- Joined
- Jul 24, 2008
- Messages
- 33,627
- Points
- 0
<TABLE id=msgUN border=0 cellSpacing=3 cellPadding=0 width="100%"><TBODY><TR><TD id=msgUNsubj vAlign=top>
Coffeeshop Chit Chat - ScumsInWhite running SCARED!!!!!!!!!!!</TD><TD id=msgunetc noWrap align=right>
Subscribe </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><TABLE class=msgtable cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="96%"><TBODY><TR><TD class=msg vAlign=top><TABLE border=0 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%"><TBODY><TR class=msghead><TD class=msgbfr1 width="1%"> </TD><TD><TABLE border=0 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0><TBODY><TR class=msghead vAlign=top><TD class=msgF width="1%" noWrap align=right>From: </TD><TD class=msgFname width="68%" noWrap>Browser34 <NOBR></NOBR> </TD><TD class=msgDate width="30%" noWrap align=right>Dec-13 2:57 pm </TD></TR><TR class=msghead><TD class=msgT height=20 width="1%" noWrap align=right>To: </TD><TD class=msgTname width="68%" noWrap>ALL <NOBR></NOBR></TD><TD class=msgNum noWrap align=right> (1 of 19) </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TR><TR><TD class=msgleft rowSpan=4 width="1%"> </TD><TD class=wintiny noWrap align=right>25772.1 </TD></TR><TR><TD height=8></TD></TR><TR><TD class=msgtxt>It is NOW or NEVER,Sinkees VOTE the SCUMs OUT!!!!!!
Elections:
‘Freak’ result concerns
Political stirrings in this apathetic society may be serious enough to warrant a compulsory ‘cooling off’ period before the vote. By Seah Chiang Nee
Dec 12, 2009
MID-DECEMBER is the time of the year when the city centre is lighted up like a fairyland, and people are warned not to drive if they drink.
Along Orchard Road, motorists weave through giant arches of festive lights that flash out the season’s greetings over the heads of early shoppers jostling for bargains.
In the towering heartland, where the bulk of the population lives, there is general relief that the global crisis is receding without causing greater harm than it has.
The people’s mood — a little subdued given the lingering hardship to wage earners — appears normal for this time of the year when people are ready for a bit of partying.
Beneath the glitter, however, there are signs that Singaporeans are changing even in politics.
A college teacher friend commented that young people, who have been raised in relative prosperity “are growing up a lot faster” as a result of the global crisis and record number of jobless Singaporeans.
“They’re now learning that unemployment is a life-long spectre, and so is competition to keep jobs,” he added.
“They now worry a lot about their future.”
And that worry may soon be affecting politics, the last bastion in Singapore that defied change.
One of the things I have learned in my 40 years of reporting is not to discuss current affairs with Singaporeans I don’t know. It is often futile.
I have rarely succeeded in eliciting a spontaneous viewpoint about politics from them that is not straight out of a newspaper’s headline.
This is quite unlike in other countries where I had been assigned to cover, including communist China, where people would often just open up to you.
The people of my generation were — and remain — a reticent, apolitical lot who were more concerned about good food than bad politics.
Most had no personal views or were afraid to express them, especially when it comes to a controversial government policy.
As tough times intensified, however, I have detected a whiff of change in the heartland.
More people – although still a minority — are speaking out, some very emotionally, about what they feel is wrong with the society.
The stirring heartland, which remains the ruling party’s support base, is evidently becoming a concern for the leaders. Until now, it is the Yuppies and the bloggers who had been outspoken.
A political party that has been in power for 50 years like the PAP would obviously relish – for political reasons – the idea of a contented or apathetic citizenry.
It gets worrying only when heartland sentiments are worked up.
And chances are — as election draws near — they will.
The potential risks are not lost to the government. It has, for the first time, proposed measures to cool public emotions for one day before letting Singaporeans vote.
The idea came from Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong last week, when he suggested a 24-hour “cooling-off” period after the campaigning and before Polling Day.
He said this was to give people time to reflect rationally before making a choice.
It came amidst widespread speculation that a snap election may just be months away.
“Accidental” results
The move is read as a tacit admission by the government that the political temperature is rising significantly enough to warrant the counter-measures to prevent an “accidental” outcome.
It also seems to support a popular belief that economic hardship and unpopular policies may be eroding some of the PAP’s support among Singaporeans.
In the last election, it won 66% of the votes.
The PM referred to highly-charged campaigning in the past, of heated rallies with blaring loudspeakers, door-to-door campaigning and media clashes that could distort “rational” choice.
(In the past his father, Mr. Lee Kuan Yew had warned of a freak result that could displace the government.)
“It is good to have 24 hours to just calm down, think about it — tomorrow we vote,” PM Lee added.
The move has been strongly condemned by virtually every opposition party as benefitting the governing party.
Their view is the PAP government controls the media and will thus be able to disguise campaigning as “news,” something its rivals cannot.
“(Elections) here are already devoid of any heat. Any more cooling and the elections will go into deep freeze, sending voters into hibernation,” the Singapore Democratic Party cynically observed.
The apathetic part of the Singaporean will become less evident and so will be the era of easy victories as time goes on.
In recent weeks amidst the debate about foreigners “taking away” local jobs, I have encountered heated discussions in coffee-shops and hawkers centres, the like of which I had rarely seen before.
For the immediate election or two, the achievements chalked up by the PAP for half a century will ensure the tide remains with it. The debate is not one-sided.
