Screenshots

"Today it seems we conduct town-council elections and get a national parliament as a by-product."

Thats just priceless... HAHA

Talked to and asked a few taxi drivers in my recent trip to Singapore. Among their comments, Sg Govt politicians can talk on anything and express in whatever way they want or think fit. As for those from the opposition, they will be sued until they go bankcrupt one after another, one at a time...

This is apprently a very effective tool to "fix" the opposition.

'Dark electoral insecurities' sums up the guilt of the PAP politicians.
The Malaysian leaders realized what a conniving politician Lee Kuan Yew was & gracefully showed him the exit.
LKY has established an Empire of his own – are there no other Singaporeans who can lead their nation? Why is he still meddling with politics calling himself Senior Cabinet Minister and what not when he should retire gracefully & let the citizens steer their own future? Or are there no Singaporeans with the intellectual capability to even say ‘BOO’ to the Lee Dynasty? May be Singaporeans are just plain dumb & they feel much safer eating out of the palms of the ‘Senior Minister’?
For all the shit we throw at the Malaysian Govt. – ‘dan bui’ Anwar is back on the streets, Lim Kit Siang & Karpal Singh still blurb out all that crap from their front orifice & PAS gets to air its religious antiquities – they are still free citizens! Is Malaysia not a more democratic Nation than the inhabitants of the Stone Forest across the straits?
S’pore may be A(raised to infinity) rated but the skeletons in its cupboard portray it as anything but Democratic! The 33% who voted for the opposition must constitute the true Singaporeans with some amount of grey matter in their brains.
Malaysia Boleh! Singapura Mana Boleh?

bnaipal,

can't agree more. three incidents come to mind to show how differently the oppostion is treated in MY:

1. when MY's satellite was lauched some years back from south america somewhere, mahathir took kit siang along with him

2. when karpal injured his back in penang, the air force used its executive jet to fly him to SG

3. when the late PAS leader passed on in KL, the RMAF put on a C130 for the body and mourners to head to KB (may be KT-not sure).

in MY they may not like each other but at least the venomous response of the PAP is not followed.

bnaipal

What you said is so true and that is why despite all the shenanigans you find that in Malaysia we Malaysians of whatever creed or colour still have our bond and affections for the nation. And as the character in Gubra says, " I love Malaysia very much, but its so difficult when she does not love me back".

Typical "asian democracy". Where representation does not reflect from the votes. Since there is 80+ seats, Lionland opposition are suppose to gain at least 20+ seats.

same to Bolehland, 35%-40% votes for oppostion but at the end, the representation is less than 5%.

Apparently, many ex-commonwealth ruling parties are abuse and cheating the system inherit from GB.

Bnaipal and Taufan, before we start pounding our chests and blowing trumpets loudly we should look at the matter in more detail. Sure S'pore sucks when it comes to having a healthy opposition due to repressive techniques such as lawsuits etc..Well in M'sia we have this thing called opposition blackout where there's no media coverage on opposition parties during election time. There's no debate at national-level, state level or even at the grassroots level between the ruling party and opposition to present their views and referendums and allow the rakyat to see and hear who they're voting for (not sure if they have this in S'pore either). The numbers speak loudly, 90% of the parliament belongs to the ruling party here, so we don't exactly have a healthy opposition in place either. It would be interesting to know what total percentage of M'sians voted for the opposition in last elections overall. Number 2, at least the MP's from PAP in S'pore are allowed to debate openly and productively on how to improve the state of the lot they represent, and not forced to "toe the line". And I'm sure they'd not be blasé enough to actually come out in the open and admit that they are Pirate MP's (close one eye). Third point is that S'pore has a proven track record. They're a First World country and have the right foundations in place to sustain future growth, such as a highly educated populace, first-class research facilities and the right know-how. They're there, they've done it even without having any natural resources..Anyone here dare say that our leaders have done a better job in that aspect? I'm not here to kiss up to S'pore, sure I hate their kiasu attitude, but as a country we have to copy the good and ditch the bad..Thats how u improve!!

I refer to the comment about the cab driver in sg that said the ruling party is suing the opposition leaders. I believe he has not completed the story. I have just chat with a singaporean and she said they only sue those opposition with evidence, ie. make defamation statements/speech.

In this country, the government does not need to sue the opposition leaders, as they are in-effective at all. Just look at the Jasin MP case.

