Yawning Bread. May 2006

NUSS forum: Post-mortem on the 2006 general elections

source: Sammyboy forum, posting by 'Peasant Monkey'

     

  

 

 
As expected, the media's coverage of the NUS Forum - GE 2006 Post-Mortem - is inept, terrible, and inaccurate. It paints a skewed picture of what actually took place at Guild House last night.

I will try as much as I can to recall and offer my own report here.

Catherine Lim kicked off the forum with her characteristic lively and enthusiastic account of two fictional stories. I will not recount the details of the two stories here but the point of her speech, as far as I can gather, is this: If the [government] lets go enough, the people will wise up, and be able to see what is in their own interest.

Speaking after Catherine Lim was Perry Tong of the [Workers' Party]. His speech dwelled on what the WP has done and what it will be doing in future, how the WP perceived the elections.

Dr Chee Soon Juan spoke next. He started off with a rather good joke.. "I hadn't been able to sleep for a few days after the elections. I tried counting sheep to help me get to sleep...but even then, I couldn't...[because] even the sheep were all in white... (the audience broke out in laughter and applause) And there were all these running dogs around them, trying to keep the sheep in line and not allowing them to stray..." (Audience broke out in laugher again...)

Dr Chee then proceeded to his speech proper. He gave the second longest speech last night (Denise Phua's speech was the longest - more than half an hour although the chair had informed the panelists that each had only 10 to 12 minutes). Anyway, Dr Chee's focussed on why he and the [Singapore Democratic Party] did not approve of the elections because of certain thinsg which happened behind the scenes.

It was rather revealing to hear him give examples of such 'political manoeuvering' by the PAP [government]. For example: [Government] officials had paid the SDP contractors, who were supposed to put up their rally stage, a visit on the very same morning when the SDP was to hold its first rally. The contractors then told the SDP that they could no longer do the work of putting up their stage. The SDP then had to find a new contractor to do the work. 

His main thrust was the media -- and how it skewed several incidents to paint the SDP in a bad light.

One example Dr Chee gave was the picture of him with reporters outside his office. He had given the media a full 5 minutes of his time answering their questions, and photographers snapped away at him for that full 5 minutes. "Now, 5 minutes to a photographer is an eternity", Chee said. "But what did we see the next day in the papers?" He put up a picture on the projector and showed everyone the picture. "It looks as though I am trying to run away from answering their questions although I had been answering them for a full 5 minutes!"

He went on to show pictures of how the SDP was given skewed coverage by the media. Dr Chee offered that there cannot be legitimacy to elections in Singapore if the [government] continues to engage in such acts of misrepresentation and misinformation.

Next was Prof Ho Khai Leong. He started off by saying that he is very disappointed by the elections, and called for several reforms focussing on the PAP itself, the media and the electoral process, and also called for municipal, local elections to be seriously considered.

On the PAP, he suggested (in very strong terms, in fact) that internal reforms are needed. He criticised the need to have the offices of [Senior Minister] & [Minister Mentor]. These create illegitimacy for the [Prime Minister]. "Who is really in charge of the [government]? The PM should be the one who is in charge of everything - including winning back Potong Pasir and Hougang." (Audience laughed and clapped) 

Prof Ho also criticised the manner in which the [Group Representation Constituencies] allowed new candidates to be helicoptered into office. He questioned the bond and the legitimacy of [Members of Parliament] who hide behind one main minister to win an election. "You are not voting for the new MP but voting for the main MP, who is a minister."

Calling for the [government] to seriously consider holding municipal, local elections, he said that this will free up MPs to be legislators at the national level, and local elections will be for representatives who will handle local municipal issues. He reiterated that MPs should not be bogged down with matters such as lift upgrading, covered walkways or writing letters to [departments] on behalf of residents.

Last to speak was Denise Phua. She spent a good part of her speech relating her own personal experiences and why she chose to join the [People's Action Party]. She explained that she had gone from being 'anti-establishment to being in the establishment' and how her friends and family were surprised.

Ms Phua speaks well, articulates her words clearly and came across as a genuinely caring person. It is quite apparent that she is passionate about her work with autistic children. However, that is why it is also with a bit of sadness that she was 'arrowed' to represent the PAP in such a forum. Clearly out of her depth, she struggled to explain PAP policies and attitudes. Mostly, she repeated the oft-heard official PAP lines - although she did call herself a 'non-conformist' at one point.

