Election "Cooling of Day" - Cool?
-
a weak and dismay point of Sg Uncles is, when they find no way to argue, they use vulgarities words on people, and that is very lame, because, you seek an ungentlemen way out of the arguement/debate, really poor behavior and a total diseaster for Singapore as a whole.
-
Whatever happen in this coming election, let me remind all youngs and olds peoples here again on LKY words "Dun ever think you can change the govt"
-
everyone has the right to express his/her views here.....
let this forum be a place of dignity and decorum....
but looking at the state of oppositions here with their vulgarities...hmmm....it's reflective of whom they support..hehe
just cant imagine them running sg
-
Originally posted by Bentsb05:
but looking at the state of oppositions here with their vulgarities...hmmm....it's reflective of whom they support..hehe
just cant imagine them running sg
What fucking shit are you talking about?
We are mobilising people to vote for opposition, end PAP rule, take back our country, not asking people to vote for us in elections.
You got see opposition members using vulgaries on their sites?
Support PAP also don't talk fucking shit lah.
-
Dr Wong Wee Nam: Fear Factor Revisited, The S’pore Edition – Politicophobia (The Fear of Politics)
Fear Factor Revisited: The S’pore Edition -
Politicophobia (The Fear of Politics)
By Dr Wong Wee NamDecember 29th 2007. Someone had called for Singaporeans to go and have dinner at Centrepoint. The dress code: anything in black. It was of course not a dinner gathering to celebrate the end of a year. It was just a symbolic dinner for those who want to express quietly their dissatisfaction over a number of issues that had affected their lives over the past year.
From the number who turned up, one can either conclude that Singaporeans are a very apathetic lot, resigned to their fate, or a very pathetic people who grumble but are unwilling to make their feelings heard. Or more likely – Singaporeans are still a very cowed lot when it comes to anything that even hints of politics.
The few who made their feelings known by coming in black obviously belong to a small minority in Singapore. They were definitely outnumbered by those curious people who turned up in other colours to see the action or those who wanted to participate but were to afraid to come properly attired.
One would expect that, with a better educated population and in the age of internet, the fear of reprisals from participation in civil activities would be far from the minds of the new generation.
But no, the postings on the Internet still talk of hidden cameras, spies and plainclothes policemen lurking around. From this, we can see that such fear still exists and has hardly been reduced in spite of our progress from a third to a first world country.
Why are we still in this pathetic situation even after 42 years of independence and now in the category of a 1st World Country?
The answer is very simple. In the limbic system of our brain there is a complex known as the amygdala. At a subconscious level, it controls our fear factor. According to our circumstances and experience it determines whether we fight, submit or run away.
This fear factor is reinforced whenever a person encounters an unfavourable stimulus. The threat may be physical, mental, economic or social. As long as the person deems it a possible harm to his well-being, he will try to avoid that situation. This is a very basic survival instinct.
Fear of political reprisals is, therefore, not just a matter of perception. It is a physiological and psychological reality. It is a gut response that drives us into a lot of negative thoughts and causes us to react negatively. It is an “if so-and-so can get into trouble, so can I” kind of thinking. This is a kind of self-preservation mechanism. For this reason, it is not difficult to see why politics is avoided by most Singaporeans.
The danger of the threat of reprisals may have been exaggerated, but Singaporeans cannot be totally faulted for their fears. Over the years, the amygdala of Singaporeans has been unfavourably stimulated enough by the ISD’s arrests, the closure of unions, the folding up of newspapers and the defamation suits brought against opposition figures.
There is a saying in Chapter 53 of a Chinese classic entitled “Revealing Original Shape in Officialdom” that states: There is a wise old adage that says, `Kill the chicken in order to frighten the monkey. If the chicken is killed, the monkey will certainly be scared’.
In Singapore, enough political cocks of the walk have been figuratively “killed” to turn any monkey into a chicken.
There is another reason why we have reached the “miserable and pathetic” situation where people are afraid to speak their mind and politics is shunned. This is related to the stage of our moral development.
In pre-historic times, people react to fear by clubbing to death the threatening animal. In a more developed society, people are more civilised and the threats are different. The threats may come in the form of a policy that threatens a livelihood, a way of life or a property or where an act may threaten the principle of justice and equality or any democratic principles. The civilised reaction, in a modern fully-developed democracy, is to shout and protest until the threat is resolved.
In Singapore, however, we have not been able to reach the stage of a full-fledged democracy because the fear factor is so great that all our frustrations and angers have become internalised into helpless whimpers. It is no wonder that grumbling has become a national pastime.
Singapore may a country with first world physical infrastructure but our people have yet to reach the stage of moral development that other fully-developed modern democracies have attained. We are still at the level where we are pre-occupied with chasing after food, shelter and other material needs. Abstract things like justice, democracy and equality, principles and good of society are too far from the minds of Singaporeans.
