• IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here.

    The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.

YPAP Nick Lazarus: Why the need for Opposition when PAP listens!

Porfirio Rubirosa

Alfrescian
Loyal
Wednesday, 27 August 2008
The Ever Redundant Opposition

Posted by Nicholas Lazarus at 9:32 AM


Whenever possible, the opposition will harp on the need for opposition voices to represent Singaporeans.

Their argument is that Singaporeans cannot voice out matters to the PAP and they need an opposition to do the voicing for them.

The opposition claims that Singaporeans are secretly unhappy with the PAP and that Singaporeans have repressed their unhappiness out of purported fear of the PAP. Whenever the opposition lose in the Elections, this is too is their excuse- that Singaporeans are afraid of PAP and so voted against the opposition.

Recently, events have shown the untruths and propaganda of the opposition.

When Singaporeans are unhappy with the Government, they waste no time in making their unhappiness known. They do not need the opposition.

When Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong announced a bonanza of tax benefits, leaves, a bigger "baby bonus" and other goodies to encourage more babies to take effect on 1 January 2009, there were protests and unhappiness expressed by mothers whose delivery was before such date.

The mothers to be and their families protested. They voiced their unhappiness.

There were emails sent and complaints on the blogs. There was an online petition ready to take effect. The mothers to be planned on going to their MP’s Meet the People sessions to express their unhappiness and demand the benefits.

The Government took note of the unhappiness and swiftly responded by backdating the benefits to 17 August 2008, the date when the Prime Minister first announced the benefits.
When the people are unhappy, they make their unhappiness known. There was certainly no fear here.

Likewise, when people were unhappy by the decision by the Singapore Table Tennis Association to sack table-tennis team manager Antony Lee, they made their unhappiness known too and the Government is listening.

The opposition seems to have no part in this interaction between the people and their Government. And there is no need too.

Singapore is fast becoming a modern Athean democracy where the citizens are partaking in the democratic process by engaging the Government and pointing out the deficiencies so that the Government may address them. They are doing this in a very rational in calm manner- by emails, discussions, forums, feedback sessions, blogs, letters and face to face interaction.

The Government too is responding swiftly to the people and acting upon it. In fact, the Government has to do so and this is the best "check" on the Government – the people themselves who will not wait till election time to address issues that concern them.

If the opposition cannot even get involved in the issues of the day that concern the people, are they not redundant?
 

Porfirio Rubirosa

Alfrescian
Loyal
Taken from TOC

On the Opposition’s redundancy
Saturday, 30 August 2008, 11:12 am |
The following is a reply by Lim Jialiang to a blog post by Young PAP member Nicholas Lazarus titled, “The ever redundant opposition”, on the Young PAP blog.

Lim Jialiang / Guest Writer


I feel compelled to correct the limited and flawed understanding that you have of Athenian Democracy (misspelled as Athean Democracy); and how you belittle the importance of the opposition in the modern democracy that you speak of. I will also be addressing the point which you claim - that the opposition is rendered redundant on the fact that the citizens’ themselves can ‘check’ the government.

Firstly, your understanding of an Athenian Democracy is flawed. It is impossible to draw a comparison between an Athenian Democracy vis-à-vis the current Singaporean Democracy due to them being different systems of democracy altogether. In an Athenian Democracy, we are looking at the case of a DIRECT Democracy. In contrast, Singapore uses a REPRESENTATIVE Democracy. When you do see 3.65 million Singapore citizens streaming into Parliament to vote on legislation, I’ll concede the point and say that we are moving towards an Athenian Democracy.

Also, mentioning the fact that Singapore is becoming a ‘modern Athean democracy’ is just plain malarkey. That merely serves to be a red herring. In addition, having an Athenian Democracy is really nothing to be proud of, for it was highly selective, with only male Athens citizens being able to vote in it, and the women and slaves not being allowed to vote. You once again show how flawed your understanding of an Athenian Democracy is.

Even if I concede the point that we are moving towards an Athenian Democracy, you fail to substantiate how this has anything to do with the redundancy of the opposition as you have proposed.

Singapore is fast becoming a modern Athean democracy where the citizens are partaking in the democratic process by engaging the Government and pointing out the deficiencies so that the Government may address them. They are doing this in a very rational in calm manner- by emails, discussions, forums, feedback sessions, blogs, letters and face to face interaction.

In all democracies, it is a right, rather than a privilege, for a citizen to address any problems that they have through their representatives, which is the Member of Parliament (MP). The line above suggests to me that there has been a failure of the system for citizens to engage the government the past four decades, and that this primary right has only been re-established recently. This does not seem to show any indication of why the opposition is not needed. Moreover, if the basic right of citizens to partake in the democratic process has been denied to them for the past four decades, then it strengthens and reaffirms the need for an opposition, for the PAP is not able to grant this fundamental right that the opposition promises to give, if it can be given in the first place.

