[Breaking News] Chiam See Tong and Kenneth Jeyaratnam to join power gun down GRC!

[nextinfidel]

no i wish he just become fully paralyse to witness the MIW lose and his son get kick out from parliament.


Better still witness PAP get kick out totally!

afte they get kicked out, its time to investigate them thoroughly for all the corruptions.

any suggestions for a GRC?? I'd say AMK or Tj Pagar.

 

[Lee Hsien Tau]

http://singaporeenquirer.sg/?p=4457


Chiam and Jeyaretnam in talks over GE tie-up

August 28, 2009 by admin
By Kor Kian Beng from Straits Times

TWO of the most familiar names in Singapore’s opposition scene -Jeyaretnam and Chiam – are in talks on joining forces for the next general election.

MP Chiam See Tong told The Straits Times he has his eye on getting Mr Kenneth Jeyaretnam, the elder son of late opposition leader J.B. Jeyaretnam, to make up a team to contest a GRC in the election due by early 2012. ‘We hope to get Kenneth on to the GRC team,’ he said last night at his Meet-the-People session.

Mr Chiam, 74, who has been MP of the Potong Pasir single-seat ward since 1984, had declared last year his intention to form a GRC team for the next election.

When contacted, Mr Jeyaretnam, chief of the one-year-old Reform Party, said meetings had been held to discuss possible areas of cooperation. ‘We considered options but things are at an exploratory stage,’ said the 50-year-old.

He added that the talks reflect his party’s keenness to promote cooperation among the opposition parties.

Sources close to both sides said at least two meetings have been held since June, to explore ways for closer collaboration. The most recentwas held early last month at the building in Eunos that is owned by the Singapore Malay National Organisation or PKMS.

However, a meeting slated for last Saturday was scrapped at the last minute. Mr Chiam, when asked for a reason, declined to comment.

No further dates have been set.

During the talks, the two leaders indicated that one option for collaboration is for the Reform Party to join the Singapore Democratic Alliance (SDA), led by Mr Chiam. The SDA is a grouping of three political parties: Mr Chiam’s Singapore People’s Party, PKMS and the Singapore Justice Party.

The first public hint of Mr Chiam’s support for the Reform Party was his presence at Speakers’ Corner in Hong Lim Park on Aug 10 when Mr Jeyaretnam delivered the party’s National Day message.

Snagging a GRC seems to be the driving force behind both sides’ desire to team up.

Mr Chiam feels that the chances of winning a GRC would be higher with Mr Jeyaretnam on his team, said the source.

The hedge fund manager obtained a double first-class degree in economics from Cambridge University and had worked in London’s financial sector.

Married with a 12-year-old son, Mr Jeyaretnam returned with his family to Singapore in April last year.

Five months later, his father died at age 82. In March this year, he joined his father’s Reform Party and took over as secretary-general a month later.

It is believed to have at least 20 members and wants to work with the SDA to tap on its resources for the next election.

Mr Jeyaretnam said his party is attracting interest from Singaporeans with its message of change and reform.

Last year, merger talks between former SDA member National Solidarity Party and Mr Chiam’s SPP were scuppered after it met with resistance within the SDA.

 

[kakowi]

During the talks, the two leaders indicated that one option for collaboration is for the Reform Party to join the Singapore Democratic Alliance (SDA), led by Mr Chiam.

Mr Chiam feels that the chances of winning a GRC would be higher with Mr Jeyaretnam on his team, said the source.

I do not know if the choice of words were deliberate but one interpretation is that Mr Chiam wants the Reform Party to be under his thumb.

If that is true, KJ should understand the implications of such collaboration.


It is also important for KJ to check if Mr Chiam's wife is on the Potong Pasir Town Council. If she is, then KJ should question Mr Chiam on this and consider carefully the answers.


Mr Chiam and Mr Low pride themselves on being opposition members for such a long time. It is my opinion that they are unlikely to want to share power with a person of independent mind.


Other options

(1) KJ may consider the NMPs - the non-controversal ones especially and have the Reform Party form a team with some of them. If this is possible...

(2) KJ must consider the possibility of standing in as a single ward candidate. He should not gamble away the GE opportunity by having high-flown dreams of GRC. Even Mr Low and Mr Chiam do not move away from their entrenched single ward position (all these years). So why should KJ? KJ have a first-class honours but Mr Low and Mr Chiam have the street-smarts.

