Why are they so afraid of an open debate?

[metalslug]

http://yoursdp.org/index.php/news/singapore/4698-why-are-they-so-afraid-of-an-open-debate-part-1

Why are they so afraid of an open debate? Part 1
Thursday, 31 March 2011
Vincent Wijeysingha

I represented the Singapore Democrats on Channel NewsAsia's (CNA) political panel discussion which will be aired on Saturday, 2 Apr, at 10 pm.

The state-run media have demonstrated a pattern of blacking out the SDP from their reporting and programming. And no wonder. Over the years, the Singapore Democrats have emerged as a credible political force, translating an effective party machinery and sound political philosophy into policy documents.


In November, we published our alternative economic programme at our second Pre-Election Rally, itself an unparalleled event in Singapore’s political history. Entitled It’s About You: Prosperity and Progress for Every Singaporean, this alternative sets out our party’s socio-economic philosophy based on a deep-structure critique of the problems Singapore is facing at this time.

The publication is a result of intense analytical exercise around our nation’s challenges, and takes an in-depth look at why these problems have arisen, and the role of the PAP’s ideology and priorities in generating this crisis.

It puts forward both an alternative framework of political-economic assumptions and a set of polity alternatives to benefit all the people of Singapore.

In March, the party again decisively occupied the political landscape with the publication of its Shadow Budget, again the first time in the history of our nation that such a document had been produced.

Entitled Empowering the Nation: Shadow Budget 2011, the document made clear proposals for the financial year 2011, carefully based on our party’s philosophy of Competence, Constructiveness and Compassion.

The overall thrust of the Shadow Budget is contained in three policy elements emphasising productivity and sustainability, trimming the bloated costs of government, and creating a home fit for all Singaporeans to live in.

With our productivity consistently failing to improve over the years (despite various policies designed to enhance it), government expenditure that is spiraling mainly due to the world’s highest wages and bonuses that minister pay themselves, and the rapid increase in poverty, inaccessibility of public services due to the profit motive being implicated in our housing, healthcare and education, the Shadow Budget puts forward a sensible and coherent programme that, in fact, manages to be costed at less than the previous year’s PAP budget.

My purpose in going through these publications is to make the argument that in a democratic society and one where the government party of the moment is not insecure of its own positions and popularity, it would not shy away from a free and open policy debate.

The PAP, on the other hand, is highly apprehensive of the electorate. After years of mismanagement of the economy, the hundreds of billions of our money wasted in ill-judged investments, the crippling of access to public services through the introduction of the profit motive, I would be too.

And yet it continues to reward itself quite out of measure with its failures.

If I were guilty of such a track record, I too would hide behind the now obvious ban that the PAP-controlled media have imposed on discussing SDP’s programmes. I hear that in the past, DJs at Caldecott Hill were not allowed to mention Dr Chee Soon Juan's book Dare To Change on air.

My point is that even though the SDP had brought out unprecedented policy documents, both SPH and MediaCorp have refused, despite calls from this website to do so, to carry detailed analyses of our proposals.

All this seemed to change when we were invited to CNA's programme. However, all was not as it seemed with the forum.

First, as has been reported on this website, the host insisted that all participants should fulfill three criteria: they should be a member of their party’s Central Executive Committee (CEC) and an office-bearer, and eligible to stand for election.

Its justification was that it wanted participants who had a stake in the coming elections, an unstable line of reasoning since all members of political parties have a stake in elections: the winning of seats in Parliament is one of the key tasks of a political party.

No doubt, the criteria set by CNA were designed to keep from participating in the programme the SDP’s Secretary-General, Dr Chee Soon Juan, by far its most eloquent and compelling advocate.

However, the SDP complied with CNA’s criteria and appointed me to represent the party, and I considered it an honour to address my fellow citizens on what the SDP is able to offer the nation.

Prior to recording on Caldecott Hill, I asked the CNA executives if both the PAP participants (yes, the PAP was allocated two places, the opposition parties only one each) met the criteria set by CNA and I was assured that they did.

The PAP’s representatives were Josephine Teo, MP, and Finance Minister, Tharman Shanmugaratnam. It is curious that while other forums have included rank and file PAP MPs, this forum, the first to feature the SDP, caused it to send a cabinet minister.

No matter. Having led on the SDP’s Shadow Budget, I was eager to debate Minister Tharman, a call that many netizens have made since our Shadow Budget was published.

