A Collective Opposition Roar? Not Just Yet

I refer to the Facebook Note ‘Singapore Opposition: Give us a Collective Roar (.....or a Few Disparate Squeaks) (Bryan Ti, 19th March 2010)

I thank Mr Bryan Ti for his perspectives & comments. My assessment is that we ought not overly-hype up the notion of an oppositional ‘collective roar’ (not just yet). This is because during this infancy stage of Singapore’s political development, it is more strategic for opposition parties to distinctively build up our respective approaches (branding) rather than that of coming under a collective platform (or message).

The rationale is whether with or without a collective platform (or message) from the opposition camp, the present political pie is definitely huge enough for all, with 84 seats in Parliament, only 55% of the seats (47) were contested in GE2006.

Yet I fully understand where Mr Bryan Ti is coming from. This is because I started my political activism with the very belief for a dire need for oppositional unity which was very similar to Bryan’s call for a collective roar type of perspective.

However it is not too long before my idealism was being moderated via my direct political participation, which molded my idealism into one that consider upon practical political (&) personalities implications in the notion of building up a collective platform (or message).

Political parties should not unite for mere political convenience or surface unity sake. The beauty of political pluralism is not that of merely choice between 1 or 2 choices, but ideally more choices where the collective wisdom of the populace will always prevail.

I am convinced that a young democracy like Singapore requires the systematic building up of viable alternative choices. As such via the development of distinctive platform (or message) by respective political parties and with a variety of political choices available, the ultimate beneficiaries can only be Singaporeans.

On the other hand, the least the opposition fraternity can do at this stage is to avoid 3-corner fights during General Elections. Concurrently, it is crucial for each opposition party to continue to build up and to strengthen it respective party platform (or message) and focusing our respective efforts on the winning of more parliamentary seats from the incumbent regime.

It is always a dilemma of whether does the chicken comes first or the egg comes first. Personally being a believer of divine creation, I believe that the chicken must come first. Similarly, individual party platform (or message) strengthening must come first. So that when a future collective platform (or message) is to come about, the contributions and value-add into this collective platform (or message) by respective opposition parties will be very significant and not mere cosmetic.

Why penalise ITE grads?

Hear, hear

Why penalise ITE grads?
TODAY Letter from Laight Thomas Shawn Christopher
05:55 AM Mar 04, 2010

I WAS recently disappointed to find out how the National University of Singapore (NUS) and Nanyang Technological University (NTU) determine whether polytechnic students will be admitted to their institutions.

Their websites state that applicants will be accepted based on a combined score of both their polytechnic and GCE O-level results, weighted according to an 80:20 ratio.

I have applied for both universities as I wish to pursue a higher education. But I am not sure if this system will be fair to me and many other students who did well in their polytechnic examinations.

For example, I was from the Normal (Technical) stream in secondary school. Therefore my only path after my GCE N levels was to enrol in the Institute of Technical Education (ITE). I did extremely well and secured a place in Singapore Polytechnic.

I have worked hard for three years to maintain a relatively high Grade Point Average (GPA). But I am saddened to know that I will lose out to other polytechnic graduates who also have a GCE O-level certificate. Because I do not have this certificate, I will score zero on the 20-per-cent component.

This is unfair to polytechnic students who, like me, were from ITE but have studied hard to achieve good results, yet have a lower chance of entering a local university. I feel that this is discrimination against ITE students who have chosen the less prestigious route for late bloomers.

May I know the rationale for this weightage, one which does not provide a level playing field for everyone?

News Link:
Why penalise ITE grads? (4th March 2010)

身为公民的责任

By: 饶欣龙
This article was first published in The Hammer (Issue 1001)

我是一名自愿延长战备军服役期的战备军人。对一些人来说，这是一个不可思议的选择。为何一个完成了十年战备军服役期的军人在能够获得‘自由’时却选择继续承担这个责任呢？

何以我自愿做出这样的决定呢？也许是因为父亲在世时，他常常跟我讲一些中华民族的历史故事。印象最深刻的故事便是岳飞精忠报国抗金国的精神。这使我深深相信每一位国民都应该有精忠报国的精神，有责任保卫国家，国家存亡，匹夫有责。这也是我从政，并认为从政是为国家付出的信念根源。

因此，既然我有这种想法，就应该站出来，为人民提供选择，为国服务。我认为，身为一个民主制度国家里的国民，我有责任尽我的本分维护我国的民主治度。反对党在一个民主的政治制度中扮演重要的角色，只有在有不同政党竞争的政治大环境下，才能避免政治霸权，也使民主政治制度的架构更稳固。

我希望以上的分享会鼓励更多新加坡人参政加入工人党。从军事策略的角度上来看，参政也可以是全面防卫中的一环，那就是政治防卫。那为何选择加入工人党呢？ 因为加入工人党才能壮大反对党的力量，并使工人党更有条件在民主制度下扮演其所应扮演的以下的角色：

一． 参与和支配公共政策的制定过程
公共政策与人民息息相关， 工人党是我们在国会内外的发言管道， 我们可通过工人党向政府施压， 逼使政府听取你的意见， 照顾人民的需求。

二． 监督政府 －确保政府履行对人民的责任
工人党为人民提供一个独立的监督和制衡政府的机制， 质疑政府的政策， 并确保良好的施政。

三． 维护民主的进程
工人党让人民有机会行使人民的权利， 投选心目中的国会议员或政府， 以维护新加坡的民主体制。如果你认同我们的信念和远景， 工人党可作为你的据点， 在政治领域内为人民服务。

四． 塑造人民的未来
工人党欢迎各方提供意见， 以在政治， 经济和社会等领域探索替代性的政策， 为国家的发展和你我的未来， 作出贡献。

五． 建设一个充满活力的公民社会
通过工人党组织的活动， 您能在一个建基於宪制的政治体系里，团结各个志同道合的人， 众志成城， 发挥民间社会的影响力， 维护民众的利益； 在一个没有恐惧的环境里相互对话， 寻求理性的社会诉求。