Goh Meng Seng mentors Nicole Seah on issues of pride and prejudice

[metalmickey]

Yes, she had herself, the Facebook era and Tin Pei Ling combined to create the effect. Glenda had only herself to fall on, but I recall that she created a stir before the internet era. We will see what effect can Nicole create in 2016, as more new Nicoles, Glendas and Angelas will always appear.

Let's not get our dates confused. The first elections of the internet era was 1997. By 2001, this forum was already quite active, in case your memory isn't that long ago. 2006 was the elections of the blog, when the internet started affecting the elections in a big way. Glenda Han made her debut long after the internet era, in the elections of the blog. She was part of the suicide squad whose claim to fame was not losing to Lee Hsien Loong 20% to 80%. People were talking about Glenda Han in the blogs. 2006 was the debut of the "new WP", in some way, and the elections where Sylvia Lim entered the public consciousness.

And it's not right to compare the two, she never created as much of a stir as Nicole Seah, even with the blogs talking about her. The Nicole Seah phenomenon would not have taken place if she were just a pretty face with a more pleasant personality than Tin Pei Ling. People could see that she spoke intelligently, and they knew what she stood for. (OK, volunteering at a tuition centre for the poor is not going to change the world but the fact is I wouldn't be able to name what it is Glenda Han stands for if you asked me).

LLL didn't win in 2011, and she wasn't close to winning either, although she was closer than Nicole Seah. In 2013, there was a big swing against the PAP, and if Nicole Seah ran for elections again, the same swing would have gotten her voted in. It's not only about the WP. Somebody from any other party would have benefitted from the same swing against the PAP. Guess we'll find out in 2016 what happens when you take away the WP factor and the Michael Palmer factor.

No, that's not what I said. The star and the boat are 2 different things. It depends on which one you want if you can take either only one.

You didn't understand what I wrote and you should go back and read it. Long story short, she probably didn't want either one before 2011.

At the fundamentals, Chee and SDP will always be the same. He's in-charge of the bizarre works that undoes 100 times the good efforts. Compare the similarities of 1993 glucose hunger strike and the 2013 Punggol East horseplay 20 years later. A number of people do take note of this.

In the 2011 elections he did behave himself well mostly, except for the incident that he shook hands with supporters at a rally and the newspaper picked up on this. Later on there was a heated argument behind doors. What this tells me is that it's not true that SDP is run like a one man dictatorship. Although maybe it is more like one now that the alternate power centres are gone.

Chee Soon Juan in 2008 organised a protest, and you could say that Singaporeans don't do this protesting thing, until one actually took place a mere five years later. The protesting culture has caught on, and you can see it everywhere on the internet, although the protests are more muted these days.

And how the SDP has changed, is that it's also shifted the emphasis away from protesting to formulating new policy and debating issues. Now CSJ has always done that, because back then he wrote a book called "Dare to Change" which I bought mainly for the novelty value back in the day. But the protesting aspect has always overshadowed the policy aspect. Now the Punggol East debacle has cost him: his stock has fallen because of a few dumb things he did and said during the build up. Wijeysingha may have gone as a result of Chee's mistakes, but who knows, he would have gone anyway.

 

[steffychun]

Nicole can't last. As much as I hate CJ at least he has stayed on though fighting with crap. Little bit like this make noise. CSJ faced more discrimination that her (even though he started in the non-facebook era) yet stays on, have three children etc etc..

 

[tanwahp]

Let's not get our dates confused. The first elections of the internet era was 1997. By 2001, this forum was already quite active, in case your memory isn't that long ago. 2006 was the elections of the blog, when the internet started affecting the elections in a big way. Glenda Han made her debut long after the internet era, in the elections of the blog. She was part of the suicide squad whose claim to fame was not losing to Lee Hsien Loong 20% to 80%. People were talking about Glenda Han in the blogs. 2006 was the debut of the "new WP", in some way, and the elections where Sylvia Lim entered the public consciousness.

I should have been more concise, but the internet tool was a gradually growing one, and in 1997/2001 there were forums but no blogs, 2006 there were blogs but no Facebook. Facebook and Twitter were playing bigger roles in 2011 and were easier to spread the word around about someone or something.

