25 Comments on A Visit to Worker’s Party Open House (02 Jun 08)

anon on Wed, 4th Jun 2008 10:45 am


I think it is not fair to get WP to be involve in SDP’s problems. They have their own style of doing things and you in my personal opinion should not try to get them involve and start quoting them. I am actually very impressed with your writings but recently, your dissactification with WP has clouded your judgment. It has become personal. You are no longer writing with your analytical self. You don’t seem to want to entertain the idea that there are many ways of dealing with things. You give me the feeling that only your way is the best way of dealing with things. WP is not SDP. They have no obligation to take your suggestions. If you guys don’t work together, at least you guys are still standing. If you start to kill each other, I think when elections comes we will have no oppositions.

The Singapore Daily » Blog Archive » Daily SG: 4 Jun 2008 on Wed, 4th Jun 2008 11:24 am


[...] are you going to do about it?” – Sgpolitics: A Visit to Worker’s Party Open House (02 Jun 08) – UncleYap: Protests Began against famiLEE LEEgime intimidation & oppression – My Singapore [...]

unsung hero on Wed, 4th Jun 2008 12:31 pm


good work Ng E-Jay. tks fort he work .

TheOwl on Wed, 4th Jun 2008 1:21 pm


So many opportunities presented on a silver platter for WP members LTK and SL to engage the PAP members in parliament and extract forthcoming answers. The relationship between both parties is just too cosy. It is not too unreasonable to assume both parties have been sleeping in the same bed. For the sake of the country and its people, will LTK and SL please end their sweetheart relationship with the ruling party. Enough is enough !

Lee Lilian on Wed, 4th Jun 2008 1:25 pm


HI,

Thank you for visiting the WP’s Open House :)

Yes, it was suppose to be my Open HOuse duty on 2nd June but I was not there because I was not feeling well.

Hence I have no idea which Lilian Lee did you meet up with.

What is WP about? on Wed, 4th Jun 2008 7:34 pm


Hi E-Jay,

A very good effort from you in finding out what their views are about. If you ask that sets of questions to a PAP MP and surprisingly you get the same answers too. WP is so much like a PAP and i wondered are they really an alternative or just a PAP repackaged as WP. Like the recent MR YAW and all his foolishness nailed my idea of what WP is all about. What is WP all about can anyone tell me?

Curious Reader.

admin on Wed, 4th Jun 2008 9:18 pm


Dear Lilian Lee,

Sorry it was my error.

The Lilian who attend was Alan’s wife. I mistook her for you.

I will edit my post now. Thanks.

E-Jay

admin on Wed, 4th Jun 2008 9:25 pm


Dear anon (post 1),

I think that was the point I was trying to emphasize to Dr Poh — each party or NGO has its own way of doing things, but we must recognize that we complement each other rather than compete with each other. I expressed the view that I would like to see WP be more open about it.

Of course I do not expect WP to support SDP openly or unconditionally, but at least they can show a little more initiative, such as the Electoral reform forum.

If I came across as overly confrontational, I apologize. My intention was never to accuse WP of not doing all the other things other parties/NGO/civil societies are doing. No single entity can, anyway.

Thanks for your comments.

E-Jay

asdp on Wed, 4th Jun 2008 9:30 pm


Do you work? Can you do things like read, sleep or eat in peace? Not everyone has a job or is able to do these things, y’know. These are privileges, not rights, and can be taken from you anytime.

Lee Lilian on Wed, 4th Jun 2008 10:13 pm


Hi Admin aka E-Jay,

No problem :)

Ned Stark on Thu, 5th Jun 2008 2:14 am


I concur with E-Jay. If the opposition is fragmented then little can be achieved. Fortunately things aren’t as bad as they seem; as seen in GE 2006 where there were attempts to prevent three cornered fights.

Gabriel Sim on Thu, 5th Jun 2008 11:34 am


I agree that each opposition party has its own niche sphere of operations and influence. The SDP are more predisposed towards civil disobedience while the WP take the route of “if you cant bet them, join them”.

I think its good to have different identities. But as the YSL debacle highlights, opp parties should share a common objective. One that brings about change for the better of singaporeans.

This requires each opp party to give a damn about the other’s activities/issues. Just because you do not engage in civil disobedience doesnt mean you dont have to have an opinion on it.

