ST Forum Apr 17, 2010 Chee must reinvent himself

[SDPhopelessParty]

DR CHEE Soon Juan's letter on Thursday ('PAP just as confrontational, replies Chee') reads like the tired ramblings of a politician who has lost the plot.

When Dr Chee entered the political scene in 1992, he described himself as having 'a good brain'. Expectations were high as the opposition saw hope in a candidate of good calibre.

However, his electoral performance since then has been dismal:

- 1992, Marine Parade by-election, 24.5 per cent of votes polled

- 1997, MacPherson, 34.86 per cent

- 2001, Jurong, 20.25 per cent

- 2006, ineligible to contest.

During this time, he attracted public attention with his bizarre acts done for unfathomable reasons.

Instead of galvanising the opposition, he has conceivably dealt his party and the opposition a death knell.

Is Dr Chee the big hope that he was made out to be?

As a citizen with no party affiliation, I argue that he has lost voter confidence and is in dire need of a strategy overhaul.

If he is able to think like a (political) entrepreneur, he needs to ask himself these key questions.

'Who is my 'customer' - or 'target voter'?'

'What is my (political) 'product'?'

'Why should my 'customer' buy my 'product'?'

I believe Dr Chee has failed to comprehend the strategic importance of these simple questions.

On the other hand, Mr Chiam See Tong and Mr Low Thia Khiang have carved a niche for themselves in an unfriendly political landscape, remarkably achieved with their humble qualities and modest resources.

By opting to focus on providing a calibrated voice in Parliament and addressing the municipal needs of their constituents, these respected gentlemen have created a unique political 'product' that resonates well with their supporters.

The ability of the ruling People's Action Party to transform itself to respond to the changing needs of the electorate is also well known.

With the poor voter response he has received, Dr Chee should respect and listen to the wishes of Singaporeans, and reposition himself to be relevant to our aspirations.

Doing otherwise brings no value to his political career, family, party, supporters, the opposition, the health of our political system and fellow Singaporeans.


Han Tau Kwang

 

[SDPhopelessParty]

I want constructive, not confrontational, politics

I AGREE with Mr Patrick Tan's view ('Confrontational model not ideal for Singapore'; April 6).

There are some policies of the People's Action Party (PAP) Government I disapprove of instinctively as they hurt my wallet. But in my heart, I will admit that while the policies are personally unfavourable, they are nationally beneficial.

I want Singapore to have constructive opposition parties which can act as a check and balance. On the other hand, I do not wish the PAP to lose control as the ruling party.

The current Singapore Democratic Party with its attitude of confrontation is not the type of opposition party I wish to see in Parliament, unless it changes to a more constructive style that will add value to national politics.

The fact remains that we must credit Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew and his successors who, through integrity and reliability, have transformed Singapore from a vulnerable state into a thriving, stable country of which we are proud.

Roy Ong

 

[SDPhopelessParty]

Politics of confrontation redundant now

I REFER to Thursday's letter by Dr Chee Soon Juan, 'PAP just as confrontational, replies Chee'. His references to confrontational politics by the People's Action Party (PAP) in the 1960s and 1970s pointed to a time when Singapore was emerging as a young nation from pre- and post-independence. This was when nation building was introduced to Singaporeans - a sense of nationalism to be imparted.

Dr Chee cannot use such references to prove his claim that he is not into confrontational politics but aims to champion freedom of speech and gatherings in the name of democracy, by opening up the current system. His ideas would work in political systems such as those in neighbouring countries, which are still politically unstable. If he can see an opportunity there, he should champion his cause there instead or form a party there.

I wonder what there is to open up. Confrontational politics was required after independence. We were vulnerable, we had no defence, we were unsure of our destiny, we had no natural resources. We were a fishing village with slums all over that happened to become independent accidentally.

A visionary leader was what Singapore needed at that stage. Thankfully, we had one. A selfless Lee Kuan Yew with a few good men began on a journey to plot what would work for Singapore in the future. What we see today is that future.

At that time, they had to confront the communists and others by putting their lives at risk for the future of Singapore. We do not need that today.

The PAP put Singapore on the world map within five years of independence and, after 45 years of independence today, we see ourselves as a regional superpower in terms of economic development. Dr Chee is also wrong to say we have a brain drain with Singaporeans leaving for other countries. He failed to mention how many of these Singaporeans return and how many are stuck in their adopted country longing to return. We have foreign talent now to supply the know-how we require for development and survival. Thanks to the PAP again.

They say 'walk the talk'. In my opinion, the PAP need not be confronted today. It has given all Singaporeans and even non-Singaporeans an island to call their home with good opportunities. It is safe and peaceful here. That is what every citizen of any country needs and what every world leader should give his people. We do not need an opposition for the sake of having one. We do not need confrontation, but rather a contribution of opinions and suggestions to a system that is already working well.

Dr Chee's thoughts and ideas are outdated, irrelevant and will not do any good for Singapore.

Joshua Selvakumar