As long as the people are conditioned to live life at this basic material level, the fear factor is easily reinforced. It is not surprising that when voters were threatened with the withholding of upgrading, they fell in line. Tell people not to vote for more opposition or the investors will run away and the people will listen. Give them a bit of shares and the people will be grateful. As long as the basic needs are provided for, there is no danger of any silent grumble becoming loud noise.
It is easy to tell a person that his fear is irrational but it is difficult to convince him otherwise. This is because peoples’ perception differs greatly to the extent that one man’s danger may not be another man’s threat. Different people have different psychological make-up, life experiences, and grow up under different circumstances. Hence, their perception and assessment of threat vary accordingly. For this reason one can never help a person overcome his fear by to telling him to think and act rationally.
In the morning after the 1997 General Elections, I received a call from a person who identified himself as a first time young voter. He was a successful young professional with his own business. With a distraught voice, he told me that he and his wife had entered the polling station with the intention of voting for me. However, when they saw the serial number on the ballot paper, they panicked and changed their minds. He asked me to get the government to remove the serial numbers on the ballot papers.
I told him the serial numbers were meant to prevent cheating. He was not convinced and stuck to his belief that it could be used to trace voters. I asked him why a government would want to retaliate against the thousands of ordinary voters when they could just take action against me. He was still not convinced. This is really sad and ironic. An intelligent, well-educated person, already trained in the army to face bullets was being driven by fear to think irrationally and to be afraid of serial numbers.
The only way to help Singaporeans overcome the fear of politics is through modelling. When the people can see that a lot of people are not harmed by getting involved in politics, then they may assess the situation and grow out of their fear. The question is: Do we have enough role models?
In other words, would we be able, one day, to have enough people with the courage to come to a symbolic dinner in black? Would we have enough people who are able to banish their fear of imaginary tails to step forward? Would we be able to see less people standing on the sidelines and declaring their disappointment at such a poor turnout instead of coming forward and improving the numbers?
It is no use Singaporeans lamenting to each other about the pathetic state of Singapore politics. There is no point hoping for change without trying to do anything. If Singaporeans want our citizens to be less apathetic and break out from the bonds of crippling fear, then each one of us must set the example by participating at whatever level of civil activities that we are comfortable with. If we are still afraid, then at least encourage the participants and not criticise them for not doing enough.
No Singaporean is going to be convinced that involvement in the public affairs of the country is safe if our so-called educated and vocal group shun participation in civil activities or politics. If people have strong views on the Internet but are unwilling to demonstrate their belief with action, we can only conclude that, like all Singaporeans, they are just hoping for others to do the job. This is why there are always overwhelming walkovers at every general election.
Fear has created an unhealthy political climate in Singapore. When a person fears, he can only think of himself. He would be incapable of loving, of thinking about others, about society and about principles. In other words he would not be capable of loving the country.
Mark Twain said, “Who, then is the country? In a republic it is the common voice of the people.”
As an old Chinese aptly put: 国家兴亡，匹夫有责
With too much fear, there is not going to be a common voice of the people. Without a common voice of the people, is there a country?
-
Originally posted by xtreyier:
Hey bro, does one need to use foul lingo and labels on others, labels which were never admitted, to put one's point across?It's our words and reasoning on a post that is considered on its own merits or the lack of it, not the strength of the vulgar lingo used.
But then, it is your choice and your right to use as you see fit which determines your perceptions and maturity.
I only wondered why you would stoop to such levels, no matter what the provocation. for freedom of speech is for all.
Nothing personal, and I apologise if i had hurt your feelings.
Good Afternoon Xtreyier, I know your good intentions here and you are absolutely right in your comment.....but Angel craves for such attention and I am giving her what she/him wants.She probaby think she is good at this game of manipulating and irritating forumnites but there are many here who are far more advanced in the mind games.This is just a forum so we could all stoop to any level here from time to time and it wont mean a thing and besides who is keeping count ? I am sure she doesnt have any hard feelings too (hahaha no punt intended).You have a nice day.Thank you
. -
In 2010 elections, Singaporeans must retake their country from PAP.
Singapore is for Singaporeans, not for PRs, not for foreign aliens, not for PRCs.
A vote for PAP means a vote for more foreigners.
In 2010 elections, Singaporeans must retake their country from PAP.
-
Originally posted by angel3070:
What fucking shit are you talking about?
We are mobilising people to vote for opposition, end PAP rule, take back our country, not asking people to vote for us in elections.
You got see opposition members using vulgaries on their sites?
Support PAP also don't talk fucking shit lah.
thanks for proving my point....indeed!!LOLOLOLOLOLO!!!
-
Can an X-rated Fraud that is known for its repeated dishonesty be depended for any honest views that are truthful even by its own stated hypocritical values that show up its Double-XX situation ?
