Joseph Teo

Two articles in the Sunday Times 10 April 2011, demonstrate the inability by members of the ruling party to link cause and effect.

Uh… but you control the campaign period, wat!

In the first (“Aljunied GRC is in good hands: Lim Boon Heng”, Eglin Toh, p. 4), Mrs Lim Hwee Hwa criticizes the Worker’s Party for not revealing its line-up for Aljunied GRC, and Mr Lim Boon Heng goes on to say, “… So when it comes to a campaign, a short 10 days, I think it’s quite difficult for people to assess… so it would be a pity if people are made to cast their choices without the proper assessment of candidates.”

People should be given sufficient time to make a proper assessment of their candidates.  However, the cause of insufficient assessment time is not that the opposition parties do not reveal their line-up.  Had the Prime Minister, who is also the Secretary-General of the ruling party, dissolved Parliament immediately after Budget 2011 was passed on 9 March 2011; made Nomination Day a week later; and allowed a  three-month campaigning period between Nomination Day and Election Day; all this discussion would be moot.  Everyone would know where everyone else was running, and all the candidates would be introduced in the constituencies where they would run.  The matter is entirely in the hands of the ruling party.

If the ruling party was concerned that there was insufficient assessment time, why have they not quickly pinned down Election Day and called for nominations?  Perhaps it is because they are learning slowly, and still adjusting to new circumstances.  In the past, when there were no alternative media sources, the ruling party would use the lead-up to Nomination Day as an unofficial campaign period.  They would use the unreliable (according to PM Lee: https://www.theonlinecitizen.com/2011/04/straits-times-credibility-et-tu-pm-lee/) state-controlled media to set the agenda and discussion for the coming elections.  Opposition voices would be suppressed and given selective coverage.  Today, this has changed – many articles in the Straits Times are in reaction to issues raised by voters online, and PAP candidates suddenly realize that they are being very seriously assessed on their merits.  The ruling party can no longer control the election agenda, but they have failed to adjust, sticking instead to their old election strategies.

If Mr Lim is really concerned about the lack of time for a proper assessment of the candidates, perhaps he should speak to his Secretary-General and ask that Election Day be quickly determined, and that a sufficiently long campaign period be instituted.

It’s the mind, not the body

In the second article (“Judge on ability, not gender”, Teo Wan Gek, p. 1), Mrs Lim Hwee Hwa urges Singaporeans to assess new PAP candidates on whether they had the conviction to serve and on their abilities and competencies.  She goes on to say, “So I hope people will assess (them) from that perspectives, and not target them… more or less because they are women”, in an obvious reference to two of the PAP’s new female candidates, Ms Tin Pei Ling and Ms Foo Mee Har.

The reporter then goes on to say that Ms Tin was criticized for her youth.  It seems that some members of the ruling party are unable to discern that youth and gender are in fact two different dimensions.   In any case, in addition to her lack of experience (not “youth”), the criticism of Ms Tin centered on her inability to express independent thought or put together a coherent argument.  In contrast, Ms Sylvia Lim of the Worker’s Party experiences her fair share of criticism but has always defended her thoughts and arguments robustly.  She has never had to resort to saying, “Oh you are bullying me because I am a woman.”

The arguments about the lack of independent thinking are not “targeted” at Ms Tin, but also apply to the other new PAP candidates.  Perhaps Mrs Lim should pay more attention to what the voters are saying.

Conclusion

The failure by the members of the ruling party to relate cause and effect, and their failure to understand basic economics (https://www.theonlinecitizen.com/2011/02/failing-to-understand-basic-economics/) are strong arguments for the necessity of a vibrant opposition and the creation of a government-in-waiting.  Only through robust debate can the flaws in the thinking of ruling party members be exposed.  Only through robust debate can better policies be concocted.  Only through robust debate can Singaporeans once again contribute and take control of our collective future.

 

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

WP's Faisal Manap is wise to avoid being trapped by Law Minister on issue of religion and politics, says Gerald Giam

During the debate about the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act (MHRA) in…

Preparing our SMEs for the next phase of growth

With the economic downturn, what’re the concerns of our SMEs? By Andrew Ong.

中国人捐赠物置放领事馆外 三箱子口罩被当可疑物引爆

马来西亚的中国驻槟城总领事馆外放了三个可疑箱子,引起警方的拆弹专家和拆弹机械人进行引爆,岂知爆出来的竟然是口罩,而置放箱子者则是五男二女中国人。 据悉,总领事馆的职员于1月31日下午3时许,在领事馆门口发现三个可疑盒子,于是联络相关单位。 槟城消拯局和警方在接获投报,到到现场进行考察,由于无法确定盒子内的物品,便根据程序启动引爆行动。 警方当时派出了拆弹专家和拆单机器人到现场展开谨慎调查,救护车也在现场待命。现场的记者都被疏散道远出后,拆弹专家身穿防爆服,在遥控机器人的帮助下打开盒子准备引爆。 没交流导致虚惊一场 有关引爆工作于下午5时15分进行第一次,随后在进行第二次引爆的当儿,多个口罩被“炸飞”出来,证实了一切只是虚惊一场。 槟城消拯局当天发文告指出,由于放置箱子的认识不明,因此最后由槟城消拯局危险物品特别拯救部队(Hazmat)回收口罩。 当天在优管(YouTube)上也流传了一则视频,只见数人在该领事馆外面拉着横幅和置放箱子。 他们拉着的横幅上写道:“我们代表马来西亚华侨,诚心祈愿武汉同胞们身强体壮早日康复”、“武汉加油!”。 警方随后根据有关线索调查,发现三箱口罩原来是由七名身在马国的中国人,分别是5名男子和两名女捐赠给中国同乡。 当地警区主任表示,这七人当时分乘两辆休旅车抵达领事馆,放置三箱口罩后拍下视频,逗留了半小时后就安静离开。 基于领事馆职员并不认识他们,且没有进一步交流,导致了这一宗乌龙事件的发生。

Amy Khor: Stall rentals and charges at new hawker centres “significantly lower” than foodcourts’

On Monday (1 Oct), Non-Constituency MP Daniel Goh asked in Parliament if…