MM, U & Me 1
Itunes: Tosca, Dehli9 (2003)
I was reading The Strait Times on 13 April 2006, reporting on the TV forum on Dialogue with MM Lee (Minister Mentor Lee KY) with people from the post-65 generations, mainly journalists from the media. I have extracted some of the dialogue concerned and added some of my thoughts on it. I’m very glad that the questions poised by the journalists happen to be the ones which I have in mind as well. In addition, I would have to thank them for putting forward these ‘taboo’ questions on national TV. Hopefully, this would encourage more fellow Singaporeans to step forward to raise and discuss issues of our current affairs openly.
For those who missed the programme, you can watch it at this link:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1409818981384963003&q=lky&pl=true
Some of the names involved:
Lee – Lee Ching Wern, Today reporter
Ken – Ken Kwek, ST journalist
Hong – Hong Xinyi, ST journalist
Joanne – Joanne Leow, MediaCorp News, reporter
Kor – Kor Kian Beng, New Paper reporter
Mabel – Mabel Lee, MediaCorp Radio journalist
Pearl – Pearl Maria Forss, MediaCorp News journalist
Me – That’s me!
Lee: What if the PAP misgoverns, how are we going to counter that?
MM Lee: Let me put it quite simply this way…If you reflect the mood on the ground, there must be at least 30, 40 per cent, maybe 45 per cent right, who want a strong opposition to check the PAP. Suppose you had capable people with a track record, people who have done 10 to 15 years as business leaders, doctors, lawyers, dentists, engineers, whatever, computer programmers, they get together, you think they cannot win. It’s a different proposition, is it?
Me: Durai has been in NKF 10 to 15 years and the members of the Board of Directors are professionals too. It is the lack of corporate governance that leads to this infamous NKF incident. Exponentially, there are possibilities that misgovern can happen on a larger scale, even big MNC has annual external audits. So it is the same proposition. I’m not saying that the government misgoverns but still it’s good to have the countercheck in place.
Lee: I think the PAP has very little to be insecure about. It’s got the quality candidates. It’s got a great track record, and every Singaporean can see for themselves what the PAP has done. So is it really necessary to impose restrictions on political blogging and podcasts?
MM Lee: Political blogging and podcasts, why do we stop it? We think that elections should be something you package. You are selling the candidate as a product.
Lee: Isn’t that what PAP is doing too?
MM Lee: No.
Ken: Why don’t you let voters decide?
MM Lee: A podcast is not a face-to-face conference. If you were writing an article, today we would not have this exchange. You write the wrong piece, and I write the letter to the press. But because we are face to face, I pointed out to you that what you made, your first statement, you spoke to about 100 people, I can’t get you by, you know. It was a misrepresentation of the facts. Then you said I interviewed 40, then I said how many were afraid, none.
Ken: Then why can’t you use the same forum to rebut them? Why can’t you let someone blog, then why can’t you blog back, and let voters decide then.
Lee: I think the reason why they are doing this is because they don’t have any other platform.
Me: Well, Is not the same as in the rest of the media platform like newspapers, televisions and radio stations? They are not a face-to-face conference either. One party will tell the media his part of the story, the media publishes the story. The other party will tell the media the other side of the story, the media also publishes it. Even if there is any misrepresentation, clarification can be made via the same way. Therefore, I still do not see the reasons of restricting blogs and podcasts. If MM prefers a face-to-face conference, then I would suggest an open live telecast on national TV, an open debate between PAP and the oppositions. Or perhaps the seldom-use (defunct?) Speakers’ Corner can be use as a platform for open debate? I’m sure that will be beneficial to all voters. Lastly, the question is good: why not let voters decide? I was disappointed that MM did not answer this question.
I was reading The Strait Times on 13 April 2006, reporting on the TV forum on Dialogue with MM Lee (Minister Mentor Lee KY) with people from the post-65 generations, mainly journalists from the media. I have extracted some of the dialogue concerned and added some of my thoughts on it. I’m very glad that the questions poised by the journalists happen to be the ones which I have in mind as well. In addition, I would have to thank them for putting forward these ‘taboo’ questions on national TV. Hopefully, this would encourage more fellow Singaporeans to step forward to raise and discuss issues of our current affairs openly.