If the WP will not stand up for other parties, there may come a day when they are the only opp party left. And who will be there to stand up for them?

What is SDP about? on Thu, 5th Jun 2008 1:54 pm


WP has the old good PAP and a bit of the bad side of the present PAP. SDP has the worst side of PAP. One is run by Lees, one run by Chees. It’s a family business. Also look at all the one sided propaganda in their website, it’s like the PAP 141th SPH papers.

Andrew Loh on Thu, 5th Jun 2008 2:51 pm


Hi Ejay,

I think Martyn See said it best at the screening of his films a few months back. To paraphrase him somewhat: All opposition have their own way of doing things. There’s no point in comparing one to the other.

Politics is a hugely complex thing. It often is not as clear-cut as one may hope. I suspect that the WP (and other opposition parties) are wary of the SDP simply because most people who’ve associated themselves with the SDP have gotten into trouble – bankrupted, sued, jailed, etc.

Looking at the WP’s oft-repeated position of wanting to be a ‘responsible party’, this would also hold true within the party itself. By that, I mean the party leadership also feels a sense of responsibility to the younger members – esp those in the CEC. I am sure that Low TK and Sylvia are mindful that the younger members do not have their livelihood and futures destroyed just for a moment of bravado.

Of course, the argument can be made that the party has a bigger responsibility to the larger public but that really, is a political decision the party has to make.

That is my take on the cautious approach the WP has taken.

Coming back to the SDP and why other opposition parties, particularly the WP, does not seem to want to be associated with them, perhaps it is the SDP which should start thinking about the reason why. This is even more so when you consider that it is not just the opposition parties who do not want to do so but most S’poreans as well.

Of course, one can cast the blame on all and sundry – the media, the PAP’s overwhelming power and presence and so on. That, in my opinion, is just half the equation.

At the end of the day, a political party’s calculation is based on just one thing: Will our stance or position on issues win us more votes?

And, in my own personal opinion, most opposition parties’ calculation is that to stand with or be associated with the SDP, will not win them more votes. In fact, it may diminish their number of votes. (I think if you speak to people in the heartlands, who are the majority of voters, they do not really have a very good impression of the SDP.)

For any party which has interest in electoral victories, this ultimately is the measure of what they should do or not do.

As for your comments about what Sylvia Lim did at the IBA forum, you may be surprised that many agree with her. I have yet to hear of many ordinary Singaporeans who would disagree that our judicial system is a good one, apart from a small group of activists such as yourself.

My take then is this: Look at the big picture, and then look at it as a politician or a political party.

The WP, as far as I know, is not made up of activists. They are a political party first, with the belief in winning Parliamentary power through the electoral process, however skewed or unfair we may think it is.

Even though we may disagree with the WP’s stance, that is their stance – and they will have to bear the consequences of it, either way.

Regards,
Andrew Loh

Andrew Loh on Thu, 5th Jun 2008 6:51 pm


I’d like to add one more thing about the WP.

I find it rather dubious, really, to hear WP members say things like: “This is my personal views” or that the party has not discussed this issue or that issue and so the party has not taken a stand.

I think if the party’s chairman is invited, accepted and attended a public forum, and speaks at the forum, I think it is quite fair to say that the chairman’s words and views are the party’s stand.

After all, the invite was sent, I believe, to the party, and if the party had discussed whether to accept and send a representative (in this case, its chairman), then I think any fair-minded person would say that the chairman would be speaking on behalf of the party.

I haven’t heard and didn’t hear or know that Sylvia was speaking on her own personal basis at the IBA forum.

So, I think WP members should stop hiding behind the “this is my personal view” idea. Especially when it is their chairman speaking in a public forum which the party had accepted to attend and sent a representative.

George on Thu, 5th Jun 2008 7:32 pm


I agree with you that the oppostion parties should get together now, well before the GE to understand each other’s position and stand on the whole scope of issues. They not only must be united and mutually supportive or at least respective/understand each other’s philosophy and approach, they should not fall into the trap of being egged on by the govt to take a stand AGAINST one another in any issues. I would call this ‘enlightened self-interest’. If you take the bait and got cornered into making critical statements about one another, the govt would have indeed achieve its aim of ‘dividing and conquering’.

