- Joined
- Jul 24, 2008
- Messages
- 33,627
- Points
- 0
[h=2]Civil society leaders and SDP hold own National Conversation roundtable[/h]
October 1st, 2012 |
Author: Correspondent
Civil society leaders and the Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) came together to discuss the future direction of Singapore and to provide a counter conversation to the one held by the PAP Government.
The roundtable discussion was held at the Quality Hotel last Sat (29 Sep).
Several of the speakers criticised the National Conversation as being staged and insincere in wanting to listen to the views of the people.
Ms Teo Soh Lung reminded the audience that S21, an initiative carried out under the Goh Chok Tong prime ministership and led by then PAP MP Dr Tan Cheng Bock, was nothing but talk. Nothing of substance has changed since then.
Back then, housing prices was an issue, today – after decades of talk – housing prices is still an issue. Likewise the present National Conversation seems to be more a PR exercise for the PAP.
Agreeing, Mr Samydorai Sinapan of the Think Centre said, “How much freedom do we have to speak in this Conversation?” He pointed out that before the PAP came to power, civil society was vibrant in Singapore with student organisations, labour unions and political parties actively speaking up. Today, everything is shut down.
Mr Kumaran Pillai, chief editor of The Online Citizen, felt the same way but went further to make an impassioned plea for Singaporeans to take action to bring about change. “Write to TOC if you see problems and we’ll publish it,” he said, “we need to do something about the situation and we cannot remain silent anymore.”
Carrying on the enthusiasm was Mr Andrew Loh of Publichouse.sg who called on civil society actors to come together with political parties to effect change. Politics, he told the crowd, is not a dirty word.
Dwelling on the issue of civil liberties, Mr Loh said that “at the end of the day, if we don’t have rights, the Government will trample all over you.” Political rights, he said, is the other side of the coin of economic issues.
Mr Alex Au who blogs on the Yawning Bread website took a slightly different tack, emphasizing the dangers of an economy that may have a First World feel to it but does not have the means to properly support important programs unless taxes are raised.
Representing human rights organisation MARUAH, Dr Paul Tambyah said that he was hopeful about the future of democracy in Singapore. With the opening up of Myanmar, Singapore is under pressure to keep up with changes within ASEAN.
Dr Vincent Wijeysingha who spoke for the SDP made the point that people should have a say in the decision-making process. Democratic participation, he said, was a duty of citizens, not a privilege as the PAP would have us think.
Many of the speakers while acknowledging that bread-and-butter issues were foremost in the minds of the public, nevertheless felt that the issue of human rights cannot be downplayed.
During the Q&A session that followed, a member of the audience asked why the other opposition parties did not participate in the forum and how would opposition unity come about if parties did not cooperate more (the SDP had invited all the opposition parties who contested in the 2011 GE to speak).
A couple of the panelists indicated that opposition unity is perhaps overrated and was not such a big factor in the voters’ minds when it comes to elections. Alex Au from Yawning Bread said that he would not necessarily support some of the opposition parties over the PAP in a straight fight. Voters, he said, ought to be given a choice in the type of opposition parties they wanted to see in Parliament.
Perhaps, parties could just develop their own strengths, TOC’s Mr Kumaran Pillai added. It was difficult to expect, given such differences in personalities and ideologies of the various parties, to come together.
Filmmaker Martyn See pointed out from the floor the power of the Internet and that the Government has had no choice but to react to some of the issues raised by bloggers. Dr Wiheysingha reinforced this view by calling on netizens to continue what they are doing because “they give oxygen” to important issues that would otherwise be buried by the state press.
As if to help underscore this point, none of the local media were present to report on the event.
With more and more younger voters who are Internet savvy and who rely less on the mainstream media for their news, it is difficult for the PAP to mentally condition youngsters compared to their older counterparts.
But whatever the issues and whatever the differences in views, one thing was clear: The pro-democracy forces are alive and well in Singapore. Their enthusiasm in wanting to see Singapore progress and become politically diverse and more pluralistic was in full display at the forum. It bodes well for the country.
Deep and long-lasting political reform can only occur when the political opposition and civil society come together to demand change. Hong Kong, Malaysia and Myanmar are good examples.
Singapore must not be left behind.
.
* TR Emeritus was also invited to the event, but our Singapore-based editor was unable to attend due to family commitments. However, he came for the second-half of the session and later met up with the panelists and members of the audience to discuss how TRE can help surface sociopolitical issues which would otherwise be buried by the mainstream media.
