Singaporean wants TV debate

[singveld]

we dun need debate here, since pap sure win.

 

[jw5]

I think opposition leaders should publicly challenge the PM to a debate, let him find some excuse not to have one.

He won't need an excuse, he will simply not reply, and if someone actually dares to ask him for his reply, he will just laugh it off in that typical irritating manner.
If there's any crying to be done, you can be sure it will be done in private and no one will ever dare to ask who's running the country.

Even if it's not him specifically, there are various reasons why any of them won't want to have a live televised debate:
-- Some of them don't understand the issues faced by the ordinary people.
-- Some of them need approval or agreement before they say anything, otherwise they will just be making motherhood statements and stating the obvious the whole time.
-- Some of them are simply too arrogant and condescending in the way they speak, which will reflect badly on them.
-- Some of them think that debating with an opposition member in front of ordinary people is beneath them and their status.
-- Some of them simply speak very poorly.
-- Some of them are concerned that the real reasons behind their policies will be revealed, that they may be doing the best for the country and the elites, but not necessarily for each and every ordinary person.
-- Some of them are not even convinced themselves in the reasons and the effectiveness of the policies.

 

[johnny333]

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.

If there is ever a debate in Spore, you can be assured that the PAP will pack the audience with PAP loyalists.

It will be staged with pre-approved questions without any wild card questions allowed.

 

[Maverick01]

KJ and chee can match any PAP MPs in a debate in my opinion.. having said that..which PAP MPs is considered someone who is a good debator in your opinion? How about twin terror of Jamban Lee and Lim Sway sway? It will become a standup comedy instead of debate.

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.

 

[HTOLAS]

Hmmm... 相声？

KJ and chee can match any PAP MPs in a debate in my opinion.. having said that..which PAP MPs is considered someone who is a good debator in your opinion? How about twin terror of Jamban Lee and Lim Sway sway? It will become a standup comedy instead of debate.

 

[Maverick01]

Hmmm... 相声？

no way...that is insulting 相声 which is quite an art....those two would just blabber shit...

 

[Ramseth]

KJ and chee can match any PAP MPs in a debate in my opinion.. having said that..which PAP MPs is considered someone who is a good debator in your opinion? How about twin terror of Jamban Lee and Lim Sway sway? It will become a standup comedy instead of debate.

If they send Lee Bee Wah or Lim Swee Say, that'd be the day, but I don't think so. Vivian is very good, I've Q & A him personally before. Tharman is good too. It may come as a surprise to many here, but I rate LHL, WKS, MBT and KBW quite highly if it comes to public debate too.

In opposition camp, I'd think LTK, Sylvia, GMS and KJ can hold their own. CSJ and CSC are good, but don't think they'll ever ever allowed.

 

[kingrant]

It is well nigh possible that if we have a TV debate between the PAP and the Opp parties, they will all be like boxers fighting in different boxing rings, each not addressing the arguments of the others, but merely verbalising their manifestos.

What we must have is a good moderator to introduce 5 minute for each speaker to argue a series of short thematic debate motions, so that no one can worm their way out.

You can also be sure that the arrogant PAP will send their smallest fry or the mosquito weight to the ring, so as not to dignify the others or promote the images of its adversaries. To wit, recall they sent Indranee Rajah to debate with Sylvia Lim on (was it?) the AWARE affair.

They may also send somebody whom the PAP wants to drop anyway for the next GE so that they won't have to be bound by anything that was said.

 

[Areopagus]

Check out the old TV debates:
Some kind soul has transcribed one of them at:
http://nathanielkoh.blogspot.com/2009/04/transcript-of-1988-tv-debate-on-elected.html

CST: We are saying that the purpose of the proposal is to have an Elected President with executive powers, eventually leading us to a fall of government which we do not want, maybe a dictatorship, and then our reserves will really be lost then.

LHL: Can you explain how it will be possible for the President to have executive powers when all he can do is to say no to the government spending money which has been accumulated by previous governments, not by itself? It can tax, it can spend, it can plan, it can implement. The President has no say, but only protect money accumulated by previous governments, including CPF money.

CST: We all know the proposal, but our innermost fear is that when the PAP is threatened in 1992, and you have the majority, you have two-thirds majority, who will stop you from amending the Constitution further to hand over more executive powers to the President, internal security, finance, defense?

LHL: You therefore concede that the proposal does not contain executive powers, because you are talking about a hypothetical situation which may or may not arise.