I am not into partisan politics, but I sure hate to see anyone being manipulated, with the perpetuator, the govt, laughing all the way to the bank, so to speak. Through this process of cooperation too you may well discern/detect a geniune allay from a make-believe one. NEVER RULE OUT THE POSSIBILITY OF BEING INFILTRATED AND A PLANT IN YOUR MIDST.

I am not out to divide, but the possibilities are only too real – I think you know who I am referring to.

admin on Thu, 5th Jun 2008 9:11 pm


Dear Andrew Loh (comments 14 and 15),

Thanks for your thoughtful comments.

It is true that different entities can have such differing way of doing things that it is futile to compare them.

But my point still remains: We need to be more open and accepting to each other, because at the end of the day, we are all working towards very broad common objectives of increased political plurality and a greater voice for the people.

In fact, I think I should also be subject to the same criticism, in that I myself should try to be more open to the methods employed by, for example, the WP. Comment number 1 (by anon) was a good one to warn me to avoid falling into the same trap that I criticize others of.

Your comments about WP wanted to be cautious in the sense you describe as a result wanting to safeguard the livelihood of their members is understandable. At the end of the day, in fact each of us has to be responsible for our own actions in terms of what party we join or support, and that is why it is very important to know each parties’ approach to doing things and their underlying philosophy. Each party should therefore be very open and frank about its approach and its methodology, and not pretend to be something it is not.

I feel in this respect, SDP has been quite open and frank about what they are and the methods they will use. I feel WP could be a little bit more open. Your post number 15 about WP members say things like: “This is my personal views” or that the party has not discussed this issue or that issue and so the party has not taken a stand, comes to mind here.

Cheers,

E-Jay

Tan Ah Kow on Thu, 5th Jun 2008 11:14 pm


Andrew Loh said:

As for your comments about what Sylvia Lim did at the IBA forum, you may be surprised that many agree with her. I have yet to hear of many ordinary Singaporeans who would disagree that our judicial system is a good one, apart from a small group of activists such as yourself.

My question to Andrew is that when you put a bald question like this it is very likely when you asked any Singaporean to want to answer yes. Have you consider the fact that given the fear of being accused of scandalising, and going to jail, the judiciary people in Singapore might be afraid to answer otherwise?

Now I am not saying that it might well be true that Singaporean might indeed be regarded the judiciary as ‘good’, whatever that means. But you can’t discount the fear factor that if they gave the wrong answer they fear they might end up in Jail too!

A more pointed question that one could ask and really determine the true feeling is if one day Lee Kuan Yew sue you, do you think you will get a fair judgement?

You can see by asking you the question this way, and whether they give a direct answer or not. If the answer is the a direct yes, you can say with high confidence that they indeed believe in the judiciary “goodness”. If they give an answer with a question — i.e. “why would Lee want to sue me” or anything short of being affirmative than you can tell there is no confidence there.

Anyway, why did the WP chairwoman affirm her believe in the judiciary’s independence by advising Gomez to sue Lee Kuan Yew when he called Gomez a liar. A very clear defamatory statement? Why is she not really demonstrating her confidence there?

Now that would have been a true test of confidence!

Tan Ah Kow on Thu, 5th Jun 2008 11:29 pm


Ooops…

This:

Now I am not saying that it might well be true that Singaporean might indeed be regarded the judiciary as ‘good’, whatever that means.

should be:

Now I am not saying that you are wrong. It might well be true that Singaporean might indeed be regarded the judiciary as ‘good’, whatever that means.

This:

Anyway, why did the WP chairwoman affirm her believe in the judiciary’s independence by advising Gomez to sue Lee Kuan Yew when he called Gomez a liar.

should be:

Anyway, why did the WP chairwoman NOT affirm her believe in the judiciary’s independence by advising Gomez to sue Lee Kuan Yew when he called Gomez a liar?

Andrew Loh on Thu, 5th Jun 2008 11:54 pm


Hi Ejay,

It’s good to hear you say that we should all be open to accepting that different parties do things differently. I also agree with you that the opposition parties should find some ways to at least not disagree publicly. In this, I will have to be a little critical of the SDP and some of the things they did. I have in mind the earlier Electoral Reform forum where they invited other opposition parties to attend. I was at first quite glad that they had done that. But the next day, when I saw the SDP post the email they’d sent to the parties, on their website, I was dismayed. I think as a matter of basic courtesy and respect, one should not publish such private email invitation. One should allow the parties room to manoeuvre. This after all is diplomacy, which is part of politics and something which politicians must have.