It is always good to look at ourself first before we start comment about others.

It cannot be denied that LKY has contributed enormously to its nation. It was fortunate for Singapore to be booted out from the federation in 1965. Had it remain in the fold, it would be a torn in the flesh. Racial relations would be very tensed as Singaporeans would not accede to requests of Bumiputra rights etc. And Singapore would probably be just like Penang. There might be some development but a far cry from its current state.

However, Singaporeans do pay a price for LKY to remain in power. One can forget about democratic rights and freedom of speech in Singapore. However, it also unfair to benchmark Singapore's freedom of expression and democratic rights with much bigger countries like India, Philipines and even US.

After LKY stepped down as the PM in 1990, he stayed on as Senior Minister and now, his son is PM and remained as Mentor Minister. Mentor Minister? What kind of position is that? Would one dare to defy the advice of this Mentor Minister?

It seems LKY will remain in power indefinitely. Probably only death would do him apart from continuing being a leader.

It cannot be denied that LKY has contributed enormously to its nation. It was fortunate for Singapore to be booted out from the federation in 1965. Had it remain in the fold, it would be a torn in the flesh. Racial relations would be very tensed as Singaporeans would not accede to requests of Bumiputra rights etc. And Singapore would probably be just like Penang. There might be some development but a far cry from its current state.

However, Singaporeans do pay a price for LKY to remain in power. One can forget about democratic rights and freedom of speech in Singapore. However, it also unfair to benchmark Singapore's freedom of expression and democratic rights with much bigger countries like India, Philippines and even US.

After LKY stepped down as the PM in 1990, he stayed on as Senior Minister and now, his son is PM and remained as Mentor Minister. Mentor Minister? What kind of position is that? Would one dare to defy the advice of this Mentor Minister?

It seems LKY will remain in power indefinitely. Probably only death would do him apart from continuing being a leader
.

I cannot comment on singapore political activities. However I would like to stress that when singapore gained independence, it already has the 2nd highest per capita income in asia (next to japan) and not a swamp. It has a reserve of USD400million. The major airline between australia to europe all landed in Paya Lebar airport and our prime minister on his way to london had to board an aircraft there, not subang airport as it does not exist then. The largest port was built in singapore to serve Malaya and railroads were built to facilitate this. It was the British and not PAP who developed singapore into what it is today. Pap only used the momentum to advance further up. Having said that, if the malaysian government hadn't gone overdoard with Bahasa Kebangsaan issue, we could have progressed just a little bit better than what we are experiencing now.

It's very interesting to read all these comments. As a Singaporean , let me add my 2 cents worth. Before i go on, let me state who I am , i am an ethnic indian. I am surprised that many people, esp the bumiputra’s find it difficult to give credit where it is due. Sydput can go on and say that it's the British that develop Singapore. Didn't the British develop Malaysia too. All those grand historical buildings were built by them. I am not sure about Singapore’s percapita rivaling japan but remember it was in 1965 ,not present day. If sydput really think that we got an unfair advantage, Would he mind exchanging countries ? Democracy is important but to a certain extent. I dont really care if the lee's want to establish their own empires. The civil service here works, the water from the taps is clean and drinkable. My children all go to good school. My relatives whose son is of average performer is in the university now. I have never ever heard of any deserving student being denied entrance to the u. The police don’t cari makan or beat up people to death. There have been no deaths in the judiciary. The transport system works. About everything runs well. Some Malaysians called us kiasu for not giving in to building the bridge. Many forget that what we asked, like sand was something we use to buy from Malaysia before and the permission to use just a small part of Malaysian airspace was also something that Singapore use to do before. We were told to spend over $SGD 700 million on a bridge where no tenders, design, feasibility study was ever done . In return when Singapore asked to buy what was essentially a very cheap commodity at market prices, we were said to be too much. No one ever even question that what Singapore was asking ,was peanuts in return. Sad to say some even said that , by selling sand, Malaysia is selling it’s pride. How stupid. Each year , thousands of Malaysians make Singapore their home, very well educated Malaysians I might add. Isn’t that a bigger loss of pride ? . Tens of thousands of Malaysians for a want of better opportunity daily cross over to work in Singapore. Isn’t that also a loss of maruah ? Back to democracy. My maid is from Philippines , once I remarked, when I saw a picture of a near naked Gloria arroyo in the paper , that her papers were very bold. Her answer was so what, we have democracy . Our papers can write print and be democratic as much as they want but everyone is corrupt . Even after we replace her, another corrupt person will come. My children are over there. I will be more happy of I am at home and I have good work, no need this kind of democracy. Democracy like Singapore enough. Now looking at the recent going on’s in Malaysia from the police commission to bbc. I rather have my kind of democracy.Yes we might be harsh but no one closes one eye to corruption and all our ministers have integrity. If they didn’t ,we would have voted the opposition.

