The following is Ravi Philemon’s original letter to ST Forum.

I refer to Mr Lim Jit Chaing’s article ‘Disunity is obstructing an effective by-election strategy’. Even in the 1991 General Election (GE), the so-called ‘opposition unity’ was suspect, because in Jurong Single Member Constituency (SMC), there was a 3-cornered fight between the incumbent PAP candidate, Mr John Gan Eng Guan who stood as a Workers’ Party candidate and Mr Mohamed bin Awang who was PKMS’s candidate. Mr Mohamed bin Awang lost his election deposit in that contest. So to attribute the success for the opposition in the 1991 GE to the ‘by-election strategy’ is not totally accurate.

Six political parties contested the 1991 GE, which is not too far away from the seven political parties which are expected to contest the coming GE, so it is inaccurate to say that there are many more opposition parties today. The leaders of the opposition parties too cannot be considered self-centred just because they disagree with the writer of that letter that the by-election strategy (if there truly was one) will work this time around as it did in 1991.

In my opinion, the by-election strategy is a self-serving strategy because even if that was the reason for more opposition members to have been elected in the 1991 GE, it also deprived the voters from having a say in who they would have to represent themselves in parliament.

In the past GEs of 1991, 1997, 2001 and 2006 (with the exception of Mr Tan Lead Shake), all the opposition candidates who have lost their election deposits did so, when they went for three or four cornered fights.

Even the team that went up against the Prime Minister in the last GE (who the Prime Minister himself labeled the ‘suicide squad’ and said that even the bookies would not take bets on the outcome of that contest), did very well to garner about 40 per cent of the votes in that contest, because there were no three or more cornered fights in that constituency that time round.

The reasons for Tan Lead Shake losing his election deposit were something more complex. Mr Tan Cheng Bock the PAP candidate who he contested in Ayer Rajah SMC was very popular with the residents there and had been returned to parliament with very high vote margin in most of the elections he had contested. And there was a opinion swing of the voters against Mr Tan Lead Shake because he was always depicted as the ‘Slipper Man’ by the mainstream media for having appeared in the 1997 nomination day with his slippers.

In his letter Mr Lim indicated that the opposition should choose their candidates carefully and by carefully he meant candidates over 60 and candidates who have lost two elections should not be fielded. By that standard of ‘carefulness’ some of the PAP’s candidates including Mr Lee Kuan Yew, Mr Goh Chok Tong and Mr Sitoh Yih Pin will not qualify to be fielded as candidates in this coming GE. The term ‘effective candidates’ that Mr Lim uses to describe the type of opposition candidates he would like in a GE is also suspect, because how can you measure what is effective and what is not unless they have been given a chance in parliament? To ask that all the candidates be like Sylvia Lim is also unreasonable as there can but be only one Sylvia Lim.

Published version:

Subscribe
Notify of
0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
You May Also Like

Unfolding United Airlines PR nightmare

A man was forcefully removed from a United Airlines Chicago-Louisville flight by…

马律师公会:希盟应实践诺言废恶法

马来西亚律师公会呼吁希盟政府兑现竞选宣言,尽快废除《1948年煽动法令》、《2012 年国家安全罪行( 特別措施) 法令》(SOSMA)、《2013年防范罪案法令》(POCA),以及《2015年反恐法令》等压迫性恶法。 该公会主席乔治瓦鲁格斯律师指出,上述四大恶法允许执法者未审先扣和豁免司法审查(ouster clause)条款,形同停留在殖民时期。 他认为,现有法令已经足够应付犯罪和恐怖主义的威胁。如果觉得不足,理应修改现有法令,或草拟符合法治的新法。 他也提及过去一些法令在没有经过适当辩论或测试,就匆匆在国会通过,《2018假新闻法令》就是一例,它的内容、意图和影响都有疑问和缺陷。 马内政部长吁保留恶法 早前,马内政部长募尤丁宣布该国政府将保留SOSMA和POCA法令,指出二法若废除,恐怖分子和罪犯可恣意威胁国家安全。 律师公会对此发文抨击,指希盟竞选宣言承诺废除上述严厉条例,表示“政府应尊重法治”,“不应享有绝对自主权(carte blanche),剥夺人民在宪法享有的权利和公民自由。”…

被五巴士司机起诉 新捷运聘本地知名大状文达星辩护

五名巴士司机分别状告本地巴士业者新捷运(SBS Transit),指责后者违反加班工酬条款,支付不足工酬。新捷运则已委任本地司法界大状文达星(Davinder Singh)为他们辩护。 代表巴士司机的Carson律师楼,今日也在脸书证实新捷运委任文达星,针对五位巴士司机控诉作辩护。目前,新捷运有14天时间提呈辩词。 文达星目前还代表我国总理李显龙,个别针对时评人梁实轩和本社总编许渊臣进行诽谤诉讼。 上月23日,新捷运企业沟通副主席Tammy Tan向本社证实,上述五名巴士司机经由Carson律师楼提呈的诉状,并正与律师商讨,有意针对相关指控进行辩护。 这些司机已在该公司任职三至10年不等。在上月20日提呈的诉状中,也提及其中四名司机,曾向推事庭提呈类似的诉讼。尽管在今年7月和八日,出席了两次与国家交通工友联合会(NTWU)和康福德高的会谈,不过他们认为控诉和报告未受到重视。 原告也申诉到劳资政纠纷调解联盟(TADM),也被转介给职工总会(NTUC)。不过基于没有得到“结论性的答复”,他们向新捷运发函,要求解释每月薪资明细。 “尽管当时新捷运同意这些司机在两日后回函,不过此后没有再收到任何回复,于是他们再向新捷运连发四封追问邮件。” 诉状中提及的控诉,包括原告指责他们被预期在休假日之前,可以“连续7日工作无休”,这不符合双方同意的聘任书,故此可能违反《雇佣法》36条,即员工理应每周获得休息日,或者值班超过30小时理应获休假。 原告也指控被要求“每周工作超过44小时”,也违反《雇佣法》规定的法定工时。