(3) If KJ has idealistic dreams of having a united party, he should still keep to a single ward strategy but let his kah-kia pursue his idealism.

It will be good if KJ can enter Parliament. At least we will know if a tiger turns into a mouse, guarding his own mousehole and cheese. Even then, Singaporeans will have three fattened mice to represent their interests. Better than nothing.

 

[Lee Hsien Tau]

Interesting that you mentioned Mrs Chiam; Indeed she is reported to be on the Potong Pasir Town Council.

You recall, of course, how Mr Chiam objected to how Ling How Doong, Chio Chai Chen ran their Town Councils. He, however, hypocritically, is doing the same thing.


:oIo::oIo::oIo::oIo:

I do not know if the choice of words were deliberate but one interpretation is that Mr Chiam wants the Reform Party to be under his thumb.

If that is true, KJ should understand the implications of such collaboration.


It is also important for KJ to check if Mr Chiam's wife is on the Potong Pasir Town Council. If she is, then KJ should question Mr Chiam on this and consider carefully the answers.


Mr Chiam and Mr Low pride themselves on being opposition members for such a long time. It is my opinion that they are unlikely to want to share power with a person of independent mind.


Other options

(1) KJ may consider the NMPs - the non-controversal ones especially and have the Reform Party form a team with some of them. If this is possible...

(2) KJ must consider the possibility of standing in as a single ward candidate. He should not gamble away the GE opportunity by having high-flown dreams of GRC. Even Mr Low and Mr Chiam do not move away from their entrenched single ward position (all these years). So why should KJ? KJ have a first-class honours but Mr Low and Mr Chiam have the street-smarts.

(3) If KJ has idealistic dreams of having a united party, he should still keep to a single ward strategy but let his kah-kia pursue his idealism.

It will be good if KJ can enter Parliament. At least we will know if a tiger turns into a mouse, guarding his own mousehole and cheese. Even then, Singaporeans will have three fattened mice to represent their interests. Better than nothing.

 

[kakowi]

Interesting that you mentioned Mrs Chiam; Indeed she is reported to be on the Potong Pasir Town Council.

There may well be valid reasons.

But if talks are resumed, it is important for a person wanting to be a political partner with another, to ask for answers.

Firstly, to give that person a chance to set straight his position and values.

Secondly, to decide for your ownself if you are willing to trust his answers.

Only then can a political partnership be possible.

 

[kakowi]

i would say the same goes for voters too, that they need to be aware of the values of their own politicians

what voters really need are good alternatives and so far, KJ seems like a good bet

maybe he has a membership crisis but he must remember that what he needs is a foothold at this time

a single-ward seat will give him that

 

[Perspective]

I do not know if the choice of words were deliberate but one interpretation is that Mr Chiam wants the Reform Party to be under his thumb.

I think if you had a better understanding of an alliance where all partners are of equal strength, Chiam/SPP wouldn't exactly be bring RP "under his thumb", or at least not for long, especially if they all contest in a GRC together and also Chiam's age and health.

Mr Chiam and Mr Low pride themselves on being opposition members for such a long time. It is my opinion that they are unlikely to want to share power with a person of independent mind.

An understatement. Chiam shared SDP with fellow lawyer Ling and a doctorate holder Chee. Low shared WP with lawyer Sylvia, a CFO Tan Wui Hua and the now-doctorate holder James Gomez. But I think some independent minds would at times want to be a big fish in small pond.

 

[scroobal]

I think you are putting too much emphasis on the partnership. Its not a marriage, neither a tryst but a convenient superficial pact similar to Mao's United Front Doctrine. Both pretty much know the landscape and KJ was in the thicks of things when his father was fighting in Anson. I am sure he knows about Chiam's autocratic style.

Chiam having garnered a single seat is aiming for GRC as the last shot not as candidate but as a facilitator. KJ knows the meaning of brand value having 2 sets of established names, chiam-jeyaretnam in the voters mind.
The issues are probably Chiam's singular veto rights in the current SDA and composition of candidates.

What is interesting is the venue of their meeting so we are probably looking at a broad based representation.

Overall getting a GRC should be paramount and worth the risk as it will crack the edifice of Singaporean mindset as it similarly did in 84 and 91.

The NMP thing is seriously out of whack. Who did you have in mind that can cut the mustard?

There may well be valid reasons.

