<TABLE border=0 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%"><TBODY><TR class=msghead><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>kojakbt89 <NOBR></NOBR> </TD><TD class=msgDate width="30%" noWrap align=right>Mar-31 12:34 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> </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TR><TR><TD class=msgleft rowSpan=4 width="1%"> </TD><TD class=wintiny noWrap align=right>46878.1 </TD></TR><TR><TD height=8></TD></TR><TR><TD class=msgtxt>The Problem with PAP’s Tin Pei Ling
April 1st, 2011 |
Author: Contributions |
Edit
Tin Pei Ling
Much has been said over the past few days about the inadequacies of Tin Pei Ling, with netizens labeling her Singapore’s Sarah Palin. I will be the first to admit that it was very difficult to not be drawn into the banal and often overly personal insults / insinuations that were being thrown her way. It was just too fun to throw the ‘kitchen sink’, so to speak, at an establishment candidate.
However, we need to stop ourselves. We need to show that we can have level-headed debate about candidates and not devolve the discussion to insinuations of her marrying for power or thinking her immature because she stomped her feet in exasperation in the famed party convention video – we were all young once. The pleasure we are taking at her expense, schadenfreude as some might term it, is really unnecessary.
What we need to discuss and look to is what she has done/said in the capacity of a YP member or candidate, what she has done in her official capacity.
Two main things come to mind.
First, her introductory press conference. This was her first test as a public figure, as an MP and I am willing to say that she failed pretty miserably. The clip that has been circulating the web – her response to the question of her biggest regret – sticks out. It sticks out not because bringing her parents to Universal Studios is a regret someone cannot have, nor does it stick out simply because it was a poorly conceived, trivial answer. If we really want to read into her response and criticize her for it, we have to do it on the basis of what it represents. Remember that this is in the context of her first press conference as a candidate for the PAP… and she was asked about a presumably personal question in attempt to understand her better as an individual so that I can hopefully identify more with her and feel willing to vote for her as a result. The fact that she answered it in a way that lent no political credibility to her, and instead gave ammunition to so many who were obviously already going to study her so much more seriously given her age shows a complete lack of political acumen on her part. Is she not aware of the way the public is going to scrutinize her every answer and the need for her to prove herself, possibly more so than the rest, because of her age? I feel that the answers, as bad as they were in and of itself, represented a more alarming information about her inadequacy as a MP.
Secondly, I look to her speech at the party conference in 2007, found here – http://www.pap.org.sg/articleview.php?id=2746&cid=23
This, I feel, is fair game because she made it in her official capacity as YP member. Citizens who want to examine her adequacy need to look to policy opinions she has made in the past, and the rigor with which she is able to debate it to decide if she will be able to adequately represent their views. This is key as if I wanted an MP in parliament to represent my views, I would want him/her to be able to actually argue for my needs passionately – not in an incoherent and lackluster manner.
Looking at her speech, I once again find many signs of her inadequacies as an MP. First of all, she makes the bold statement at the head of her speech that the widening rich/poor gap is not the responsibility of the government. I cannot fault her for her opinion alone as perhaps I hold the minority view that it is precisely the responsibility of the government to deal with issues such as that, though I highly doubt it. What I need to fault her on though, is her ability to argue her position. I am not going to go into significant detail about why she was off the mark – but in general terms I felt her speech represented rather hap-hazard thinking and a very disorganized logic flow that ultimately contradicted her original bold statement. The reasoning for this is simple – she ends off with points on how to combat the rich/poor divide after spending a significant amount of time on a tangent about the need to respect our elders and that we are the masters of our own destiny. Her suggestion: advocate for the people who most need help through our elected MPs and get help for them using the tools provided by our national system.
WAIT A SECOND. I thought it wasn’t the governments responsibility? Why is she then advocating for something to be done within the government framework? Clearly it IS the government’s responsibility? Upon reading her speech a second time, I am willing to even give her the benefit of doubt that she actually meant to say that it isn’t the government who should be blamed for the rich-poor divide, especially since her preceding sentence seemed to suggest that. Even so, her logic doesn’t quite hold up. If you view the solution to the rich/poor divide to be government help, then would it not hold up logically that the continuation and in fact, widening of the rich/poor gap is due to inaction or inadequate action by the government? Hence, would it not be fair to conclude that the government can be blamed for its continued existence and exacerbation?
This is but a snippet of the “bold” statements she has made, and the “bold” solutions she is going to be fighting for in parliament. Do you really think she is up to the job of fighting for your needs in Parliament if she cannot even argue concisely and logically in a pre-rehearsed speech? What more off-the-cuff debates in Parliament against way more experienced and well-formed thinkers?
After all, the pre-requisite to having diverse voices in parliament is that the voices are able to make themselves heard. Can she?
She said “Let it never be said that the Young PAP is a bastion of yes-men and women, but young thinking Singaporeans who are prepared to speak our minds, defend and decide what is right and not just about being popular.”