From the line above, I can thus conclude that you see the opposition of the citizens being enough to serve the cogs of democracy. However, you fail to underline a dangerous flaw in such a democracy. The incumbent party will only engage the citizens if and only if it is beneficial or along the party lines. There are many issues left untouched, which our MPs, who are supposed to be representing us in Parliament, have not brought up. The recent GST hikes which have brought undue inflationary pressures at a time where oil and food prices are at an all-time high. The regression of the lower classes’ income levels in the past decade. The situation of our public transport, which still packs us like sardines, or in conditions that even sardines will balk to hear about. All these are issues that have not been explored which you have conveniently left out.

Once again, there are limitations for the common citizen to address these issues adequately, and it is certainly not enough for the citizen to become the sole ‘opposition’ of the government. And if the incumbent does not deal with these issues in parliament, then who will? This thus exposes the dangers of a single-party system without an opposition.

True enough; the government has taken steps to change legislation in regards to the baby bonus.
However, it puzzles me why you’ve brought up the incident of the recent sacking of the table tennis coach by the president of the Singapore Table Tennis Association (STTA). You are mistaking the position which Lee Bee Wah is representing - she is merely the President of STTA, and this matter has no relation to the Government. Once again, you show a lack of understanding and discernment in choosing your examples to support your argument.

More importantly, you trivialise the opposition in your post. The opposition is dissolved into a bunch of sprawling bawling babies that make no coherent sense and is unsure of what it is doing.

Their argument is that Singaporeans cannot voice out matters to the PAP and they need an opposition to do the voicing for them.

This is not the argument of the opposition at all. The opposition does not have the arrogance to regard Singaporeans as mutes who are unable to voice their own views. The opposition serves to bring issues to Parliament for debate, issues that the incumbent sidesteps and ignores. That is why we need the opposition.

If the opposition cannot even get involved in the issues of the day that concern the people, are they not redundant?

Indeed, the opposition parties in Singapore cannot get involved in the issues of the day. After all, with an overwhelming majority with only two opposition members in Parliament, their voices are the minority. However, they have spoken time and again on issues that Singaporeans are concerned about. Is that not a form of getting involved with the issues of the day? One only has to read the Workers’ Party Manifesto in 2006 to see that they have clear agendas and issues set out for the governing of Singapore. To discount the opposition and say that they are redundant just because there is no form of physical action is foolish.

The citizen himself does not have enough power to serve as a check and balance on the government. This recent cartoon by the blog My Sketchbook highlights the importance of a political opposition. It isn’t the opposition that is redundant by choice. They are made redundant by the politics that is practised by the PAP.
 

lockeliberal

Alfrescian
Loyal
Dear Porifirio

Whatever happened to the notion that the "only way to keep the bastards honest" is to throw them out ? Democracy is only democracy if it is competitive. Democracy allows a citizens to pressure or to put its dissatisfaction across to the government only if the government feel's its rule is challenged.

What dear old nick fails to add, is that the SG Gov listens as long as it does not affect what it beliefs are its core principles which unfortunately affects everything else in this day and age. Just look at poor Lily Neo.

1. No welfare whether for the old young or the middle aged. If you can't survive its your fault and its up to society and family to help and not the government.

2. No direct subsidies in any form for anything related to consumption.

3. No questioning of policies set by the smartest people in the land. QED the policies are the best because they are set by the smartest, if there is something wrong with the policy then its an honest mistake or the fault of the people below.

4. No questioning of the governments need to squirrel away surpluses even though we are way past that need which was pretty evident in the past but less so today.


Locke
 

Porfirio Rubirosa

Alfrescian
Loyal
Locke,

Just look at the way the STTA/Lee Bee Wah affair was finally 'settled' by Vivian. That bloody media meeting looked like a page out of Stalin or Mao. And those padlers' glum faces spoke volumes. Not forgetting the ubiquitous "Let's move on":rolleyes:

Btw LHL's latest speech in parliament on Singapore's Electoral System about sums it up. Pure contempt for the Singaporean electorate and no respect for representative parliamentary practice. A sad black day for Singapore.

Cheers
 

zhihau

Super Moderator
SuperMod
Asset
... Democracy allows a citizens to pressure or to put its dissatisfaction across to the government only if the government feel's its rule is challenged ...

bro,

i only felt that our peoples are terribly shortchanged... :(
 

ahbengsong

Alfrescian
Loyal
YPAP like its paternal organisation does not know the meaning of competition.... and keep implying that with pap, sgp don't need an opposition.... thats the generation of "leaders" pap is breeding..... good riddance, I am out of sgp !!
 

kakowi

Alfrescian
Loyal
Your assumption is that the role of the Opposition is only to provide a voice for the people.

That is simplistic.

And inaccurate.

The primary roles of an Opposition for a developed economy are:

(1) to deny the ruling party the 2/3 majority. If there is a 2/3 majority then all their policies will get through Parliament. This can be unhealthy to Singaporeans.

If they do not have the 2/3 majority, it does not mean that their policies cannot get through Parliament. Rather they will now have to convince the Opposition that their policies have merit. This act of convincing will lead to greater rigorousness in policy formulation.