I am pretty sure that 99% population of BolehLand never heard about this story before.It was true and was reported in the daily here in SingLand.
PM Lee and his wife were sending their son to Pulau Tekong for national services.They were shipped to Tekong together with the other parents and their children.
They were all ordinary men and women on streets and they would never expected that the honourable PM,his wife and son would be on the same board.
Just like the rests,PM,wife and son received no kind of VVIP treatment despite their status.Even I am not S'porean but i was really impressive and truly inspired by such a great leader.
Look at BolehLand,anyone who has got little kind of relationship with those VVIP would be given Superior Treatment when they have anything to deal with the authorities while sons,daughters or son in law of any cabinet members get even royal and immune kind of treatment.
So what you got little more freedom to voice out your unhappiness? Did they hear you or did they care? YES,they will, only during election.

bnaipal and taufan,

What democracy? Well, I have got news for you.

http://www.worldaudit.org/democracy.htm

Democracy Rank SG=83, MY=94
Press Freedom SG=102, MY=113
Corruption Rank SG=4, MY=31

Eat your heart out.

http://straitstimes.asia1.com.sg/storyprintfriendly/0,5578,392470,00.html?

STI Home > ST Forum > Story > Print >> Back to the article

May 12, 2006

Why Malay voters back Malay PAP candidates

I REFER to the report, 'Community strongly behind PAP, say Malay MPs-elect' (ST, May 9).

The endorsement of Malay People's Action Party (PAP) candidates should not be equated with resounding support for the ruling party's ideology and its policies. Minority voting patterns tend to lean towards a candidate who is perceived to represent the community's concerns most effectively in Parliament.

The manner in which the PAP has wooed Malay voters is by appealing to their desire for political representation.

There were 12 Malay MPs in the last Parliament, out of a total of 84. This made up 14 per cent, which is similar to the 14 per cent of the Singapore population who are Malay. However, in the Cabinet, there was only one Malay representative out of 19 ministers, which constituted 5 per cent.

There is a great yearning within the Malay community for the proportion of Members of Parliament and Cabinet ministers to reflect Singapore's multi-ethnic compo- sition. Given the choice between a Malay PAP candidate who is already an office-bearer (or is earmarked as one) and an opposition Malay candidate whose prospects of being an office-bearer are nil (given the PAP's majority in Parliament), a Malay voter will tend to favour the former.

However, Malay PAP MPs-elect should note that the desired outcome of their election is not numerical representation alone. They have a responsibility, as minority MPs, to address issues of concern to the Malay community.

Mr Masagos Zulkifli does not do the community any favours when he states that 'the community has risen above the old grouses as they are starting to see results of progress'. There are two points that need to be addressed in his statement.

Firstly, what is meant by 'old grouses'? There are many issues affecting the Malays that are either not aired in Parliament, summarily dismissed, or resolved unsatisfactorily. Some of these include the conscription policies of the Singapore Armed Forces, the expropriation of Istana Kampong Glam, as well as the future of the madrasahs.

By labelling them as 'old grouses', is he relegating them to the realm of negligibility? Old issues do not simply fade away just because a Malay MP attempts to silence discourse by telling the community to 'move on'.

Secondly, there is the implication that Malays place economic prosperity above political issues like the need for an opposition in Parliament. The statement suggests a politically naive voting bloc that responds positively to Progress Packages and upgrading enticements.

This is a distortion of the value system and political convictions of many Malays I know, who are neither materialistic nor convinced that the emergence of a Malay middle class is persuasive evidence that Malays have been given equal opportunities in all sectors of Singapore society.

When Malay voters throw their support behind a Malay PAP candidate, it is one invested not so much with the desire for economic gain, but for political capital.

Their eyes will be trained on the performance of the minority Malay MPs in Parliament for the next five years. The MPs' ability to represent, protect and champion the interests of the voters they have courted will be scrutinised and assessed with keen interest.