Originally posted by xtreyier:
Hey bro, does one need to use foul lingo and labels on others, labels which were never admitted, to put one's point across?For one that will hypocritically take umbrage in the 'freedom of speech' - it will dare to question the 'ordinary citizens' in this Speaker's Corner, but will not raise a squeak about the Stalinist-Autocrat abuse towards its political opponents with its wicked and churlish and slanderous name callings that include - 'liars', 'cheats' and 'charlatans' - or to accuse any challengers, to his public office position, to be avarice in pursuit of high public office.
While the X-rated Fraud trained by the Stalinist-Autocrat to be an 'Attack Dog' since it was a pup in the menagerie of the Animal Farm - it is obvious that the X-rated Fraud will look after the Master's Tail and prevent it from being stepped by ordinary citizens.
It's our words and reasoning on a post that is considered on its own merits or the lack of it, not the strength of the vulgar lingo used.
Can the fraudulent "words and reasonsing on a post" be acceptable and these are plagiarized by a known X-rated Fraud with only a pseudo-intellect to show ?
What merit can possibly be in the fraudulent "words and reasonsing on a post" that are planted by the X-rated Fraud - that feature its own form of vulgarity in the blatant lies and obfuscation to white-wash the many transgressions that stain the familliar white into grey ?
Is there more merit in such vulgar abuse on common sense and sensibilities - when it is performed by the X-rated Fraud with the characterisitcs of a pseudo-intellect that will claim itself to be an insignificant nobody ?
But then, it is your choice and your right to use as you see fit which determines your perceptions and maturity.
A X-rated Fraud that is familiar only with churlish petty and false behavior - what can it possibly know about perceptions and maturity, when it lack any circumspect to even differentiate between right and wrong, truth and lies, honor and deceit ?
I only wondered why you would stoop to such levels, no matter what the provocation. for freedom of speech is for all.
It is not amazing that in less then 24 hours, its vocabulary has expanded with the addition of the word "stoop" - it is obvious that with its X-rated Fraudulently abilities, it suffers from a constipation of creativity, and depend largely on plagiarizing words, phrases, sentences that comes from others.
Unfortunately, as clever as the X-rated Fraud is, it can only plagiarized dishonestly but has no clue in the art of delivery.
It is not surprising that the X-rated mind will defecate each time it tries hard to 'truly' think while suffering from a constipation of ideas.
Nothing personal, and I apologise if i had hurt your feelings.
Is there any sincererity from a X-rated Fraud who will cut first and apologise after the event ?
Such is the kind of deceitful, dishonest and deluded personality that is here to have its daily orgasmic fix to satisfy its deluded need for a grand standing performance to its imaginery wider audience.
-
In 2010 elections, Singaporeans must retake their country from PAP.
Singapore is for Singaporeans, not for PRs, not for foreign aliens, not for PRCs.
A vote for PAP means a vote for more foreigners.
In 2010 elections, Singaporeans must retake their country from PAP.
-
Originally posted by angel7030:
Whatever happen in this coming election, let me remind all youngs and olds peoples here again on LKY words "Dun ever think you can change the govt"
What is the agenda of the Taiwanese 'hum' to deliberately sabotage the confidence of Singaporeans to stand up for ourselves - as the Koreans and the Taiwanese did, and which got their economies to be World beaters ?
The Taiwanese 'hum' must surely have cut a deal with the Stalinist-Autocrat in SGP - to conveniently forget its Taiwanese History - when no Taiwanese dare to claim that the Kuomintang will be overthrown and martial law will be lifted on Taiwan.
The Kuomintang was overthrown and except for the despicable acts by Lee Teng-Hui and his side-kick Chen Shui-bian - Taiwan would have left the Kuomintang out longer then the two term period with Ah Bian.
It is better for the Taiwanese 'hum' to keep its clitoris from wagging out of its 'hum' to express the thoughts of its 'hum' brain that reside in its cavernous 'hum'.
-
Originally posted by Atobe:
What is the agenda of the Taiwanese 'hum' to deliberately sabotage the confidence of Singaporeans to stand up for ourselves - as the Koreans and the Taiwanese did, and which got their economies to be World beaters ?
The Taiwanese 'hum' must surely have cut a deal with the Stalinist-Autocrat in SGP - to conveniently forget its Taiwanese History - when no Taiwanese dare to claim that the Kuomintang will be overthrown and martial law will be lifted on Taiwan.
The Kuomintang was overthrown and except for the despicable acts by Lee Teng-Hui and his side-kick Chen Shui-bian - Taiwan would have left the Kuomintang out longer then the two term period with Ah Bian.
It is better for the Taiwanese 'hum' to keep its clitoris from wagging out of its 'hum' to express the thoughts of its 'hum' brain that reside in its cavernous 'hum'.
Howcome talking about Singapore can change to Taiwan leh??? Hello, Lau Hum Ku, you still sleeping or dreaming??
-
Originally posted by angel7030:
Howcome talking about Singapore can change to Taiwan leh??? Hello, Lau Hum Ku, you still sleeping or dreaming??
