Why we need a Cooling-Off Day.

Mon, 2 May 2011
4 min read
2 Comments

After reading my letter, this gentleman called Stephen Teng got so mad that he used 30 question marks in his reply to me.

Maybe this is why we need a Cooling-Off Day – to prevent Singaporeans from voting with their spleens instead of their heads.

I’m not usually a verbose person. However, he seems eager for me to continue the conversation. Hence, I will sacrifice some time off from doing work to respond to him.

–

Hi “Stephen Teng”,

Change for better or worse ???

    Sorry – I’m not too sure which letter you were reading. I did not write about change at all.

What guarantee do u have that the present opposition parties can do a better job ??? On what basis ? Any record to show/prove ?

    No, I made no guarantee that I have any records of the above-mentioned, because I never made any of those arguments. Please re-read my letter carefully.

They can’t even manage their respective party of few hundred members, and they can govern S’pore of a few millions citizens ???

    These are your opinions, which you formed on your own. They can also be perceived as potentially slanderous to the opposition parties.

    Nevertheless, this is Singapore. You are entitled to your own opinions, as well as potential legal responses based on the allegations you have made.

U dare to try them without any understudy at all ? It’s like a business father asking/forcing(freak GE) his inexperienced children to take over his business. Do u not agree ???

    No, I do not agree because I never said anything about “try[ing] them”. Please re-read my letter carefully.

    I will refrain from commenting on your analogy.

Has PAP not proven all these yrs since 1959 ??? Tell me, which same democratic government in the world can survive this long ???

    Three things you may want to note:

    1. To answer your first question: sorry, this is a non-question. You need to state exactly what you are referring to in the case of the PAP government having to prove itself before the question can be answered.
    2. You mentioned having an “understudy” earlier. You may want to bear in mind that the PAP government never had understudies either when they began their term of duty in 1959.
    3. In your second question, you have conflated the concepts of ‘government’ and ‘political party’. Most democratic governments the world over have survived for as long as or even longer than the Singapore government has. Singapore, however, is unique in that one political party has been in power all this while.

Furthermore, PAP only took one GE within 5 yrs to overthrow the previous corrupt government.

    You are attempting to rewrite history by saying that the then-Labour Front government was corrupt.

However, the opposition MPS, both past & present, including the current 3 MPs (2MPs + 1NCMP) have been in parliament for >50 yrs, and have not made any headway. If not, why not ??? So, how many more yrs do they need ???

    I think the first question is best answered by yourself. With regard to your second question, I may be bald, but I can neither read minds nor look into the future. I’m sorry for not being able to answer your question.

Of course, u can always try the opposition. It’s yr free choice.

    Thank you. I already said I have not made up my mind yet. Please re-read my letter carefully.

Suggest u re-read my posting on “fluke or freak GE ?” in this forum.

    Thank you. I will politely decline because I have work to do.

Don’t say, u have not been fore-warned by them, what they plan to do after May 7. Ok ???

    D: Okay.

Thanks,
Laremy

Be balanced in criticism.

Mon, 2 May 2011
3 min read
Add Comment

Dear Madam/Sir,

I refer to “On Chen Show Mao, Mr Low’s motives and the WP’s missing plans” (May 01).

I reside in Aljunied GRC. As of yet, my allegiance lies with neither of the teams contesting the ward.

In fact, I salute both teams for working the ground tirelessly over the last five years. Their efforts have made it extremely difficult for me to choose whom I should allow to represent me in Parliament.

Nevertheless, I have some views that I would like to share with the writer:

  • On the issue of Mr Chen Show Mao’s commitment and connection to Singapore, we must first look to Singapore’s evolution in its short history as a nation.

    In 1997, then-Prime Minister (PM) Goh Chok Tong acknowledged in his National Day Rally speech that “we have encouraged [a] dispersal of Singaporeans by asking [them] to go regional and create Singapore’s external wing”.

    He went on to say that “the more able ones, in whom Singapore has invested the most, have a special obligation to society. We must all join hands to keep Singapore together”.

    Mr Chen is a child of the above-mentioned policy, and he has heeded the same call to return. That Mr Chen, like Dr Janil Puthucheary, is able and willing to serve the nation should be answer enough for the writer.

  • On the issue of Mr Low’s proposed budget, it would only be fair to require the Workers’ Party team (WP) to come up with a proposal if the People’s Action Party (PAP) team is expected to do likewise.

    If the counter-argument is that the PAP team is the incumbent, so it will reuse the same budget, then there is no reason why a WP-led Town Council might not do the same.

  • On the issue of Mr Low’s motives, this has been made sufficiently clear. In my opinion, I believe Mr Low wants a chance to:
    • improve the lives of Aljunied GRC residents in both material and non-material ways, and
    • be a stakeholder in Parliament so that the WP’s long-term vision of an alternative government can be realised.
  • On the issue of democracy and a First-World Parliament, the writer claims we “cannot afford to spend time debating…on every matter in the name of democracy”.

    Surprisingly, he seems to have afforded the time to categorically critique Mr Chen, Mr Low and the Workers’ Party, all in the spirit of democracy itself.

    Perhaps this is to demonstrate the WP’s vision of a First-World Parliament in action: besides the basic functions of voicing views and working together to resolve national issues, there is also “responsible opposition…to generate a culture of accountability”.

  • Finally, the writer’s concluding remark about fairness perplexes this reader.

    The writer states that Mr George Yeo responded ably to Mr Low’s queries by meeting his constituents more often over the course of five years – that is, one election cycle.

    If fairness is in question, then is the writer insinuating that Mr Low also be given the same opportunity and time frame to prove how he will manage Aljunied GRC?

Thank you.

Yours sincerely,
Laremy LEE (Mr)

(Published as “Letter from Laremy Lee” on 02 May 2011 in TODAYonline.)

Lesson of the Day: “Trawlers” by Alfian Sa’at.

Sat, 30 Apr 2011
1 min read
Add Comment

Wow! Election fever has hit our shores, and many people are attempting to ram many agendas – perceived or otherwise – down our throats.

Hence, I thought it’d be nice to also ram my literary agenda down everyone’s throat for everyone’s nutritional needs, by way of a poem that has the dubious honour of still being relevant in this day and age.

Watch this video first (click on this link if you can’t see the embedded video) for schema-building purposes before reading the poem:

Happy learning!

—

    Trawlers
    By Alfian Sa’at

    Come election time
    we would see those vans
    crowned with loudspeakers
    like wind vanes-

    with a supply of their own
    hot air. Their mission:
    to catapult slogans in four directions
    and four official languages.

    No child throws stones at it.
    And old women chew their curses
    like betel leaves, tangy, unspat.
    Woe be the motorist

    trapped behind the hearse-crawl
    of the harbingers of “good years”.
    Who says that lightning
    never strikes twice at the same spot?

    Here it comes again:
    not so much a van as a trawler,
    casting huge nets, not subtle hooks;
    the only way one catches mouthless fish.

—

From: One Fierce Hour. Singapore: Landmark Books, 1998.