In the same vein, I agree with you that the WP should reach out more to other parties – the reason being that the WP is seen as the biggest opposition party. I am thus glad that some members of the WP (including 3 CEC members) attended the Martyn See film screening couple of months ago.

I do not think that all associations or contacts between the parties have to be in official capacities or formal ones. There must be bridge-building exercises and opportunities first – to overcome distrust and suspicions. They can start at the basic ground level.

There is no need, really, for supporters of different opposition parties to be putting each other down. To me, I take the same stance as Martyn – that each has a role to play. And we should support them, the ultimate aim being to curtail and bring down the number of votes the PAP gets.

Andrew Loh on Thu, 5th Jun 2008 11:58 pm


Tan Ah Kow,

I can only speak on what I know – and from those that I’d spoken to, majority of them see our judicial system as credible and independent.

Tan Ah Kow on Fri, 6th Jun 2008 1:13 am


Andrew,

Again, I am not necessarily say you are wrong.

What I was questioning you is how you put forward the questions for you to come to such a conclusion?

If you asked a question in a loaded fashion, you will get a respond that meets the way the question was asked rather than a true responds. If you used terms like “credible” and “independent”, these are extremely loaded words. Because what does “credible” means and what does “independent” mean in jurisprudence term?

Andrew Loh on Fri, 6th Jun 2008 10:50 am


Tan Ah Kow,

I think it is important to realise that the public’s perception of certain issues, including the image or impression they have of the judiciary, is necessarily a simple one. Not everyone has the time or the means to delve into the intricacies of how a judicial system function.

The layman, the average Singaporean, has his own perception, image and impression of the judiciary. And as I said, those that I spoke to are mostly of the impression that the judiciary in Singapore is fair, credible and independent – according to their own yardsticks.

Tan Ah Kow on Fri, 6th Jun 2008 4:01 pm


Andrew,

I think it is important to realise that the public’s perception of certain issues, including the image or impression they have of the judiciary, is necessarily a simple one.

That is why as a good analyst, and a contributing editor to a supposedly respectable on-line journal, that you try to sieve out the underlying reasoning behind your subject.

Not everyone has the time or the means to delve into the intricacies of how a judicial system function.

The issue at hand is not to expect everyone has the same understanding of something. That is why, if you want to be objective, you should never put across a loaded question, like, is this a good or bad thing?

You should always delve into why people answer the way they answer things. The more accurate way is to asked pointed question and then see how they response. That is if you want people to speak about what they feel and not what they want to say in order to please you!

Again I am not saying is that people cannot have their own opinion or in this case become experts in judicial prudence. The point is that what you if you want to understand is how people come respond they way they respond (whether you agree with it or not). For example, as I have indicated before, you have to account for the fear factor when you come to asking question about the judiciary? Or it could be that people think that the judiciary is “fair”, “independent”, etc., because their only source of information is the mainstream media (not that this is wrong per se)? Or it could be that they just want to tell you what you want to hear but don’t really have an opinion, one way or another.

If you don’t try to probe what people mean by what they say, you get into a situation, where YOU end up thinking that is what people mean, not what people REALLY mean. In other word, you are just propagating your own prejudicial view rather than make an objective, as much as possible, observation. Not a good journalistic practice.

The layman, the average Singaporean, has his own perception, image and impression of the judiciary. And as I said, those that I spoke to are mostly of the impression that the judiciary in Singapore is fair, credible and independent – according to their own yardsticks.

This is precisely why you have to dig deep into the public response. Otherwise, when you say that they feel that Singapore judiciary is “fair”, “credible” and “independent”, the statement you said is meaningless. Your phrase says it all — “according to their own yardsticks”. In which case, where is the baseline or normalise or common thread apart from these glib words?

If every response is on their own yardstick than the words themselves are a mixed bag that has no meaning at all.

Andrew Loh on Sat, 7th Jun 2008 10:41 pm


Tan Ah Kow,

Thank for your advice. :)

Tell me what you're thinking...
and oh, if you want a pic to show with your comment, go get a gravatar!