A Taiwanese 'hum' will remain a 'hum' - do you need to dream constantly about your 'hum' ?
Does your clitoris never get itself tired as it sticks out of your mouth in a Taiwanese 'hum' ?
Take your own advise, if you have nothing relevant to this Thread -
"JUST SHUT UP".
Originally posted by angel7030:Well, he has the right to remain silent or refuse the interview, he should known the media well, they are not interested in his position, that wouldn't bring much news and front page sensational in the media, his brother and late father is the ultimate news the reporters wanted, he should be careful. Just Shut up
-
Originally posted by angel7030:
a weak and dismay point of Sg Uncles is, when they find no way to argue, they use vulgarities words on people, and that is very lame, because, you seek an ungentlemen way out of the arguement/debate, really poor behavior and a total diseaster for Singapore as a whole.
hey angel7030, you calling the kettle black?We read much of your posts with dirty, sexual description, so what you say about this???
-
Originally posted by Short Ninja:
You are a CCB but then again dono whether you got one ar not?
-
Originally posted by angel7030:
Whatever happen in this coming election, let me remind all youngs and olds peoples here again on LKY words "Dun ever think you can change the govt"
No need to reiterate your lau hero's words to scare us. We don't give a damn to what your old hero says. He is dying any time. You go tell him shut up and get ready to report to hell. -
Originally posted by Fantagf:
No need to reiterate your lau hero's words to scare us. We don't give a damn to what your old hero says. He is dying any time. You go tell him shut up and get ready to report to hell.
he is waiting for u to go first. -
Originally posted by Fantagf:
hey angel7030, you calling the kettle black?We read much of your posts with dirty, sexual description, so what you say about this???
but i never scold people like this, for me, i take it as a sense of humor -
No need to sweat over ‘cooling-off’ period
By Kor Kian Beng from Straits Times
THE political scene, particularly among the opposition parties, got a little heated in the cool month of December.
The spark: An announcement by Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong of a proposed change to the campaigning process at the next general election.
Voters will get a one-day ‘cooling-off’ period, the day before Polling Day, so as to think and reflect on how they would cast their ballots.
There will be no mass rallies that day, no block visits or the display of party symbols – the normal electioneering activities that take place between Nomination Day and the eve of Polling Day, which usually lasts nine days.
Political party websites or new media tools put out in the name of political parties will also be banned from campaigning that day. Only party political broadcasts and ‘news reports’ on the events the previous day will be allowed.
This idea is not novel. It is already found in various forms in many countries, including Australia, Indonesia, Malaysia and Italy.
PM Lee cited two reasons for the proposed change: to give voters time to think carefully and calmly over their electoral choices, and to reduce the risk of public disorder in the lead-up to Polling Day.
To me, the proposed change also aims to reduce the impact of a regular phenomenon observed in past elections – which is that opposition rallies have traditionally drawn bigger crowds than ruling party rallies and been more boisterous events.
What the ruling People’s Action Party (PAP) wants is to lower the number of ‘irrational’ voters – swayed by the rhetoric at opposition rallies the night before Polling Day – casting votes in a less than considered fashion.
I find the idea beneficial to voters on the whole. As a voter, I like the fact that I will have some time that day – devoid of intense campaigning – to consider who I should vote for the following day.
But the opposition has unanimously objected to the idea, saying it would give an unfair edge to the PAP. The ruling party, it argues, will use the mainstream media to campaign under the guise of disseminating ‘news’ from the Government.
They also say there is no need for a ‘cooling-off’ day to minimise risks of public disorder because elections here are tame affairs. Furthermore, there are already laws in the books to help prevent unrest during election campaigns.
They also say the proposed change exposes the PAP’s distrust of voters’ ability to cast their votes rationally.
Veteran opposition leader and Potong Pasir MP Chiam See Tong told The Straits Times: ‘It is one step backwards for democracy when Singapore is striving to be a first-world democratic country.’
I am worried by the reactions from the opposition camp, which seem to stem from a fear that the ‘cooling-off’ day will not let them end their campaigns with a bang, with the customary final-night rallies. For opposition parties, election rallies are rare opportunities to reach voters directly and on a large scale.
But does this not reflect their over-reliance on final-night rallies? They usually pull out all the stops to make rousing speeches on the eve of Polling Day.
Doesn’t this suggest that there are indeed ‘irrational’ voters around, whose votes the opposition hopes to capture?
I know every vote counts, but is this the kind of political maturity we want to entrench among Singaporeans?
Second, the ‘cooling-off’ period cuts both ways. The PAP will not be able to exploit final-night rallies too, nor make use of the mainstream media.
It knows full well that it has to play by the rules to be seen as fair. Failure to do so could cost it precious votes among discerning voters.