I had asked CNA for the names of the other participants; this information was not given to me. So, I only found out who the PAP reps were on the day. The following day, I checked up the PAP website and found that Josephine Teo meets only 33% of CNA’s criteria, ie she is eligible to stand for elections. She is neither a CEC member nor an office-bearer within it.

I telephoned the same CNA executive who had refused to give me the names of the other participants and was first told that Ms Teo was an MP. I reminded my interlocutor that this met only one of the criteria.

I was then told that the criteria only applied to the opposition participants. I reminded her that this was not made known in advance and reminded her also of her reluctance to reveal the names of the other participants. Clearly, they did not wish me to query Ms Teo’s inclusion in the programme, since she did not meet the criteria.

The executive had no further defenses to offer and therefore I was unable to come to any other conclusion than that the criteria were only to apply to the non-PAP participants, and more so that the SDP’s Secretary-General, whom the PAP is so fearful of, should be kept out of the programme.

To me, quite apart from the unpleasantness of dealing with CNA’s perfidy, this reluctance to engage with the SDP except under highly controlled conditions designed to give the upper hand to the governing party, is a sign not of our limitations but precisely a sign of our credibility and the strength of our arguments.

The PAP’s desire to keep the SDP out of the public domain, through its control of the mainstream media, is evidence precisely of its failures and its insecurity. This is a party running scared.

In Part 2, Dr Wijeysingha talks about the arguments he raised at the CNA programme.

 

[cooleo]

"Who scared who?! Lai la!"

 

[Char_Azn]

In most cases, they dun want other pple to hear what pple like Chiam and Low has to say coz it will make the government look bad. In Chee's case they don't want pple to hear what he has to say coz it will make the local media look bad for showing something that downright moronic

 

[Rogue Trader]

bow wow wow

Fetch boy!

 

[Received_by_Kings]

The SDP, with the blessed (?!) leadership of the male Asian arthouse model Chee Soon of the Juan family fame, has a high level of articulation when it comes to paper, but unfortunately in person they are like those people who are highly articulate but are openly embarassing and greatly untrustworthy, sort of like Steven Lim in the latter categories but with language skills of course.

 

[haylee]

enjoy here

-

 

[Kotaro Fuma]

but unfortunately in person they are like those people who are highly articulate but are openly embarassing and greatly untrustworthy, sort of like Steven Lim in the latter categories but with language skills of course.

Including you SamuelStalin.

 

[Forvendet]

This VW is not only fucking gay but also a fucking joker. PAP scared of SDP? LOL! He's let into the inner ring of SDP alright. Must keep the international media impressioned that PAP is oppressing SDP in order to keep themselves relevant to their donors and sponsors.

 

[GoldenDragon]

This VW is not only fucking gay but also a fucking joker. PAP scared of SDP? LOL! He's let into the inner ring of SDP alright. Must keep the international media impressioned that PAP is oppressing SDP in order to keep themselves relevant to their donors and sponsors.

PAP only afraid of GMS after he cornered two PAP lawyers, one a SC. GMS is the best!

 

[Forvendet]

PAP only afraid of GMS after he cornered two PAP lawyers, one a SC. GMS is the best!

Of course he's best, even aliens are scared and flew their UFOs away.

 

[myfoot123]

[COLOR="_______"]When policies have no basis but to bring more sufferings to Singaporeans, when an answer holds no water in open debate. PAP will not want to conduct live debate on TV. They prefer their cushy chairs in parliament where their gang sang the same tune. That makes life easier and I can tell you that if Singapore has tsunami like Japan, you need to force these MPs out of their ivory tower to do something or they will just cry freak and called in their tai chi master.[/COLOR]

 

[metalslug]

http://yoursdp.org/index.php/news/singapore/4699-why-are-they-so-afraid-of-an-open-debate-part-2

Why are they so afraid of an open debate? Part 2
Saturday, 02 April 2011
Vincent Wijeyshingha

The producers of the CNA programme which will be aired tonight threw in arrangements that disadvantaged the opposition. Half the allotted time was given to the PAP: for a one-hour show that meant that the four opposition parties represented each had 7.5 minutes while the PAP had 30.

On behalf of the SDP, I stated our position clearly: Singapore is at a crossroads. The domestic scene is also one of flux with the huge impact of our immigration policy on the community as a whole, the low level of job creation, the driving down of wages together with the rapid rise in inflation, and the constant increases in fees, licenses and costs of living.