If indeed the PAP has managed to recruit the most capable Malay talents from across the island, the community awaits the appearance of Malay Cabinet ministers holding portfolios beyond the painfully narrow and almost-tokenistic spectrum of Environment and Water Resources and Community Development, Youth and Sports.

Alfian Sa'at

Refer to sydput comment:
"It was the British and not PAP who developed singapore into what it is today. Pap only used the momentum to advance further up."

Well, we Malaysia has mother-nature that supply us with FREE natural resources one after another, from tin, rubber, timber to petroleum. But look at us today and compare with SG. SG was declared as advance country by yr2000. SG has net foreign-reserve since many years ago. The facts speaks for itself that we cannot deny that they have make it by managing the limited resource that they have, i.e. human capital. They key word is "managment".

Politically they might not have the most democratic system. But so is other advnaced country. Who dare to claim their system is the most democratic?

Look at the mirror first before say something about others. Give Sg government the credit they deserved and give them a break. We should live as a good neighbour.

STI Home > ST Forum > Story

May 13, 2006

GENERAL ELECTION 2006

Don't be unfair - with funds and news coverage

FOR me, three things stand out about the general election last Saturday which I feel need to be addressed.

Firstly, love it or hate it, the People's Action Party (PAP) has built Singapore into the nation we are today. That is undeniable. We have gained international recognition, have economic progress which is the envy of many nations, good security and amenities, and a competent and incorrupt government.

We could easily have gone the other way but we were set straight by our leaders. We owe them much. The PAP has just won the election and I look forward to it continuing its good work for the people.

Secondly, there is the issue of the disbursement of public funds, which should be for the good of all citizens. I have great difficulty in accepting that Singaporeans are being treated differently because of their differing political affiliation. I cannot, in all conscience, see an old woman struggling up a flight of steps in Potong Pasir while an able-bodied boy walks merrily in a sheltered walkway in Marine Parade, and affirm that all citizens are treated fairly and equally in Singapore.

The PAP has won the election and will form the Government. While it can reward its supporters as it pleases, the moment it becomes the Government it assumes a higher responsibility and has to work for the benefit of all the people, not just its winning constituencies.

The Potong Pasir and Hougang predicament cannot be allowed to continue. I hope the Government sees its total responsibility in this light and works for the benefit of all its people.

We have seen the repercussions of using carrots and denying certain constituencies access to public funds. If this trend continues, 2011 promises to be a bigger testimony to this failed and unfair political strategy.

Lastly, my remarks relate to the mass media. Both the press and TV have done a disservice to the people. Their blatant one-sidedness and suck-up mentality led me (and many others, I am sure) to search for alternative views, and this I found in abundance on the Internet.

As expected, these alternative voices were very parochial, extremely biased and often purveyed matters which were simply untrue. Readers accepting these points of view could easily have been misled.

If only the press and TV had been fairer, giving all sides equal coverage, we would all have had balanced views of the issues and, hopefully, have made the right decisions.

The mass media has definitely not lived up to its responsibility of helping in nation-building, at least in this instance.

Errol Pereira

http://straitstimes.asia1.com.sg/storyprintfriendly/0,5578,392714,00.html?

STI Home > ST Forum > Story

May 13, 2006

Have PM and opponent debate vital issues in 2011

ONE of the shortcomings of the recently-concluded election is the lack of a thorough and lively debate between contending parties on important issues.

The week-long campaign was not enough for issues such as cost of living, flat upgrading, health-care cost and ministerial pay to be dealt with satisfactorily by both sides.

This can be overcome by having a live prime-time television debate between an incumbent prime minister and his challenger on these issues, as well as how they would tackle the long- and short-term problems facing the country if elected into office.

Imagine just such a debate in five years' time between Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong and, say, the Workers' Party's Mr Low Thia Khiang soon after Nomination Day when it is clear that either stands a chance of becoming the next prime minister.

What better way to set the stage for the campaigning that follows?

The session could take the format of the now-regular nationwide television debate between a US incumbent president and his opposition number, for example, Mr George W. Bush vs Mr John Kerry in 2004.

Presided over by a moderator, the debate would give voters the chance to better assess the intellectual and managerial calibre as well as the leadership qualities of the candidates and, consequently, the worth of their parties.

I further propose that this debate be organised under the aegis of the National University of Singapore's East Asian Institute and/or some other relevant body.

Lee Seck Kay