This was a point made by Aljunied GRC MP Zainul Abidin Rasheed. He suggested that PAP ministers and MPs should not make any speeches – even non-political ones, perhaps – during the ‘cooling-off’ period for they would be seen as forms of indirect ‘campaigning’.
The only speeches that should be made should be at events planned long before the election, for example, events involving international partners.
The onus lies on all parties to play by the letter as well as the spirit of the rules and to let voters judge if any party has breached the ‘cooling-off’ period.
Third, the announcement of a ‘cooling-off’ period now should give the opposition more than enough time to rethink their strategies in the next general election, which must be held by early 2012 at the latest.
Instead of griping over how the playing field has been tilted further towards the PAP – incumbents tend to have the advantage; deal with it – opposition parties should intensify their efforts. They can step up their walkabouts or the sale of newsletters – try to win over voters now, and not wait till the final-night rallies. At any rate, votes should be won in the four to five years between general elections, not on the eve of Polling Day.
For the past two elections, I had decided my vote way before the final night or Polling Day. The campaign period was simply an opportunity for me to assess the parties’ ability to attract talent by checking out the new candidates.
It was also for parties to sum up their past work and achievements, if any, and their upcoming plans for the wards, should they win.
Thus, the opposition should not sweat too much over the ‘cooling-off’ period, especially if the campaign is well-fought in the preceding nine days. Instead, they should study ways to work around the ‘cooling-off’ period because the ruling PAP will be doing the same.
The only grouse I have about the cooling-off idea is that it comes with a proposed ban on campaigning on party websites and new media tools.
The Internet’s reach, though it has grown since the last polls, remains limited. Why try to control something that you can’t really control – and doesn’t pose a real threat in the first place?
In the meantime, voters also have a part to play. With elections possibly nearing, they should start tracking the work of the candidates and political parties, and not wait till election fever kicks in. – Straits Times
Republished from Straits Times on 9 December 2009
-
I agree with the cooling day part, hope more customers will attend my pubs for a real cool day before the election.
-
Australia’s “black-out” day applies to all broadcasters unlike Singapore’s
OPINION
Following the outcry over the introduction of another ruse by the ruling party to tilt the playing field in its favor in the next elections, the Straits Times predictably runs a column to allay concerns and anxieties on the ground that the proposed “cooling-off” day will handicap the opposition.
Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong announced last week that a “cooling-off” day will be introduced on the eve of polling day in the next election due by 2011 to allow voters to make a “calm” and “rational” decision.
All mass rallies, door-to-door visits and public campaigning will be banned on the day including podcasts on political party websites and the new media.
However, the traditional broadcasts of election messages by various political parties on television and news reports of the election will still be allowed.
Straits Times journalist Kor Kian Beng wrote an lengthy article today to defend the “cooling-off” day on the grounds that it exists in various forms in other countries as well:
“This idea is not novel. It is already found in various forms in many countries, including Australia, Indonesia, Malaysia and Italy.”
It is disgenuous of Kor Kian Beng to omit a crucial fact in his article to hoodwink and mislead unsuspecting readers, that Australia’s version of “cooling-off” day or “black-out” period applies to all broadcasters equally:
“Black Out Period – Broadcasters must comply with the “blackout” period (from midnight on the Wednesday before polling day to the close of polls on polling day)”
[Source: Id. Schedule 2, clause 3A, Australian Law Library of Congress]
In Singapore, the broadcast time given to the ruling party is disproportionately longer than other parties because that it fields more candidates than them which gives it an unfair advantage to influence voters.
There is only one broadcaster in Singapore – Mediacorp, which is owned by Temasek Holdings, a government sovereign wealth fund whose CEO is the wife of the Prime Minister.
However in Australia, all broadcasters are required under the law to give equal access to all political parties and they are not owned by the government:
“Equal access – where any election matter is broadcast during an election period by a broadcaster, that broadcaster must give all parties contesting the election a reasonable opportunity to have election matter broadcast during the election period.”
[Source: Broadcasting Services Act 1992 (Cth) Schedule 2, clause 3(2), Australian Constitution]
Furthermore, the Australia media is relatively free and independent compared to Singapore’s. The Australia media is ranked 16th on the World Press Freedom index this year by respected International NGO Reporters Without Borders as compared to the Singapore media’s pathetic 133th ranking.
[Source: Reporters Sans Frontiers, World Press Freedom Index 2009]
All the printed newspapers in Singapore in the four national languages of English, Chinese, Malay and Tamil, are owned by one single press company - the Singapore Press Holdings whose Chairman is none other than a former deputy prime minister Dr Tony Tan.
As NCMP Sylvia Lim puts in succinctly, the boundaries between the party and the state are blurred in Singapore and the ruling party can make use of the civil service to clarify certain policies brought up by the opposition or introduced last-minute changes to appease the voters on the “cooling-off” day thereby swaying the fence-sitters to its side.