You be the judge: Does her speech hold up as a YP member who speaks her mind and fights for what she believes in even if it isn’t popular, or is she really a yes-woman advertising herself as a “bold” thinker? Or is she just not really thinking?
.
Michael Lim
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
Much has been said over the past few days about the inadequacies of Tin Pei Ling, with netizens labeling her Singapore’s Sarah Palin. I will be the first to admit that it was very difficult to not be drawn into the banal and often overly personal insults / insinuations that were being thrown her way. It was just too fun to throw the ‘kitchen sink’, so to speak, at an establishment candidate.
However, we need to stop ourselves. We need to show that we can have level-headed debate about candidates and not devolve the discussion to insinuations of her marrying for power or thinking her immature because she stomped her feet in exasperation in the famed party convention video – we were all young once. The pleasure we are taking at her expense, schadenfreude as some might term it, is really unnecessary.
What we need to discuss and look to is what she has done/said in the capacity of a YP member or candidate, what she has done in her official capacity.
Two main things come to mind.
First, her introductory press conference. This was her first test as a public figure, as an MP and I am willing to say that she failed pretty miserably. The clip that has been circulating the web – her response to the question of her biggest regret – sticks out. It sticks out not because bringing her parents to Universal Studios is a regret someone cannot have, nor does it stick out simply because it was a poorly conceived, trivial answer. If we really want to read into her response and criticize her for it, we have to do it on the basis of what it represents. Remember that this is in the context of her first press conference as a candidate for the PAP… and she was asked about a presumably personal question in attempt to understand her better as an individual so that I can hopefully identify more with her and feel willing to vote for her as a result. The fact that she answered it in a way that lent no political credibility to her, and instead gave ammunition to so many who were obviously already going to study her so much more seriously given her age shows a complete lack of political acumen on her part. Is she not aware of the way the public is going to scrutinize her every answer and the need for her to prove herself, possibly more so than the rest, because of her age? I feel that the answers, as bad as they were in and of itself, represented a more alarming information about her inadequacy as a MP.
Secondly, I look to her speech at the party conference in 2007, found here – http://www.pap.org.sg/articleview.php?id=2746&cid=23
This, I feel, is fair game because she made it in her official capacity as YP member. Citizens who want to examine her adequacy need to look to policy opinions she has made in the past, and the rigor with which she is able to debate it to decide if she will be able to adequately represent their views. This is key as if I wanted an MP in parliament to represent my views, I would want him/her to be able to actually argue for my needs passionately – not in an incoherent and lackluster manner.
Looking at her speech, I once again find many signs of her inadequacies as an MP. First of all, she makes the bold statement at the head of her speech that the widening rich/poor gap is not the responsibility of the government. I cannot fault her for her opinion alone as perhaps I hold the minority view that it is precisely the responsibility of the government to deal with issues such as that, though I highly doubt it. What I need to fault her on though, is her ability to argue her position. I am not going to go into significant detail about why she was off the mark – but in general terms I felt her speech represented rather hap-hazard thinking and a very disorganized logic flow that ultimately contradicted her original bold statement. The reasoning for this is simple – she ends off with points on how to combat the rich/poor divide after spending a significant amount of time on a tangent about the need to respect our elders and that we are the masters of our own destiny. Her suggestion: advocate for the people who most need help through our elected MPs and get help for them using the tools provided by our national system.
WAIT A SECOND. I thought it wasn’t the governments responsibility? Why is she then advocating for something to be done within the government framework? Clearly it IS the government’s responsibility? Upon reading her speech a second time, I am willing to even give her the benefit of doubt that she actually meant to say that it isn’t the government who should be blamed for the rich-poor divide, especially since her preceding sentence seemed to suggest that. Even so, her logic doesn’t quite hold up. If you view the solution to the rich/poor divide to be government help, then would it not hold up logically that the continuation and in fact, widening of the rich/poor gap is due to inaction or inadequate action by the government? Hence, would it not be fair to conclude that the government can be blamed for its continued existence and exacerbation?
This is but a snippet of the “bold” statements she has made, and the “bold” solutions she is going to be fighting for in parliament. Do you really think she is up to the job of fighting for your needs in Parliament if she cannot even argue concisely and logically in a pre-rehearsed speech? What more off-the-cuff debates in Parliament against way more experienced and well-formed thinkers?
After all, the pre-requisite to having diverse voices in parliament is that the voices are able to make themselves heard. Can she?
She said “Let it never be said that the Young PAP is a bastion of yes-men and women, but young thinking Singaporeans who are prepared to speak our minds, defend and decide what is right and not just about being popular.”
You be the judge: Does her speech hold up as a YP member who speaks her mind and fights for what she believes in even if it isn’t popular, or is she really a yes-woman advertising herself as a “bold” thinker? Or is she just not really thinking?
.
Michael Lim
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