CST: No, Mr Lee. We are going to establish something in our society, in our country, which is going to be there for ages to come, and we don’t know who is going to abuse that system that you are going to establish. What the people of Singapore is worried is the powers that will eventually end up in the hands of one person.

LHL: What about the powers which are presently proposed to be given to the Elected President? Do they or do they not constitute executive powers?

CST: Of course they do.

LHL: They do, because he can say no.

CST: Yes.

LHL: You are aware that we have a Presidential Council for Minority Rights.

CST: Well, if they are given discretionary powers, I think they are, but they are not real safeguards.

LHL: You are aware that there is a Presidential Council for Minority Rights.

CST: What has the Presidential Council for Minority Rights, up to date, what has it done?

LHL: You know that…

CST: As far as I know, there is nothing effective about it.

LHL: Mr Chiam, can you answer the question?

GCT: Are you aware or not aware that there is?

CST: Of course. There was a big debate in the 60s on it.

LHL: You know that the Presidential Council for Minority Rights vets all bills before they are sent to the President.

CST: Well, I read my papers, parliamentary papers. Yes, of course.

LHL: Yes. It has custodial powers. It can say no to bills if it deems them discriminatory.

CST: Discriminatory only in regard to certain matters of affecting the community, the community at the moment.

LHL: Yes, yes, in the same way as the…

CST: If there is going to be racial problems or disrupting racial harmony in Singapore.

LHL: Yes, it has the power.

CST: Yes.

LHL: It is not an elected body. Is it an executive body?

CST: We are talking about electing an…installation of an Elected President, and here you are, you are diverting the issue by saying that there should be a person to take care of our national reserves and appointing of our civil servants. These are only as I have said, perhaps you do not understand me, a distraction from the real issue. The real issue is that your government is going to install one person with executive powers, and you can please tell me whether or not there is any provisions to check parliament from further giving any more powers to the President.

GCT: Mr Chairman, Mr Chiam is being cross-examined. He should give the answer.

MOD: Yes, yes. Straight.

LHL: Is or is not the Presidential Council for Minority Rights an executive body? It has custodial powers. Does that make it an executive body?

CST: Well, there’s nothing…..

LHL: It doesn’t, so why not say so.

CST: It doesn’t say anything about, you know, stopping the use of reserves.

LHL: But it has powers. It can prevent parliament from passing bills, any bills.

CST: The Presidential Council for Minority Rights, its purpose is set up to ensure that no bills would disrupt our racial harmony in Singapore.

LHL: Correct, and the Elected President is set up to make sure that no bills or any other government measures would eat into reserves accumulated by previous governments. Specific purposes. Those are custodial powers, similar to the Presidential Council for Minority Rights.

CST: No, they are not.

LHL: Does that make the Elected President an executive one?

CST: Yes, of course, as I have said so.

LHL: And the Presidential Council for Minority Rights is also an executive body?

CST: The fact that the President is able to stop the use of finance without….

MOD: Mr Chiam, I think we will get the debate going if you could answer his question directly, and then we can come back to your turn.

LHL: Are you opposed to the Presidential Council for Minority Rights which has custodial powers?

CST: Well, there is no necessity…

LHL: You do not oppose that.

CST: There is no necessity for the Presidential Council for Minority Rights. I was not in politics when it was formed.

LHL: You would get rid of it. Mr Jeyaratnam, you would surely agree with Mr Chiam that there is no need for such a Presidential Council or indeed any safeguards whatsoever to the system.

CST: So far, you…so far, there is no law which is passed in parliament which has been refused by Presidential Council except I know of one in which parliament overruled the Presidential Council in the GRC proposal, that is what has happened.

LHL: Is that true?

GCT: No, that’s not true.

CST: You have made laws that cut out the powers of the Presidential Council for Minority Rights. That is what you have done.

MOD: That’s not the answer.

GCT: We haven’t heard the answer from Mr Chiam.

MOD: Do you want to respond, Mr Jeyaratnam?

JBJ: Was I asked a question?

LHL: Yes, you were asked a question. Do you agree with Mr Chiam that we should scrap the Presidential Council for Minority Rights and it has an executive function?

JBJ: I think there is a confusion of thought here. The Presidential Council for Minority Rights protects the minorities’ rights, their culture, and their, you know, way of life. Now, the Presidential Council for Minority Rights is not effective. Perhaps you have forgotten that parliament can override the presidential committee’s decision on any bill by itself passing the bill again with a two-thirds majority. Are you aware of that? So that the presidential committee is not effective. I, my Party, would like to see the presidential committee for minority rights made really effective.