Instead of highlighting Australia’s “black-out” day to justify Singapore’s own “cooling-off” day, why not educate Singaporeans on other aspects of Australian elections which provide a fair and level playing field to all contestants unlike Singapore’s lop-sided one?
For example, the campaign period for Australia is much longer than Singapore’s nine days which enables important national issues to be aired and discussed and adequate time for the parties to reach out to the voters:
“Federal election campaigns are traditionally approximately six weeks. Polling day for federal elections must occur on a Saturday, at least 33 days and no more than 58 days after the issue of the writs.”
[Source: Australia Electoral Commission]
Australia’s electoral commission is an independent statutory board headed by Chairperson (a Judge or a retired Judge of the Federal Court), the Electoral Commissioner, and a non-judicial member (usually the Australian Statistician):
“On 21 February 1984 following major amendments to the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 (the Act) the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) was established as an independent statutory authority.”
[Source: Australia Electoral Commission]
Singapore’s electoral commission as well as the electoral boundary review committee in charge of drawing electoral boundaries are under the purview of the Prime Minister’s Office headed none other by the Prime Minister himself when both should be independent entities in the first place.
The election deposit for Singapore is a hefty $12,500 which is a relatively large sum for ordinary Singaporeans to cough out thereby enabling only the rich and power who are more often than not PAP candidates to take part in the elections. The minimum winning margin is also set at a high 12.5 per cent unlike in Australia:
“Senate candidates pay a $1000AUD deposit upon their nomination, and House of Representatives candidates pay $500AUD. These deposits are returned if a candidate gains more than 4% of the total first preference votes, or if the candidate is in a group of Senate candidates which polls at least 4% of the total first preference votes.”
[Source: Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 (Cth) §§ 294-297. Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 (Cth) § 294, Australia Constitution]
Until the ruling party relinquish its control of the print media and electoral agencies, it is both inappropriate and unreasonable to compare Singapore’s “cooling-off” day with Australia’s “black-out” period.
Australia conducts free and fair elections where no political parties will have an edge over the others unlike Singapore’s which are engineered to ensure an overwhelming victory for the ruling party.
-
YPAP P65 blogger supports “cooling-off” day and condemns netizens for spraying “venom” at govt
December 9, 2009 by Our Correspondent
Filed under HeadlinesA Young PAP member and blogger from the P65 blog, Mr Fredric Fanthome had lent his support to the “cooling-off” day to be introduced in the next election due by 2011.
All public rallies, door-to-door visits and display of party logos will be banned on the day designated on the eve of polling day itself to enable voters to make a “calm” and “rational” decision.
The P65 blog was set up in the aftermath of the 2006 general elections and was supposed to be an online platform for the young PAP MPs to reach out to netizens.
However, it floundered due to lack of interest and readership and was “revamped” this year – the MPs are no longer blogging and their places are taken over by young Singaporeans from “various backgrounds”.
According to YPAP Chairman Teo Ser Luck, it will now be “open” to all post-65 Singaporeans, who can write about ‘anything under the sun’, from entertainment and the economy to race and religion.
Mr Fanthome began his blog post by pouring scorn on the reaction of the opposition and netizens:
“Predictably there’s been a hullabaloo raised by the opposition who claims vary from it being “a sign of the lack of confidence of the PAP” (Mr. Desmond Lim Bak Chum of the SDA) to it being “designed to hurt the opposition” (Mr. Gandhi Ambalam of the SDP) – not to mention the usual vitriol by the anonymous hordes online who randomly spray venom at every government move from behind pseudonyms.”
He wrote that he doesn’t see how the “cooling-off” day is designed to bolster the PAP and damage the opposition and applauded the ruling party to allow “more freedom in the coming elections:
“There will be more freedom in the coming elections – podcasts will be allowed, the internet will be abuzz – and the government is also putting in place measures to ensure the presence of at least18 non-PAP members or about a fifth of the house in the next parliament regardless of election results. That is remarkable by any standard. No other country gives losing parties anywhere near as much voice.”
Mr Fanthome felt that the new changes introduced by PM Lee will “help” democracy and plurality in Singapore and castigated the opposition’s reaction:
“So instead of constantly finding fault with every measure or decision taken by the government– almost as a knee jerk reaction – where the default is “oppose” and then some reason is found to justify it, it would be good to see politicians being more discerning – supporting initiatives that are good for the people and opposing those they see are harmful – rather than just opposing everything.”
Mr Fanthome’s rather shallow, harsh and insensitive remarks predictably sparked an outcry in blogosphere with many netizens lampooning him on the P65 blog.
Purpose of opposition commented:
“Frederic does not seem to understand the role of opposition. Such an important basic operation of a decent or civil society and he can be so ignorant about it to the point of writing this article. And this is the type of people the PAP loves.”
Pimpmaster chided Fanthome for his unsavory remarks on anonymous netizens:
“Someone is out-of-touch…..so deeply. It is strange that folks like Fredreric, journalists and all, consider the idea of having pseudonyms as an alien and unacceptable idea. But of course, they call it “anonymous” nowadays. I’m not sure if it just his lack of sophistication, or lack of education. I guess it’s both.