But if talks are resumed, it is important for a person wanting to be a political partner with another, to ask for answers.

Firstly, to give that person a chance to set straight his position and values.

Secondly, to decide for your ownself if you are willing to trust his answers.

Only then can a political partnership be possible.

 

[Perspective]

The issues are probably Chiam's singular veto rights in the current SDA

Understand that Chiam's veto has expired.

 

[scroobal]

Thats interesting. You probably know that the veto was the result of Chee and I am sure he will try and get it back. Once bitten twice shy. There are a fair few loose cannons that need to be held back.

Understand that Chiam's veto has expired.

 

[Perspective]

Thats interesting. You probably know that the veto was the result of Chee and I am sure he will try and get it back. Once bitten twice shy. There are a fair few loose cannons that need to be held back.

My view has always been that if a leader turns off his entire party executive, it's quite a feat, so perhaps he should examine himself. Even if a portion but less than half of a party's executive leave, it might not be so much of a leader issue. WP under Low and SDP under Chee had people leaving their leaderships but not to that magnitude, and both parties were able to renew to an extent.

The bid to expel Chiam as a member was carried by all except one who was Sin Kek Tong and now the SPP chair. And then years later today Sin has also been criticizing Chiam incessantly. Chee alone couldn't have had the power to oust Chiam. Also that the majority stuck to SDP. All the time SDP has remained bigger compared to SPP and is renewing still but not the latter.

My bottomline point is that for Chiam to "hold" he needs not veto power but understand where he has gone wrong. Then you can hold or lose some loose cannons and retain the good ones.

 

[scroobal]

I am well aware of intensity of feelings about Chiam by his exco. One spouse wrote to the old SBF forum expressing disappointment with Chiam and that her husband was planning to publish a book on it. Jufrie probably hates Chiam more than he does old man.

If you notice, Low, Chiam, JBJ, Chee and our forever alive old man are singular in purpose and all showed autocratic traits. This is synonmous with under developed democracies where party caucus carries little wait. Thats also the reason why Maurice Neo who is a people person cannot lead a political party despite his acumen for political strategy.

Candidates and party officials must bear in mind that there can only be one tiger on the hill. Its a misnomer to think that Political party activities need to be democractic in nature in a democratic elections. Too many cooks spoils the broth. Party ideology and goals should be the main focus and not equality within the party.

Note that in Western societies with mature democracies it is no different. There is constant backstabbing within party caucus and members. Note the bitter fight between clinton and obama. Note how Thatcher was thrown out not by the people but the party caucus and they paid the price.

Note that when Chiam was kicked out, SDP went no where while under Chee. Chiam has wins under his belt including the 1991 3 seats. Not an easy achievement by any means. Also note that none of the chaps from Chiam's disgruntled team ever went on to set up another party or did anything as an independent worthwhile forsaking your coffee for. Thats ample evidence after all these years.

Here is the tip - a political leader is not mother theresa and will never be.

My view has always been that if a leader turns off his entire party executive, it's quite a feat, so perhaps he should examine himself. Even if a portion but less than half of a party's executive leave, it might not be so much of a leader issue. WP under Low and SDP under Chee had people leaving their leaderships but not so much in that magnitude, and both parties were able to renew to an extent.

The bid to expel Chiam as a member was carried by all except one who was Sin Kek Tong and now the SPP chair. And then years later today Sin has also been criticizing Chiam incessantly. Chee alone couldn't have had the power to oust Chiam. Also that the majority stuck to SDP. All the time SDP has remained bigger compared to SPP and is renewing still but not the latter.

My bottomline point is that for Chiam to "hold" he needs not veto power but understand where he has gone wrong. Then you can hold or lose some loose cannons and retain the good ones.

 

[kakowi]

The NMP thing is seriously out of whack. Who did you have in mind that can cut the mustard?

It all depends on whether the NMPs has acceptance amongst the mainstream public.

If they have the acceptance of the public , then a team of NMPs would seriously be the dream team that can make that difference in the GRC.

That would render irrelevant the likes of Low and Chiam.

Who can cut the mustard? I do not know. I would however seek to answer - are the NMPs considered credible in the minds of the public? And would the NMPs like to establish their positions as bona fide politicians?

If they do, then that is a set of viable alternatives.