To the benefit of Singaporeans

(2) to be an Alternative Government. It is never wise to rely on only one opinion in the case of developed economies. There are just too much at stake.​

There are secondary roles for the Opposition. Amongst them would be:

(3) to voice the discontent of the people to the ruling party; to monitor the extent of their listening and their follow-up implementation, because a listener may not be a doer

(4) to show the ruling party a better way of serving the people. It is possible that after so many years of uninterrupted rule, the ruling party may feel that the people are there to serve them. An opposition member may not have that luxury and thus will work harder to make the people feel served.

(5) to build internal expertise on handling issues.

Five reasons is a good number for an initial post. I am sure there are others.



Thus what is needed is for each Voter:

(a) to educate themselves on their birthright - the power of their vote in determining the quality of their lives;

(b) That they should never sell off their birthright for a bowl of porridge;

(c) but listen to both parties, judge them by their actions and sincerely cast their vote for their preferred leader.​
 

zhihau

Super Moderator
SuperMod
Asset
(a) to educate themselves on their birth right - the power of their vote in determining the quality of their lives;

(b) That they should never sell off their birthright for a bowl of porridge;

(c) but listen to both parties, judge them by their actions and sincerely cast their vote for their preferred leader.​

the birth rights of sheep is to provide wool :biggrin:
 

kakowi

Alfrescian
Loyal
the birth rights of sheep is to provide wool :biggrin:

but the birthright of Singaporeans are capable, caring, compassionate political leaders who can give to them a good, better, best quality of life;

if not one party can do so, then it is best to choose that combination of parties which possibly can lead to it;

but of course if one party can definitely do it, then their achievements would show it unequivocally and the voter should vote for that party
 

zhihau

Super Moderator
SuperMod
Asset
... but the birthright of Singaporeans are capable, caring, compassionate political leaders who can give to them a good, better, best quality of life ...

but i thought economic digits have no rights? since when do serfs have rights? :biggrin:
 

methink

Alfrescian
Loyal
Locke,

Btw LHL's latest speech in parliament on Singapore's Electoral System about sums it up. Pure contempt for the Singaporean electorate and no respect for representative parliamentary practice. A sad black day for Singapore.

Cheers

Is the opposition redundant? Do we need an opposition?

Well a by-election could decide this.

Who is there to check on an arrogant PM running out of control?

Who else? But an opposition!
 
Last edited:

myjohnson

Alfrescian
Loyal
How many more days to the next GE mandated by law? Cause I want to tell the guy whom I owe a thousand bucks that he'll get the money days before the elections.
 

kakowi

Alfrescian
Loyal
pray tell that to the 1 million folks who lost their rights in the last GE :biggrin:

but they didn't lose their rights...they still have one vote.

some aspects are:

(a) the ruling party will do all they can to retain power and that includes implementing strategies, processes and systems that give them the advantage...and this includes understanding the psychology of voters

(b) there are walkovers

(c) there is no proportional representation or a more reasonable single-ward constituency...from empirical results, these are clearly to the disadvantage of the Opposition

Now, I speak from the perspective of one Voter to Voters:

Do not say that you are deprived of your vote. Say rather if you have thought it over carefully who you are going to vote, why you are voting this way and what will be the impact of voting this way.

Then you are doing all you can.

The rest are controlled by the ruling party to a great extent, and to the Opposition parties to a lesser extent.​

And now to the Opposition: sure the dice are loaded against you. But you must also admit that you load them against yourselves in some aspects.
 

zhihau

Super Moderator
SuperMod
Asset
but they didn't lose their rights...they still have one vote.

some aspects are:

(a) the ruling party will do all they can to retain power and that includes implementing strategies, processes and systems that give them the advantage...and this includes understanding the psychology of voters

(b) there are walkovers

(c) there is no proportional representation or a more reasonable single-ward constituency...from empirical results, these are clearly to the disadvantage of the Opposition

Now, I speak from the perspective of one Voter to Voters:

Do not say that you are deprived of your vote. Say rather if you have thought it over carefully who you are going to vote, why you are voting this way and what will be the impact of voting this way.

Then you are doing all you can.

The rest are controlled by the ruling party to a great extent, and to the Opposition parties to a lesser extent.​

And now to the Opposition: sure the dice are loaded against you. But you must also admit that you load them against yourselves in some aspects.

bro, i can't up your rep points so many times in a day... but keep it rolling! :p
 

scroobal

Alfrescian
Loyal
Your assumption is that the role of the Opposition is only to provide a voice for the people.

That is simplistic.

And inaccurate.

The primary roles of an Opposition for a developed economy are:

QUOTE]
Great post bro. Well articulated. Not many people understand the 2/3 equation and its significance.
 

guy2100

Alfrescian
Loyal
The day Singaporeans are generally contented lot and I can see smiling faces everywhere is the day I attest Singapore do not need opposition to challenge PAP dominance in government. Their policies are like the drug which slowly but surely poison the mind of the people whose only goal in life is to be number 1, attain more money and disdain the simple thing in life. Nicholas Lazarus, you are that very embodiment of the people i describe.
 

jesus

Alfrescian
Loyal
Btw LHL's latest speech in parliament on Singapore's Electoral System about sums it up. Pure contempt for the Singaporean electorate and no respect for representative parliamentary practice. A sad black day for Singapore.

Everyday is a sad black day for Singapore, since the Despot seized power.
 
Top