It’s not a mystery. If there is one, it’s the reasoning behind the “cooling off”. Fredric, with all his talk, can’t even explain the need for it.
Bottomline is – PAP only manages to get 60% of votes ,yet it holds 98% of seats. Even Lee Hsien Loong almost got booted out of his own GRC by a thin 1% margin.
Whatever the opposition does on the eve of election works. It’s an insult to disclose WHAT IT IS to Fredric. I’d recommend that he get out of the office once in a while and discover for himself what is happening in the middle class areas of Singapore….and what exactly they do in the eve of election.
Then you’d understand why PAP wants to prohibit campaigning on that important night.”
Sgcygnic challenged Mr Fanthome to outline the achievements of the ruling party since last election:
“Frederick, I would love to hear what progress has been achieved by the incumbent in the 4 years since the last election. I’m sure the “anonymous hordes online” would be able to “find, willy-nilly something to nit-pick and criticize”. The mature and educated electorate would be able to make a reasoned comparison of both viewpoints.”
For some inexplicable reasons, Mr Fanthome, who doesn’t appears to be enamored with the “anonymous hordes” actually published their comments and replied to them.
He regurgitated the oft-repeated PAP’s rhetoric that a “constructive” opposition should not oppose everything the government does:
“The role of the opposition is (or should be) not simply to oppose everything proposed by the government, but to provide constructive opposition – oppose what is felt to be harmful and support (even if you are in opposition) policies that are good…..
If you merely oppose every single policy on the grounds that everything proposed by the government must be by definition harmful, in my view that is a useless opposition because clearly they cannot be depended upon to exercise any sort of judgment. It is not possible that every single policy proposed by the government is wrong – especially so in the case of Singapore that has seen such a remarkable ascent in the living standards of it’s population in the hands of this government. Singapore is living proof that the government has got a LOT right.
In my view the cool off day does not disadvantage the opposition unduly and hence I felt that the strong negative response was really not well thought out, but merely a knee-jerk reflexive and unintelligent response.”
Mr Fanthome also claimed that the PAP’s winning margin of 66 per cent of the popular vote in the last election is a “very strong” mandate:
“If you know anything about politics, 60% of the popular vote is very strong mandate in a first-past-the-post system and can very well lead to a complete landslide victory given a weak opposition. If you are not aware, Barack Obama’s share of the popular vote in a win portrayed as a landslide with 349 electoral college votes compared to McCain’s 162 (68% of the Electoral College) was just 52%. Yes, just 52%, and against a powerful opposition . By comparison, a 60% share of the popular vote is a massive mandate and against a weak opposition will generally lead to a very high % of seats won. And are you counting the non-contested constituencies or only the contested ones? If you are counting all the seats in parliament to get your 98% figure, then you need to include 100% of the population of the uncontested constituencies in the PAP share.”
In one of his comments, Mr Fanthome revealed that he graduated from a business school which is “harder” to enter than Harvard University.
From the many lengthy and detailed comments he posted, one can’t help wondering where he finds so much time to “engage” the “anonymous hordes” who have read his article.
It will not come as a surprise if he is being paid full-time to write on the P65 blog.
It is amusing that a blog sponsored by the ruling party, run by known bloggers and given extensive publicity in the mainstream media should have a readership less than 1 per cent of The Temasek Review which belongs to the “anonymous hordes” so despised by Mr Fanthome and his fellow acolytes.
Unfortunately, PAP bloggers like Mr Fanthome remains in the minority and they will never be able to compete in Singapore’s blogosphere against “anonymous hordes” like us who will continue to call the shots, whether they like it or not.
In cyberspace, the content of a website matters more than anything else, not the identity of its writers and the more readers a news site has, the more influence it will be able to exert.
As for PAP bloggers like Fanthome who deliberately tried to court controversy in order to boost their site’s flagging readership, the most appropriate course of action is to ignore their existence altogether.
After all, we belong to the “anonymous hordes” and it is better that we are left alone in our own world where we are the ones who set the rules of engagement.
-
YPAP member and P65 blogger Fredric Fanthome is a new citizen from India
December 9, 2009 by Our Correspondent
Filed under HeadlinesYPAP member and P65 blogger Fredric Fanthome who made a spirited defence of the “cooling-off” day proposed by Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong on the p65 blog turned out to be a new citizen from India!
In an article he wrote for Contact Singapore, an alliance of the Singapore Economic Development Board and Ministry of Manpower to attract global talent to work, invest and live in Singapore, he described Singapore as a place which “works”.
“The electricity never fails, the transport system works, the drainage system works. You can drink water from the tap without worrying about getting a tummy ache. And the air is clean, except when there are forest fires in Indonesia!”