33 Votes
<META content=4.81818181818 itemprop="ratingValue"><META content=33 itemprop="ratingCount">
Civil society leaders and the Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) came together to discuss the future direction of Singapore and to provide a counter conversation to the one held by the PAP Government.
The roundtable discussion was held at the Quality Hotel last Sat (29 Sep).
Several of the speakers criticised the National Conversation as being staged and insincere in wanting to listen to the views of the people.
Ms Teo Soh Lung reminded the audience that S21, an initiative carried out under the Goh Chok Tong prime ministership and led by then PAP MP Dr Tan Cheng Bock, was nothing but talk. Nothing of substance has changed since then.
Back then, housing prices was an issue, today – after decades of talk – housing prices is still an issue. Likewise the present National Conversation seems to be more a PR exercise for the PAP.
Agreeing, Mr Samydorai Sinapan of the Think Centre said, “How much freedom do we have to speak in this Conversation?” He pointed out that before the PAP came to power, civil society was vibrant in Singapore with student organisations, labour unions and political parties actively speaking up. Today, everything is shut down.
Mr Kumaran Pillai, chief editor of The Online Citizen, felt the same way but went further to make an impassioned plea for Singaporeans to take action to bring about change. “Write to TOC if you see problems and we’ll publish it,” he said, “we need to do something about the situation and we cannot remain silent anymore.”
Carrying on the enthusiasm was Mr Andrew Loh of Publichouse.sg who called on civil society actors to come together with political parties to effect change. Politics, he told the crowd, is not a dirty word.
Dwelling on the issue of civil liberties, Mr Loh said that “at the end of the day, if we don’t have rights, the Government will trample all over you.” Political rights, he said, is the other side of the coin of economic issues.
Representing human rights organisation MARUAH, Dr Paul Tambyah said that he was hopeful about the future of democracy in Singapore. With the opening up of Myanmar, Singapore is under pressure to keep up with changes within ASEAN.
Dr Vincent Wijeysingha who spoke for the SDP made the point that people should have a say in the decision-making process. Democratic participation, he said, was a duty of citizens, not a privilege as the PAP would have us think.
Many of the speakers while acknowledging that bread-and-butter issues were foremost in the minds of the public, nevertheless felt that the issue of human rights cannot be downplayed.
During the Q&A session that followed, a member of the audience asked why the other opposition parties did not participate in the forum and how would opposition unity come about if parties did not cooperate more (the SDP had invited all the opposition parties who contested in the 2011 GE to speak).
A couple of the panelists indicated that opposition unity is perhaps overrated and was not such a big factor in the voters’ minds when it comes to elections. Alex Au from Yawning Bread said that he would not necessarily support some of the opposition parties over the PAP in a straight fight. Voters, he said, ought to be given a choice in the type of opposition parties they wanted to see in Parliament.
Perhaps, parties could just develop their own strengths, TOC’s Mr Kumaran Pillai added. It was difficult to expect, given such differences in personalities and ideologies of the various parties, to come together.
Filmmaker Martyn See pointed out from the floor the power of the Internet and that the Government has had no choice but to react to some of the issues raised by bloggers. Dr Wiheysingha reinforced this view by calling on netizens to continue what they are doing because “they give oxygen” to important issues that would otherwise be buried by the state press.
As if to help underscore this point, none of the local media were present to report on the event.
With more and more younger voters who are Internet savvy and who rely less on the mainstream media for their news, it is difficult for the PAP to mentally condition youngsters compared to their older counterparts.
But whatever the issues and whatever the differences in views, one thing was clear: The pro-democracy forces are alive and well in Singapore. Their enthusiasm in wanting to see Singapore progress and become politically diverse and more pluralistic was in full display at the forum. It bodes well for the country.
Deep and long-lasting political reform can only occur when the political opposition and civil society come together to demand change. Hong Kong, Malaysia and Myanmar are good examples.
Singapore must not be left behind.
.
* TR Emeritus was also invited to the event, but our Singapore-based editor was unable to attend due to family commitments. However, he came for the second-half of the session and later met up with the panelists and members of the audience to discuss how TRE can help surface sociopolitical issues which would otherwise be buried by the mainstream media.
33 Votes
<META content=4.81818181818 itemprop="ratingValue"><META content=33 itemprop="ratingCount">