 

[tanwahp]

Chee Soon Juan in 2008 organised a protest, and you could say that Singaporeans don't do this protesting thing, until one actually took place a mere five years later.

I have no issue with Chee's protests. It's the glucose strike, Punggol East debacle, loudhailer incident and sudden closure of SDP youth wing that shows his bizarre side.

But there are 2 stories of the protest culture and opening Hong Lim. One says Chee's illegal protests led to it.

The other story doesn't give Chee credit. At that point, NUS students were beginning to show signs of making their voices heard through the black ribbon, MRT gatherings and candlelight virgil for Burma on campus. To verify, you will remember that the Burmese monks protest and shooting happened to be in 2007.

The former was loud and internet-visible. The other was silent, nearly away from the public eye but involved massively more people than the SDP one that involved 4 people at first.

 

[metalmickey]

I have no issue with Chee's protests. It's the glucose strike, Punggol East debacle, loudhailer incident and sudden closure of SDP youth wing that shows his bizarre side.

But there are 2 stories of the protest culture and opening Hong Lim. One says Chee's illegal protests led to it.

The other story doesn't give Chee credit. At that point, NUS students were beginning to show signs of making their voices heard through the black ribbon, MRT gatherings and candlelight virgil for Burma on campus. To verify, you will remember that the Burmese monks protest and shooting happened to be in 2007.

The former was loud and internet-visible. The other was silent, nearly away from the public eye but involved massively more people than the SDP one that involved 4 people at first.

No, my point was not that Chee Soon Juan deserved "credit" for a culture where more people protest.

There are all sorts of reasons why people protest more today. One of them is the social forces unleashed by the internet. Karl Marx said more than 100 years ago that when the factory workers come together, they will organise more protest movements, and he didn't get it 100% right, but Facebook does bring people together. They also created the Tea Party but that's another story. In America and Europe, there is a sense that since the end of the Cold War the rich people of the world have been screwing them over (which is true because the fact is that income inequality has risen a lot since then. In fact it started rising from the time of Reagan / Thatcher. So in the 90s there wasn't a lot of protests because people thought that life was pretty good, and the internet and the new economy was going to make everybody extremely wealthy. Of course that didn't happen, and for various reasons the world we live in is more screwed up now and people have more to protest about.

In Singapore, for various reasons - the govt is one of the major reasons - people also have more to protest about.

So CSJ didn't cause all this to happen. But it is still true that because the people have changed, they're more amenable to his style of politics than ever before. And that's my point. In fact, one very telling fact is that CSJ is hardly the most confrontational guy around today. He almost looks like a well mannered, respectable gentleman compared to the other people the govt has to deal with these days.

 

[tanwahp]

So CSJ didn't cause all this to happen. But it is still true that because the people have changed, they're more amenable to his style of politics than ever before. And that's my point. In fact, one very telling fact is that CSJ is hardly the most confrontational guy around today. He almost looks like a well mannered, respectable gentleman compared to the other people the govt has to deal with these days.

Those who matured politically earlier will not see him as "confrontational". He is mild by comparison to other internationally renowned reformers who stood up. So you are right that more people think that way because an increasing number are politically maturing.

But the bizarre side of him stays and I think this and political maturity are mutually exclusive.

 

[SgParent]

But it is still true that because the people have changed, they're more amenable to his style of politics than ever before. And that's my point. In fact, one very telling fact is that CSJ is hardly the most confrontational guy around today. He almost looks like a well mannered, respectable gentleman compared to the other people the govt has to deal with these days.

some say it's csj that has changed his style to suit more voters.....

 

[tanwahp]

some say it's csj that has changed his style to suit more voters.....

You have a point too. Chee and the SDP folks haven't done or said anything to get a fine, jail or civil suit since 2008. That's a good 5 years. When people warm up to them, it doesn't necessarily mean they "accepted a protest culture" (although some did). It's like warming up to WP or NSP.

Resorting to protests when the situation isn't acute isn't helpful and that's what parties like WP, SPP and NSP have been saying for a long time, except that unlike SDP, they got it right the first time, which explains why they did better at elections.