements indoors, some blare small differences to the public to score points and party hop. So no one can really tell who is the "rebel" unless they have insider info.
Still, other parties have key candidates who actually disagree openly with the party as stated in the example you used on TJS. Don't think WP will have that. Had he been elected in HBP GRC, CSJ would be "finished" somewhat. SDP Breakdown Part II.
In the end, you want to be fielded in WP ticket, which people deem has a better chance, you have to live with compromises and a higher bar of selection, which you may not pass. That is why PAP candidates are even more avoiding of rocking the boat because they stand nearly 90% of winning. Win some, lose some. It's a vicious cycle as well - your party keeps fielding everyone, talented people don't want to be associated with you.
On another topic. What intrigues me is that there are people who believe that speed in speaking up = speaking up at all. Years ago, some pro-SDP people thought the same way and their target was often WP, sometimes NSP because of a chap. Indeed, NSP spoke up more with the chap at helm but never to the extent of SDP and furthermore SDP was going even more extreme in the way of civil disobedience and the chap was speaking *against* that, so the mockery never ended. The results in 2011 shut the mouths of the pro-SDPers. You hardly see some around anymore, and the rest no longer trumpet that same line anymore except Robox. Yet the very chap has gone back 5 years in mindset. A political scientist also in opposition (not WP) once told me that in politics we may see people stuck at old concepts or even de-progress to old concepts. I guess this applies here.
Last edited:
With no references to the examples stated including me. Two or more people all whose strengths differ have to share a common strength - that is, they have to listen. With just one of them not doing that, the whole dynamics become pointless. People with flair for "spotting mountains", there are alot more who can do a better job than me - including you and Ram (and I am serious) and others like TFBH, Sneeringtree - and there is no need for me. It's whether people would listen.
But people who confuse teamwork with compromise, then confuse compromise with unprinciples and say that is bad, can never get it. We would just have individualists, nothing more.
Last edited:
Frankly I have not seen anyone else in this forum better at reading the ground than you. Politics is about compromises and there very little or no principle that you can stick to. During the Catherine Lim saga years ago, I could see that you had the ability to guide him. And he needs guidance and counsel. Both must come down a couple of notches.
As Perspective has hinted in his post, its quite a reversal of roles. In the old SBF, nicks of various shady sorts were taunting WP and NSP for not speaking up in a timely manner. Now, you have bravely taken up the slack.
You are not wrong, as political engagement means airing your views on important social issues. However engagement means also following up by actual grassroots work, trying to get community leaders involved, pushing for MPs, ministers, etc, to do something about the situation, and that is whole package which we must judge the parties by. Being internet heros are for people like you and I. Lets judge the elected MPs by other yardsticks.
What's there to comment? Comment can help repair? Let them repair a.s.a.p. When I was FA I encountered flight delays due to technical problems too. What's there to comment and complain? What do we know about technicals? Get technicians get the repair done and the flight off as soon and as safely as possible.
But in this MRT case, I think the authority concerned should publish a report of what went wrong. Opposition should ask for that within reasonable time, yes.
Hope you now understand why GMS is where he is, wherever that may be. He is an excellent micro strategist. The kpkb type but no substance.
I wrote a note on my FB and I have responded as follows:
Maybe I should make it much clearer in stating what kinds of response is needed. WP has finally issued a press statement. Late better than never.
This is a National Crisis, not just any road accident you see on the road everyday. The subway is the "blood arterial of Singapore's economy. Imagine if such things happening during the morning peak hour of any weekday, how much losses our economy would suffer?
A Nation in Crisis is not just the problem of the ruling party. Any serious political party would have taken full interest in how the Crisis would turn out and provide the necessary political leadership needed to manage the people's expectation, anger, worries and concerns.
While we do not expect any politicians to solve the problems immediately but if the ground sentiments do not have a valve for them to let off, things might get messy later on. The political leadership needed here for opposition parties is for them to assure that the angry voices on the ground have been voiced out and represented on the National platform. The role of the ruling party is to make sure that they provide the assurance that such sentiments and voices have been heard and processes would be carried out to address the fundamental problems.
Such political processes are needed from both the ruling and opposition parties so that focus could be adjusted and anybody who wants to make use of the ground sentiments to create chaos and even riots. When the anger from the ground does not find a proper valve to be their main outlet, it may seek alternative extreme measures or ways to do it.
This is an important part of crisis management at National level. This is not about "opposing for the sake of opposing". It is a necessary process to keep situation under control and prevent extremists from taking advantage of the situation.
Goh Meng Seng
Maybe I should make it much clearer in stating what kinds of response is needed. WP has finally issued a press statement. Late better than never.
This is a National Crisis, not just any road accident you see on the road everyday. The subway is the "blood arterial of Singapore's economy. Imagine if such things happening during the morning peak hour of any weekday, how much losses our economy would suffer?
A Nation in Crisis is not just the problem of the ruling party. Any serious political party would have taken full interest in how the Crisis would turn out and provide the necessary political leadership needed to manage the people's expectation, anger, worries and concerns.
While we do not expect any politicians to solve the problems immediately but if the ground sentiments do not have a valve for them to let off, things might get messy later on. The political leadership needed here for opposition parties is for them to assure that the angry voices on the ground have been voiced out and represented on the National platform. The role of the ruling party is to make sure that they provide the assurance that such sentiments and voices have been heard and processes would be carried out to address the fundamental problems.
Such political processes are needed from both the ruling and opposition parties so that focus could be adjusted and anybody who wants to make use of the ground sentiments to create chaos and even riots. When the anger from the ground does not find a proper valve to be their main outlet, it may seek alternative extreme measures or ways to do it.
This is an important part of crisis management at National level. This is not about "opposing for the sake of opposing". It is a necessary process to keep situation under control and prevent extremists from taking advantage of the situation.
Goh Meng Seng
Wasnt W.P known to be Puppets before the G.E?... My knowledge of politics is not that deep and i only started reading bout domestic politics about 6months prior to the G.E.. But i always remembered seeing people commenting that W.P was PAP puppets and T.R was constantly posting articles suggesting W.P were puppets.. I guess the reason was because W.P always kept silent other then during Parliament sessions.. I have honestly not heard much from W.P since the G.E other then the recent parliament session, Nothing.
Last edited:
Similar threads