Fredric did not reveal when he became a Singapore citizen, but it is pretty obvious that he is proud of his adopted country from his writings:
“I did not adapt to Singapore. I did not have to. Singapore was the kind of city I was always looking for……I don’t just live here. I am Singaporean. Singaporean by choice, and proud of it.”
[Source: A City which fits like a Charm from "The Singapore Experience" by Contact Singapore]
Being born and brought up in a developing country like India, it is little wonder that Fredric is in love with Singapore.
However, he must be financially secure to qualify for Singapore citizenship in the first place.
As an outsider not familiar with the political history of Singapore, Mr Fredric may be forgiven for speaking up in the defence of the PAP government who gave him the opportunity to start life afresh in Singapore.
Due to the PAP’s liberal immigration policies, Singapore’s population has hit the 5-million mark this year, out of which 36 per cent are foreigners, up from 14 per cent in 1990.
Of the remaining 64 per cent of the population who are citizens, it is not known how many are new citizens like Mr Fredric.
The PAP has been actively using courting new citizens by organizing events for them and giving them free goodies.
A 10-million dollar Community Integration Fund was launched lately by Minister of Community, Youth and Sports Dr Vivian Balakrishnan to make the new citizens feel welcomed.
(However, he has no money to pay for the Singapore Sports Hub which has been hit be repeated delays)
New citizens and even PRs are recruited to serve as grassroots leaders in the community.
According to Dr Vivian himself, there are now 4,500 new citizens serving in various capacities in grassroots organizations which are under the control of the People’s Association headed by the Prime Minister himself.
New citizens tend to be more supportive and appreciative of the government as epitomized by the example of Mr Fredric.
With more new citizens like Mr Fredric becoming voters in future elections, the PAP can be assured of that their political hegemony will continue for many years to come.
-
Ya lor, there are a lot of unemployed citizens now and their rice bowls are taken away by the foreign workers and foreign talents.
These groups of unemployed citizens and their families will likely to vote against the PAP despite the serial numbers in the election form for they have no fear now.
To offset these unfavourable votes, the import of the foreigners to become citizens in large amount will be a right move politically. These new citizens are likely to vote for PAP.
So, the opposition who hope to gain more votes in the next election will be realized by the unemployed citizens but overall the percentage of votes for the opposition can even be less due to the large amount of the new citizens who vote for PAP.
-
“Revamped” P65 blog turning out to be a YPAP blog by new citizens
The “revamped” P65 blog which is supposed to be “non-partisan” in nature is fast turning out to be a farce with the latest revelation that one of its regular bloggers Mr Fredric Fanthome is not only a YPAP member, but a new citizen from India as well.
The P65 blog was set up after the 2006 elections by the post-65 PAP MPs to connect with the online community, but floundered due to the lack of commitment and traffic.
It had recently undergone a major “revamp” in August this year with a complete new editorial team to replace the PAP MPs who no longer blogs on the site.
According to YPAP Chairman Teo Ser Luck, the P65 blog will no longer carry just the PAP’s views and will steer clear of supporting a political party.
Instead, it will be open to all post-65 Singaporeans, who can write about ‘anything under the sun’, from entertainment and the economy to race and religion, said Mr Teo Ser Luck, 41, who leads the group of 12 post-65 PAP MPs.
“We have our own Young PAP website for the politically inclined,’ he added, referring to the PAP youth wing which he heads. ‘The p65 blog is to allow other young people to share their views, which are non-partisan, neutral and can be constructive criticism of policies,” he said.
[Source: Straits Times, 12 August 2009]
Though Mr Teo said initially that none of the writers are affiliated to theYPAP, one of them, Vikram Nair admitted a week later on the P65 blog itself that he is a YPAP member.
Two other writers are in organizations affiliated to the PAP including unionist Mohamad Nazir Sani, 35, and grassroots leader Terence Quek, 34.
Contrary to Mr Teo’s claims that the views espoused on P65 are “non-partisan” and “neutral”, a quick glance at the articles shows that they reflect the ingrained mindset of the PAP and are strongly pro-government both in substance and tone.
For example, in his controversial article on the “cooling-off” day, Mr Fredric Fanthome wrote that the opposition should not just oppose for the sake of “opposing” and that its role is to offer “constructive” criticisms.
He also defended the GRC system using the PAP’s standard explanation that its continued existence is necessary to ensure minority representation in parliament.
It appears that the P65 blog is staffed by PAP apologists rather than “independent” bloggers as claimed by them.
If the PAP thinks that the revamped P65 blog in the guise of a “non-partisan” site not affiliated to it will help it establish a presence in blogosphere, then it is grossly mistaken.
Barely four months after the site was “revamped”, its already pathetic readership drops by more than half from an alexa traffic ranking of 20,934 in August to just 43,219 now.
Perhaps it is more apt to rename the P65 site as a YPAP-P65 blog or a YPAP-new citizens blog.