The party still has a large base of supporters, who laud it for continuing to run a stable, orderly and efficient country, and vehemently fighting back on- as well as off-line.
Lined against them are a rising number of critics, who want to see a more equitable society and more responsive policies in favour of Singaporeans.
The majority appears reluctant to boot out the government, at least not when the opposition is too weak to run the country.
That could be a disaster, one said. However, he expects more disgruntled people to vote to put more opposition candidates into Parliament.
The fear is, of course, if too many voters feel this way, the result could be “a terrible accident.”
(This was first published in The Star, Dec 12, 2009)
</TD></TR><TR><TD> </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><TABLE border=0 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%"><TBODY><TR><TD class=msgleft width="1%"> </TD><TD class=msgopt width="24%" noWrap>
Options</TD><TD class=msgrde width="50%" noWrap align=middle> 
Reply</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
Elections:
‘Freak’ result concerns
Political stirrings in this apathetic society may be serious enough to warrant a compulsory ‘cooling off’ period before the vote. By Seah Chiang Nee
Dec 12, 2009
MID-DECEMBER is the time of the year when the city centre is lighted up like a fairyland, and people are warned not to drive if they drink.
Along Orchard Road, motorists weave through giant arches of festive lights that flash out the season’s greetings over the heads of early shoppers jostling for bargains.
In the towering heartland, where the bulk of the population lives, there is general relief that the global crisis is receding without causing greater harm than it has.
The people’s mood — a little subdued given the lingering hardship to wage earners — appears normal for this time of the year when people are ready for a bit of partying.
Beneath the glitter, however, there are signs that Singaporeans are changing even in politics.
A college teacher friend commented that young people, who have been raised in relative prosperity “are growing up a lot faster” as a result of the global crisis and record number of jobless Singaporeans.
“They’re now learning that unemployment is a life-long spectre, and so is competition to keep jobs,” he added.
“They now worry a lot about their future.”
And that worry may soon be affecting politics, the last bastion in Singapore that defied change.
One of the things I have learned in my 40 years of reporting is not to discuss current affairs with Singaporeans I don’t know. It is often futile.
I have rarely succeeded in eliciting a spontaneous viewpoint about politics from them that is not straight out of a newspaper’s headline.
This is quite unlike in other countries where I had been assigned to cover, including communist China, where people would often just open up to you.
The people of my generation were — and remain — a reticent, apolitical lot who were more concerned about good food than bad politics.
Most had no personal views or were afraid to express them, especially when it comes to a controversial government policy.
As tough times intensified, however, I have detected a whiff of change in the heartland.
More people – although still a minority — are speaking out, some very emotionally, about what they feel is wrong with the society.
The stirring heartland, which remains the ruling party’s support base, is evidently becoming a concern for the leaders. Until now, it is the Yuppies and the bloggers who had been outspoken.
A political party that has been in power for 50 years like the PAP would obviously relish – for political reasons – the idea of a contented or apathetic citizenry.
It gets worrying only when heartland sentiments are worked up.
And chances are — as election draws near — they will.
The potential risks are not lost to the government. It has, for the first time, proposed measures to cool public emotions for one day before letting Singaporeans vote.
The idea came from Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong last week, when he suggested a 24-hour “cooling-off” period after the campaigning and before Polling Day.
He said this was to give people time to reflect rationally before making a choice.
It came amidst widespread speculation that a snap election may just be months away.
“Accidental” results
The move is read as a tacit admission by the government that the political temperature is rising significantly enough to warrant the counter-measures to prevent an “accidental” outcome.
It also seems to support a popular belief that economic hardship and unpopular policies may be eroding some of the PAP’s support among Singaporeans.
In the last election, it won 66% of the votes.
The PM referred to highly-charged campaigning in the past, of heated rallies with blaring loudspeakers, door-to-door campaigning and media clashes that could distort “rational” choice.
(In the past his father, Mr. Lee Kuan Yew had warned of a freak result that could displace the government.)
“It is good to have 24 hours to just calm down, think about it — tomorrow we vote,” PM Lee added.
The move has been strongly condemned by virtually every opposition party as benefitting the governing party.
Their view is the PAP government controls the media and will thus be able to disguise campaigning as “news,” something its rivals cannot.
“(Elections) here are already devoid of any heat. Any more cooling and the elections will go into deep freeze, sending voters into hibernation,” the Singapore Democratic Party cynically observed.
The apathetic part of the Singaporean will become less evident and so will be the era of easy victories as time goes on.
In recent weeks amidst the debate about foreigners “taking away” local jobs, I have encountered heated discussions in coffee-shops and hawkers centres, the like of which I had rarely seen before.
For the immediate election or two, the achievements chalked up by the PAP for half a century will ensure the tide remains with it. The debate is not one-sided.
The party still has a large base of supporters, who laud it for continuing to run a stable, orderly and efficient country, and vehemently fighting back on- as well as off-line.
Lined against them are a rising number of critics, who want to see a more equitable society and more responsive policies in favour of Singaporeans.
The majority appears reluctant to boot out the government, at least not when the opposition is too weak to run the country.
That could be a disaster, one said. However, he expects more disgruntled people to vote to put more opposition candidates into Parliament.
The fear is, of course, if too many voters feel this way, the result could be “a terrible accident.”
(This was first published in The Star, Dec 12, 2009)
</TD></TR><TR><TD> </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><TABLE border=0 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%"><TBODY><TR><TD class=msgleft width="1%"> </TD><TD class=msgopt width="24%" noWrap>