The PAP dominated as it is by the thinking of one man – former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew – who through succession by patronage and sidelining of his old guard colleagues, has ensured that no one of any sufficient calibre is at its leadership.

I pointed out that the people of Singapore are clear that the PAP is no longer up to the task. The people of Singapore need a government that is competent, able to look confidently into the future and propose constructive policies, but also one that is mindful that no everyone will be able to take advantage of the climate and will therefore need the passionate support of his or her fellow citizens.

The PAP’s Budget in March, I reminded viewers, was a good example of a lacklustre government, no longer in command of its brief or even aware of the situation for ordinary people on the ground.

In recent days, the Prime Minister has called for Singaporeans to think carefully when they vote in the general elections.

We in the SDP think so too: with wages at significantly low levels and in fact having fallen, hundreds of billions of our money lost in bad investments, the cost of living making it impossible for ordinary people to afford even basic necessities, the immigration policy throwing up many social problems in addition to significantly depressing local wages, and ministers paying themselves the highest wages in the world and bonuses that even the private sector cannot compete with, the Singaporean voter must ask himself whether the party responsible for these outcomes can and should be trusted to govern our country anymore.

I cited a UBS study which showed our standard of living to be on a par with Russia, with all its social and economic problems (despite Goh Chok Tong’s much vaunted Swiss standard of living). The report also showed our wages to be lower than all the Asian tigers. Minister Tharman suggested that the study was, in his words, flawed. Unfortunately, he didn’t elaborate. I challenge him to do so.

In part two of the programme we discussed the cost of living and the immigration policy. Or rather, the opposition participants discussed them, while the PAP participants simply repeated its timeworn and – we now know inaccurate – views, that the government is trying its best to alleviate costa.

Its only solution is to give the people some subsidies which, when calculated carefully, leave the Singaporean rather more in debt that the subsidies can pay for) and that Singapore needs foreign workers.

While not disputing that any economy should be inviting of skilled foreigners, the opposition parties reminded the PAP that they have shown themselves singularly unable to resolve the driving down of wages and the social challenges that are the outcomes of the policy.

Both Minister Tharman and Ms Teo were unable to respond to those assessments although he did at one stage remind us that 85% of Singaporeans own their own home. Unfortunately, no one has told him that in paying for their own homes, they have depleted their old age savings to such an extent that we see countless elderly people working as cleaners, selling tissue paper, or collecting tin cans and cardboard to make ends meet.

I argued that the SDP has a policy programme specifically designed to answer these challenges by way of zero-rating GST on basic goods and services, introducing a no-profit approach in public services, bringing in a Singaporeans First policy that many other labour receiving countries now have, and lowering the exorbitant cost of government itself.

At the end of the show, Ms Teo said, in her summing up, that she saw Singapore as a book that we are all writing together. While no one would challenge the feel-good nature of such an image, I reminded her that not everyone is entitled to contribute: those honest, decent and loyal people who have tried to posit different policies and approaches have been fined, jailed, bankrupted and jailed for their efforts. For example, the debacle of Operation Spectrum which has never brought any evidence against the 22 who were imprisoned for their so-called Marxist attempt to overthrow the state by force, a now laughable proposition.

Following the programme’s recording, all participants’ were interviewed on their thoughts on the forum. Minister Tharman said the show evidenced a deep concern about wanting to have a sense of fairness in our society, which everyone shares.

According to him, “That’s foremost in our minds in the PAP.” He was only half right: The opposition parties showed this clearly in our statements and contributions.

He and Ms Teo, on the other hand, distinguished themselves by repeating the now-outdated view ignoring the struggles that ordinary people face on the ground, and disregarding the terrible injustice that is caused by paying themselves such high wages while people are forced to take jobs that pay them in a year what cabinet ministers earn in a day.

We in the SDP don't want “a sense of fairness”, we want real fairness.

The PAP emerged wanting in the debate. Even wheeling out one of their big guns, the man who wrote its budget for this next year, was not sufficient to show that it is competent to still run our nation.

And whether the people of Singapore are able to express their views in the coming general elections is dependent upon whether all the information about the political parties and their policies is made available to them. Judging by the continuing stranglehold that the men and women of SPH and Media Corp are comfortable to continue working under, this will be a struggle.


Read also: Why are they so afraid of an open debate? Part 1