SDP Jin Satki!

[Geforce3]

SDP lists key campaign issues for next polls

SINGAPORE - Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) chief Chee Soon Juan has cited three issues his party will campaign on in the next general election: cost of living, the Central Provident Fund (CPF) Minimum Sum, and the country's growing population.

Many Singaporeans told him about the difficulty they have in coping with the rising cost of living, he said at an exhibition at the Holiday Inn Singapore Atrium yesterday to mark the opposition party's 35th anniversary.

He also said the SDP first spoke up against the CPF Minimum Sum requirement 20 years ago: "We want to tell the electorate: If you don't have an opposition, the People's Action Party is going to be having a free rein in raising the Minimum Sum."

In February, a government-appointed advisory panel recommended making the CPF scheme more flexible, but said the requirement for a basic amount to be kept locked up should remain.

On the population, Dr Chee said it was important to assess if Singapore had adequate infrastructure. There was an outcry over a 2013 White Paper on parameters for a larger population. But the paper also outlined plans for infrastructure to cope with a potential population ranging from 6.5 to 6.9 million by 2030.

Dr Chee said yesterday the SDP has been preparing for the next general election, which must be held by January 2017, on the assumption it could take place as early as September.

A panel comprising Dr Chee, blogger Alex Au, Humanitarian Organisation for Migration Economics executive director Jolovan Wham and film-maker Martyn See discussed the SDP's legacy. Mr See said the SDP had a "proud record" of using civil disobedience to push for change, while Mr Wham said civil society is invariably tied to the party because of its history of activism.

But Mr Au noted that the SDP had turned away from such activities in recent years and was now "the one party that has been producing a lot of very thoughtful reports on a lot of important issues".

ziliang@sph.com.sg
- See more at: http://www.straitstimes.com/news/si...sues-next-polls-20150622#sthash.EWkvCSC0.dpuf

SDP jin satki! Civil disobedience FTW... but but while an activist group can use it, should a political party use these tactics? Does it get them into parliament?

I have no real issues with using civil disobedience as a political tactic, but it seems more apt to be used by activist groups rather than political parties. While SDP can be proud of their tactics, it was their civil disobedience that made them seem like crazies in the eyes of most Singaporean voters. I think they realised that that methods did nothing to get them into parliament.

 

[satayxp]

civil disobedience is effective n just one of the tools for change.
change can also come from extra-parliamentary means.. CST spend decades in parliament, wat good did it come out of it other den cementing his own personal fame.

 

[Geforce3]

civil disobedience is effective n just one of the tools for change.
change can also come from extra-parliamentary means.. CST spend decades in parliament, wat good did it come out of it other den cementing his own personal fame.

I don't deny that civil disobedience and extra-parliamentary means (though the term does include acts of violence, terrorism, revolts and any other form of movements that does not seek to use the parliament to enact change) can work. However, for a political party like the SDP whose bread and butter is to seek change through the vote, should be even be thinking about using extra-parliamentary means?

NGOs, Activist groups sure, but a political party? What does that mean if a political party does not play by the 'rule' and chooses not to follow it? If it comes to power, does that mean other people can also choose not to follow the 'rule' or the law (if we want to push it further?)?

Frankly, I am uncomfortable and I do not think it is a prudent that a political party chooses extra-parliamentary methods to enact change or get what it wants because it subverts it's own 'supposed' methods of gaining power. Well, for the SDP, its extra-parliamentary methods to gain votes/attention hasn't been working well since they haven't gotten back in Parliament since 91.

 

[satayxp]

I don't deny that civil disobedience and extra-parliamentary means (though the term does include acts of violence, terrorism, revolts and any other form of movements that does not seek to use the parliament to enact change) can work. However, for a political party like the SDP whose bread and butter is to seek change through the vote, should be even be thinking about using extra-parliamentary means?

SDP has not been in parliament for wat? over 20 yrs? wat bread n butter r u referring to??

the point is change can come thru extra-pariahmentary ways.. n the SDP has accomplished tat very effectively especially in the late noughties during the IMF protest etc.
the rules of the game is rigged by the pap specifically to hamper SDP n CSJ.. so naturally they find other means to play the game.

NGOs, Activist groups sure, but a political party? What does that mean if a political party does not play by the 'rule' and chooses not to follow it? If it comes to power, does that mean other people can also choose not to follow the 'rule' or the law (if we want to push it further?)?

do u think the pap play by the rules?
look at pap's internet brigade, does it play by the rules? its activities r extra-parliamentary too
so lvl that charge at the pap 1st

Frankly, I am uncomfortable and I do not think it is a prudent that a political party chooses extra-parliamentary methods to enact change or get what it wants because it subverts it's own 'supposed' methods of gaining power. Well, for the SDP, its extra-parliamentary methods to gain votes/attention hasn't been working well since they haven't gotten back in Parliament since 91.

u r uncomfortable bcos u dun see the dbl stds lol

precisely bcos chee is being deliberately singled out for political persecution, there is no reason to stick to the rules n he has nothing to lose.

but now the pap has also realised CSJ is not going to go away.. why risk int'l spotlight by continuing to persecute him? especially when pap thinks CSJ is not going to make any parliamentary gain?
so in the face of subsiding legal suits, CSJ n SDP is now coming back to the game so to speak.

 

[goldwingseeker]

pap more satki la, got so many obedient dogs