She focussed her speech on her own personal analysis of the GE and came to the conclusion that, although some things need to be looked at, the elections was a good one for the PAP and delivered a good result for them.

Ms Phua gave a long speech and the restlessness of the audience became apparent towards the end of it. To be fair to her, being a first-time politician and being arrowed to represent her party, she did her best not to stray from her party line.

As for the question and answer session after the main speeches, I will have to depend on others who were there to help remember what I cannot. I hope those of who who attended will help flesh out this report.

For me, the highlight of the Q&A session were these two kids from Raffles. Their questions were sharp and were directed squarely at the PAP's Denise Phua. One of the students asked if she is being a hypocrite (my word, not the student's) by saying that she is concerned about the "85% of anti-PAP postings on the internet" while at the same time ignoring the "more than 90% or 100%" anti-opposition reporting in the mainstream media.

The student went on to say that it is precisely because the mainstream media is so biased towards the PAP that Singaporeans had to go on to the Internet to express themselves. This has resulted in a sort of 'balance' between the two media. Instead of decrying anti-PAP postings online, she should instead ask why this is so, in the first place.

Ms Phua clarified that she is not against such postings but that she is concerned why Singaporeans seem to be taking such a stance against the PAP. Her main concern, it seems, is how the [government] will be perceived internationally - as the internet is accessible internationally.

She then went on to regurgitate the official PAP line that businesses will suffer if Singapore is perceived as being disunited. "Investors will not come to invest."



Foreword by Yawning Bread

The National University of Singapore Society organised a forum "GE2006 Post-mortem" on 23 May 2006.

Here is a report on it by someone who was there. I have edited it slightly, mostly to correct typographical errors but also to expand abbreviations. In the case of the latter, they are shown in [square brackets].

See also the article Legislator wants to "manage" political expression on the internet

 

 

24 May 2006
'Today' newspaper

Students today, leaders tomorrow?
by Derrick A Paulo

They are 17 years old and four years shy of even voting in an election. But that has not stopped a group of students from getting involved in Singapore politics. 

In fact, the group of 15 is already looking ahead to the next decade, and the possibility of standing for public office and even forming their own political party. 

The group, which is made up of junior college students who either met online or through mutual friends, has one overarching aim: To see changes in the civic and civil life in Singapore. 

Over the past few months, they have been noticed at public forums on politics, asking thought-provoking questions, seemingly unafraid of the more seasoned politicians they were debating with.

Some of them, such as ex-Raffles Girls School students Sabrina Szeto and Ellen Kan, gained public exposure earlier this year when they and their ex-classmates tried to sell "Save the White Elephants" T-shirts. 

However, it was the General Election (GE) that led to a group of mutual friends, augmented by online networking, to eventually decide that entering the political arena is one of the ways to go. 

But what exactly do these English-educated students from some of Singapore's top schools, such as Raffles Junior College and Hwa Chong Institution, want to change? 

Well, for one, the upgrading policy. At a political dialogue session last month, Arhshath Kaleni took on People's Action Party (PAP) MP Indranee Rajah and argued that since upgrading comes under the Housing Development Board, it was wrong to blur the line between political parties and Government agencies, as it would distort civic needs. 

On Tuesday night, at another dialogue session on the GE, he quizzed PAP MP-elect Denise Phua on whether there could be balanced views in Singapore society without media liberalisation. Sabrina, who also attended the session, chose to debate with Ms Phua about checks and balances. 

However, despite focusing their line of fire on the ruling party, the teenagers firmly believe they are "not anti-PAP, just anti-PAP domination" because "a dominant voice is unhealthy". 

"We are motivated by issues and policies, not parties," said Sabrina yesterday, in an interview with four of the politically-inclined teenagers.

Now that some of them have attended several forums, they believe the next step would be to hold forums of their own so they can further the discourse on important "macro issues" and to increase their numbers. 

"What we want are feasible, concrete ideas to turn into action that can benefit the people and we are looking at how all of us, young people are able to materialise the ideals that we have," said Soh Yi Da, stressing the importance of community work. 

After that, though, the youths are less sure about what might come next, or how long all of them will stay the course. 

According to Kaleni, though, if in the years to come they still feel there is a lack of "genuine engagement" by the Government, a lack of alternative voices, and a lack of change, that plan to stand for elections or form a party might come closer to reality.

 

Footnotes

None

Addenda

None