 

[kakowi]

An understatement. Chiam shared SDP with fellow lawyer Ling and a doctorate holder Chee. Low shared WP with lawyer Sylvia, a CFO Tan Wui Hua and the now-doctorate holder James Gomez. But I think some independent minds would at times want to be a big fish in small pond.

I think we have different understandings on 'independent mind'.

 

[Perspective]

Candidates and party officials must bear in mind that there can only be one tiger on the hill. Its a misnomer to think that Political party activities need to be democractic in nature in a democratic elections. Too many cooks spoils the broth. Party ideology and goals should be the main focus and not equality within the party.

Can't disagree with that. Even in a collective leadership, one voice would be more overwhelming, but it depends on who. But I feel that has nothing to do with whether the non-tigers are good enough to be tigers, or wanna-be tigers even if they are not tiger-material.

Note that when Chiam was kicked out, SDP went no where while under Chee. Chiam has wins under his belt including the 1991 3 seats. Not an easy achievement by any means. Also note that none of the chaps from Chiam's disgruntled team ever went on to set up another party or did anything as an independent worthwhile forsaking your coffee for. Thats ample evidence after all these years.

This makes the fact that SDP looks to be doing better than SPP, except in terms of and in spite of electoral results, interesting.

Here is the tip - a political leader is not mother theresa and will never be.

Agree. Right now there are about 5 active opposition parties/groups. Without the rewards of PAP-ship, I don't doubt the PAP could well splinter into double that number of parties - 10 or more.

 

[kakowi]

I think you are putting too much emphasis on the partnership. Its not a marriage, neither a tryst but a convenient superficial pact similar to Mao's United Front Doctrine. Both pretty much know the landscape and KJ was in the thicks of things when his father was fighting in Anson. I am sure he knows about Chiam's autocratic style.

I am afraid that the extent of my knowledge of singapore's politics is minimal. What I have is that report from the singapore inquirer which i have no way of establishing neutrality. Hence my cautious stand.

However seeing KJ's various write-ups to-date, my current impression is that he is but a babe in the woods compared to Mr Low and Mr Chiam.

KJ is not JBJ just as LHL is not LKY. Somehow the feeling of equality in terms of talent is not there, for me at least.

Nonetheless i do hold to the opinion that KJ is better off in a single ward seat. He can always establish a fight for the GRC using his more expendable pawns.

 

[Perspective]

I think we have different understandings on 'independent mind'.

On second thoughts, yes, I was wrong and took it to mean "substantial portfolio". You are right that this the "tiger" that Scroobal was referring to.

 

[kakowi]

Here is the tip - a political leader is not mother theresa and will never be.

Certainly that is the truth.

However below Mother Teresa, there are different grades of morality.

Thus a more suitable comparison is the moral values across politicians. Unfortunately such conclusions cannot be elaborated.

 

[scroobal]

Chia Shi Teck would be an excellent example.

I am afraid that the extent of my knowledge of singapore's politics is minimal. What I have is that report from the singapore inquirer which i have no way of establishing neutrality. Hence my cautious stand.

However seeing KJ's various write-ups to-date, my current impression is that he is but a babe in the woods compared to Mr Low and Mr Chiam.

KJ is not JBJ just as LHL is not LKY. Somehow the feeling of equality in terms of talent is not there, for me at least.

Nonetheless i do hold to the opinion that KJ is better off in a single ward seat. He can always establish a fight for the GRC using his more expendable pawns.

 

[Lee Hsien Tau]

Understood that Chiam tried to get the veto right renewed. No news if he got it.

But his chairman and erstwhile loyal dog realised he is second fiddle compared to kin, so attending other parties' gatherings in his own capacity.
Seeking his own pasture ground?

My view has always been that if a leader turns off his entire party executive, it's quite a feat, so perhaps he should examine himself. Even if a portion but less than half of a party's executive leave, it might not be so much of a leader issue. WP under Low and SDP under Chee had people leaving their leaderships but not to that magnitude, and both parties were able to renew to an extent.

The bid to expel Chiam as a member was carried by all except one who was Sin Kek Tong and now the SPP chair. And then years later today Sin has also been criticizing Chiam incessantly. Chee alone couldn't have had the power to oust Chiam. Also that the majority stuck to SDP. All the time SDP has remained bigger compared to SPP and is renewing still but not the latter.

My bottomline point is that for Chiam to "hold" he needs not veto power but understand where he has gone wrong. Then you can hold or lose some loose cannons and retain the good ones.