For those who missed the programme, you can watch it at this link:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1409818981384963003&q=lky&pl=true
Some of the names involved:
Lee – Lee Ching Wern, Today reporter
Ken – Ken Kwek, ST journalist
Hong – Hong Xinyi, ST journalist
Joanne – Joanne Leow, MediaCorp News, reporter
Kor – Kor Kian Beng, New Paper reporter
Mabel – Mabel Lee, MediaCorp Radio journalist
Pearl – Pearl Maria Forss, MediaCorp News journalist
Me – That’s me!
Lee: What if the PAP misgoverns, how are we going to counter that?
MM Lee: Let me put it quite simply this way…If you reflect the mood on the ground, there must be at least 30, 40 per cent, maybe 45 per cent right, who want a strong opposition to check the PAP. Suppose you had capable people with a track record, people who have done 10 to 15 years as business leaders, doctors, lawyers, dentists, engineers, whatever, computer programmers, they get together, you think they cannot win. It’s a different proposition, is it?
Me: Durai has been in NKF 10 to 15 years and the members of the Board of Directors are professionals too. It is the lack of corporate governance that leads to this infamous NKF incident. Exponentially, there are possibilities that misgovern can happen on a larger scale, even big MNC has annual external audits. So it is the same proposition. I’m not saying that the government misgoverns but still it’s good to have the countercheck in place.
Lee: I think the PAP has very little to be insecure about. It’s got the quality candidates. It’s got a great track record, and every Singaporean can see for themselves what the PAP has done. So is it really necessary to impose restrictions on political blogging and podcasts?
MM Lee: Political blogging and podcasts, why do we stop it? We think that elections should be something you package. You are selling the candidate as a product.
Lee: Isn’t that what PAP is doing too?
MM Lee: No.
Ken: Why don’t you let voters decide?
MM Lee: A podcast is not a face-to-face conference. If you were writing an article, today we would not have this exchange. You write the wrong piece, and I write the letter to the press. But because we are face to face, I pointed out to you that what you made, your first statement, you spoke to about 100 people, I can’t get you by, you know. It was a misrepresentation of the facts. Then you said I interviewed 40, then I said how many were afraid, none.
Ken: Then why can’t you use the same forum to rebut them? Why can’t you let someone blog, then why can’t you blog back, and let voters decide then.
Lee: I think the reason why they are doing this is because they don’t have any other platform.
Me: Well, Is not the same as in the rest of the media platform like newspapers, televisions and radio stations? They are not a face-to-face conference either. One party will tell the media his part of the story, the media publishes the story. The other party will tell the media the other side of the story, the media also publishes it. Even if there is any misrepresentation, clarification can be made via the same way. Therefore, I still do not see the reasons of restricting blogs and podcasts. If MM prefers a face-to-face conference, then I would suggest an open live telecast on national TV, an open debate between PAP and the oppositions. Or perhaps the seldom-use (defunct?) Speakers’ Corner can be use as a platform for open debate? I’m sure that will be beneficial to all voters. Lastly, the question is good: why not let voters decide? I was disappointed that MM did not answer this question.
Hong: To put it another way, maybe, bearing in mind the unlevel playing field, bearing in mind the numerous walkovers, all the restrictions regarding podcasts etc, how does the PAP win – when it happens – signal a strong mandate for the party?
MM Lee: The very fact that we are mandate. Why have they not challenged me for the last three elections? I am old, I am not as active as before, but I am still fairly effective, and my ground knows that I am effective, Why do they even know that? Because they see me, they see their lives improved. I have got an organization on the ground that makes sure that they are attended (to). I make sure that I have got people looking after them. So my not being challenged, three successive elections, is not because I have no mandate, (it’s) because nobody believes they are likely to win.
Hong: It’s not just…
MM Lee: No no, let me finish it. So I am taking in this time, three new candidates. One of them would be a potential minister. I would welcome a contest. But if there is no contest, let me tell you, he would turn out to be another Khaw Boon Wan. In 4.5 years he will prove himself. When Khaw Boon Wan goes to Sembawang, everybody knows he can deliver.
Me: Hmmm, I believe Hong is not only referring to MM’s constituency, but to all walk-over constituencies in Singapore. Hong is right; walkover does not signal a strong mandate for PAP. No one knows the feeling of the citizens in these constituencies unless they have been given a chance to vote. In fact, every eligible citizen should be given a chance to vote in General Election, in the eyes of democracy. Therefore, should all GRCs be broken up instead? I guess this is quite debatable. Subsequently, MM went on to talk about new candidates, is he out of point? It seems to me that he did not answer this question directly as I do not see the link with mandate.
posted by music-nazi ~ musik mit uns at 14:16
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home