• 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.

SDP losers whine about unfairness

Well witten article!


Elections 2011 show how far we are away from change

This year is unprecedented in that there were two elections and the results were rather unusual. Singaporeans may be tempted to think that this is an indication that we are firmly on the road to democracy. Nothing could be further from the truth.

The reality is that nothing much has changed. The political system which includes the election process and the media is still in the hands of the PAP. The outcomes of the electoral contests are not surprising.

Take the recent presidential elections. Candidates were only informed of their eligibility a few days before the official campaign period started. This put the non-PAP candidates at a severe disadvantage.

Then-candidate Tony Tan knew that he was certain to qualify for the race and could get his entire campaign ready well before the blow of the whistle. The logistical preparations like printing posters and flyers could be done way before hand.

In contrast, the other candidates had to wait it out to see if the Presidential Election Committee would give them the green light. In the meantime, they could not commit to printing the posters and pamphlets (which amount to tens of thousands of dollars) and taking care of other campaign needs. The arrangement also gives the candidates almost no time to raise money to fund their campaigns.

And then they are given all of nine days to let the nation know that they are running for president - all this in a media environment continues to languish at the bottom of international press surveys.

President Tony Tan, on the other hand, has been on the newspapers and television for years, if not decades. (He was the chairman of the only company that is allowed to publish newspapers in the country. It just doesn't get any better than that.)

To a large section of the electorate, face recognition made the difference between putting the tick beside his photograph versus someone else's.

Ditto for the general elections. The redrawing of the boundaries and the re-configuration of the GRCs and SMCs meant that while the PAP had all the information to plan and strategise the electoral battles, the opposition had to wait until the very last minute which made planning all but impossible.

Like the presidential contest, media coverage of certain parties during the GE were also starkly different.

This is not to deny that there has been a change in Singapore's politics. Despite its control of the system, President Tan won only by a squeak. The PAP itself was humbled when voters gave it its poorest showing since it came to power 50 years ago in GE2011. The mood of the people towards PAP has shifted.

But the sobering reality is that it really doesn't matter how close the opposition gets to the finish line. With the first-past-the-post system, the PAP is still in complete control of the entire political system and it has the next half-a-decade to manipulate it to ensure yet another victory.

How many 5-year-periods must Singaporeans who want to see meaningful change endure?

This is not to discourage Singaporeans. The results of the GE and PE 2011 are real and the shift in political outlook is significant, even dramatic and the future for democracy in this country remains bright.

But there are pitfalls ahead and the Singapore Democrats need to warn Singaporeans that we cannot afford to think that from here on out we just have to rely on elections once every five or six years to bring about democratic change. If that is all we do, we will fail and change will not come.

On the contrary, we have to double up our efforts and continue working to reform the election process, press for media freedom and push for freedom of speech and assembly. Absent this, 50 years from now we'll still be wistfully talking about how close the opposition came to winning at the polls.
 
Article written by sore losers.

I agree. They're blaming hell, heaven and earth, north, south, east and west, systems and rules, except reflecting on why themselves lost and other opposition could win. The most ridiculous part is blaming Tony Tan for the headstart knowing that he'd sure qualify. Everybody knows TT is sure to qualify. He's double or even triple the criteria. Tan Kin Lian, also sure to qualify, had a headstart of indicating interest three years ago and finally crashed most badly. Can means can, cannot means cannot. If you can't swim, don't blame the water. Stay out of the water or get some swimming lessons.
 
Last edited:
Interestingly, of the 3 losing candidates, the amt of media coverage from the day TCB and TKL announced interest in running till polling day, TKL > TJS > TCB time in the limelight. Ironically, the vote count turns out to the exact opposite, TCB > TJS > TKL.
 
Many people still do not have a good impression of SDP. Perhaps they should change their image of been a sore loser into a gentleman.
 
Interestingly, of the 3 losing candidates, the amt of media coverage from the day TCB and TKL announced interest in running till polling day, TKL > TJS > TCB time in the limelight. Ironically, the vote count turns out to the exact opposite, TCB > TJS > TKL.

Good analysis.
 
Many people still do not have a good impression of SDP. Perhaps they should change their image of been a sore loser into a gentleman.

They will only change if they live in America. Even then Sarah Palin will beat them.
 
Doggie stuffychute, will you ever change? Sigh...

A dog till the day the PAP is out of power?

I think it unfair to insult people because they disagree. Democracy is about agreeing to disagree and majority wins.

My personal opinion is no way PAP is going to be thrown out of power by SDP style. WP style still got hope.
 
Last edited:
To be fair, I think some of the points in the article are worth a mention. The Tony Tan example was beyond lame, for sure, but issues like the Elections Department being parked under the Prime Ministers' Office, the constant re-drawing of electoral boundaries, and the control of the media are surely problematic. I, for one, would prefer to see an independent Elections Commission, which is a given in so many other countries, not to mention a more liberal press. The fact that the Workers' Party managed to snag a GRC under this system of unfairness is laudable, but it will be folly to suggest that the electoral process is, therefore, not in need of a total revamp. It's like saying that just because one in ten people who consume insecticide survive, insecticide must be safe for consumption (completely arbitrary figures and arbitrary example used here).

Of course, I am not about to defend some of the SDP's methods. I do agree with posters who state that they should focus more on getting their act together than blaming everyone but themselves. In short, address the VOTERS, stupid, not the PAP, LKY, or the foreigners. The latter is especially lame, IMHO. I'm not quite sure why Dr Chee actually thinks the so-called Western world will stick to their guns about lofty ideals like liberty and freedom when they have proven, on more occasions than one, to be driven wholly by self-interest. Pragmatism, after all, is the order of the day; ideals are just convenient excuses. :D

And while I respect the fact that the SDP has made concepts like the freedom of press, speech and assembly their raison d'etre - simply because I believe in these very notions myself - I am appalled by the way some of the articles on their website have turned into freewheeling, PAP-bashing vehicles, laced with liberal doses of sarcasm. Put your ideas across, by all means, but there is no need to intersperse every point with how profoundly evil the PAP is. They are as much a turn-off as the constant suggestions by the PAP that the opposition is made out of opportunists seeking to drag the entire country down.
 
Last edited:
I think it unfair to insult people because they disagree. Democracy is about agreeing to disagree and majority wins.

My personal opinion is no way PAP is going to be thrown out of power by SDP style. WP style still got hope.

Exactly. Chiam 4 Chee 0 forever.
 
Well witten article!

Well written? Maybe the English language. There's no poor grammar and broken English. But I just disdain articles that cannot even avoid simple contradictions within one same text.

"The reality is that nothing much has changed. The political system which includes the election process and the media is still in the hands of the PAP. The outcomes of the electoral contests are not surprising."

"The results are real and the shift in political outlook is significant, even dramatic and the future for democracy in this country remains bright."
 
Back
Top