 

[theDoors]

Send your letters and emails to Straits Times and Today. Stop procrastinating.

 

[Ash007]

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 agree with you. Looking at GMS, I think he would lose if he is up against some of the MIWs. If its in Mandarin or Hokkien maybe he has a chance to appeal to the heartlanders. The opposition needs better people to articulate their ideas in public debates.

 

[theDoors]

Stumble upon this on Facebook

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=111646132205098

 

[jw5]

If they send Lee Bee Wah or Lim Swee Say, that'd be the day, but I don't think so. Vivian is very good, I've Q & A him personally before. Tharman is good too. It may come as a surprise to many here, but I rate LHL, WKS, MBT and KBW quite highly if it comes to public debate too.

In opposition camp, I'd think LTK, Sylvia, GMS and KJ can hold their own. CSJ and CSC are good, but don't think they'll ever ever allowed.

Vivian was a top debater for NUS. So was Indranee. They are both excellent speakers.
Then again, so was Tan Cheng Yew, for those of you who know who he is.
WKS is actually a very good and sharp speaker, but those language purists will not be able to hear him for one hour. KBW is not a great speaker, but he seems to appeal to many people with his sincerity. I don't rate MBT too highly as a speaker to be honest.
Among the opposition members, LTK is weak in english. GMS's english may not be the best but he speaks clearly and logically.

 

[Perspective]

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.

Didn't you hear that when LHL was a teacher, no one passed oral examination?

"You have 5 seconds to read the passage"

 

[Perspective]

I agree with you. Looking at GMS, I think he would lose if he is up against some of the MIWs. If its in Mandarin or Hokkien maybe he has a chance to appeal to the heartlanders. The opposition needs better people to articulate their ideas in public debates.

GMS weakness is not language or eloquence. Those are his strengths actually. Fluency in English, Chinese etc. he has. His weakness is not knowing when to pull back. You win points by convincing. You lose a bit points by not. You lose a lot of points enough to put a dangerous driver to shame if you don't convince and keep plugging on.

When debating with MBT, he needs to remember that for every hour, there will be at least 10 mins that MBT will have upper hand. The key is to win the overall war, not every battle.

 

[Ramseth]

Didn't you hear that when LHL was a teacher, no one passed oral examination?

"You have 5 seconds to read the passage"

Was LHL ever a teacher? Don't try to pull a fast one.

 

[Ramseth]

When debating with MBT, he needs to remember that for every hour, there will be at least 10 mins that MBT will have upper hand. The key is to win the overall war, not every battle.

This I agree with you. Debating is not about winning every minute or every issue. It's about winning in the end. War is not about winning every battle. It's about winning the war.

 

[theDoors]

http://www.straitstimes.com/print/STForum/Story/STIStory_521822.html

May 3, 2010
Election debates on TV all style and no substance, so not for us

I REFER to Mr Lee Seck Kay's Forum Online letter recommending that Singapore introduce television debates before the General Election, similar to the series of three debates held recently in Britain ('Have TV debates before election'; last Monday).

Unfortunately, Mr Lee has overrated the debates shown in Britain. While viewership was above expectations, this was driven far more by the novelty of the endeavour than the substance of debate.

Far from being a 'resounding success', the consensus is that television debates have led to a greater emphasis on style over substance.

For example, the parties' manifestoes are no clearer to voters than they were before the TV debates: the incumbent Labour Party and the opposition Conservatives and Liberal Democrats have all failed to give the electorate enough details about their spending-cut plans to reduce Britain's structural deficit which is now close to &pound1 trillion (S$2.1 trillion).

I and, I believe, other Singaporeans prefer our leaders to stick to substance over style when it comes to elections.

In the context of the global economic downturn, this means a government that appeals to voters based on its solid track record, and its ability to steer the economy out of recession and take the long-term measures needed to place the country economically, politically and socially on a sound footing.

Dennis Tan
Oxford, England
Copyright © 2007 Singapore Press Holdings.

 

[Ramseth]

I can't believe that a single Dennis Tan, even in Oxford (presumably the University), could be representative judge and jury of style and substance for all of Britain and Singapore. He can believe that it's not for him. Whether it's for Britain or Singapore, he's entitled to his say, and he said it. Now there're the rest of some 60 million Britons and 4 million Singaporeans. Don't presume to say it's not for us on behalf of us.