Tan Kin Lian's Blog: Confrontational politics

Thursday, April 15, 2010

Confrontational politics

Read this letter by Chee Soon Juan, published in the Straits Times

11 comments:

Anonymous said...: Rex comments as follows,

I find it very strange that the government perpetually coins bombastic or seeming bombastic terms to distract us. HighFaluting. Asroturfing. Confrontational Politics. What else. What fools.

According to internet source confront means:
(v. t.) To put face to face; to cause to face or to meet; as, to confront one with the proofs of his wrong doing.
(v. t.) To set in opposition for examination; to put in contrast; to compare.
(v. t.) To stand facing or in front of; to face; esp. to face hostilely; to oppose with firmness.

Politics is about governance of a country. It is NOT AN EXACT SCIENCE. Doubtless, different opinions will happen and sometimes compromise solution need to be designed. No one knows everything. Therefore "confronting" as defined above, is normal process. I think it is really stupid to brainwash the population into thinking that "confronting" is wrong. As indicated by Dr Chee, confronting was practised also by the incumbent government, resulting in the golden era of the PAP which led Singapore to its successful journey of independence from the British. And Malaysia. It is part of human nature to THINK. Blessed are those who have courage to confront and do not resort to hostile means in the process.

Only robots don't think, they are programmed. They don't confront the programmer. All humans think, so from time to time confronting is a natural process and healthy, as long as the confront-er doesn't carry a knife or bomb in his pocket.

rex; April 15, 2010 3:48 PM
leadbyaction said...: Nicely done Dr. Chee !
All students please take note and ask your teachers whether the spirit of Dr. Chee's letter is confrontational.
While you are at it, please ask who has been confrontational ?

Thank you so much for posting it on your blog Mr.Tan; April 15, 2010 4:29 PM
Anonymous said...: The ST forum version was censored. Temasek Review and the SDP website have posted follow-ups. Read those instead.

(Temasek Review: Uncensored version)
http://www.temasekreview.com/2010/04/15/uncensored-version-of-dr-chees-letter-to-st-forum/

(Temasek Review: Commentary)
http://www.temasekreview.com/2010/04/15/chee-berates-pap-for-being-confrontational-on-st-forum/

(SDP's website)
http://yoursdp.org/index.php/news/singapore/3617-straits-times-censors-chees-reply-about-foreign-workers-and-hdb-prices

ST seems to want its readers to verify all its material online for their original versions. In time we will not bother to read ST at all.; April 15, 2010 8:21 PM
Sylvester Lim said...: Also, please read the uncensored version. http://www.yoursdp.org/index.php/news/singapore/3617-straits-times-censors-chees-reply-about-foreign-workers-and-hdb-prices; April 15, 2010 10:11 PM
Vincent Sear said...: To : Rex

Well said. The opposite of confontational politics, I suppose, is evasive politics?; April 15, 2010 11:42 PM
Anonymous said...: REX comments as follows.

"Confrontation" also carries a bad historical baggage. It was a term used in the turbulent days of Malaysia-Indonesia Konfrantasi or Confrontation duirng the 1960's Singapore also had some troops operating in Malaysia during the Confrontation days. It wasn't a nice term.

Therefore these historical baggage terms like "confrontation" wreak havoc in the subconscious of many older unsuspecting singaporeans. It is sublimal, psychologcial warfare.

Why don't we use the term "brainstorm". Not "confront". It is just word play. Beware everytime the incumbent throw a word and distracts everybody to walk along a pre-determined track. We need to go back to first principles and think, only then we can see clearly and steer towards wisdom and jungle.

Confrontation or brainstorming or meaningful discussion, shall i say, is usually denied when one party ALREADY knows he is wrong. As Vincent Sear said, he "evades" .

IT also has a bit to do with losing face. Nobody likes that. And, some parties who seek the forum of discussion also carry another motive to completely make a fool of the first party. That's not very nice too.

To be fair, i feel that the person giving the new ideas should leave some space for the other to retreat gracefully. By not doing so, would only force the evasive party to be more evasive, it is just human nature.

And by evading, the confronter gets more emotional and wants to make the first party a fool even more so!! IT END UP IN VICIOUS cycle such as we are seeing in Singpaore Politics. Break the cycle, both camps, I impore you all.

REX; April 16, 2010 9:02 AM
Anonymous said...: Wow. Straits Times actually willing to publish a letter from Dr Chee? This is news to me.; April 16, 2010 11:05 AM
Anonymous said...: Once I see ST publish SDP's reply i already it is censored. Hahaha!; April 16, 2010 11:07 AM
Michael said...: GRCs concepts and systems are basically confrontational by nature because it distorts the true pictures of the real concerns and worries of the ordinary Singaporeans. Their views could not be accurately reflected both in the election and parliamentary process. Eventually it can erode the trust level of the incumbent government - and it is happenning now!!; April 16, 2010 11:35 AM
Vincent Sear said...: Actually, I think that a more reflective term for PAP brand of politics is conditional politics. They set all the terms and conditions. If any detractor don't agree, that's confrontational by their definition.

Even many opposition members are trapped by this. They're powerless to change the terms and conditions. They have to agree or disagree mildly, otherwise risk being branded as confrontational.

And it works for PAP because the vast public has been conditioned to buy it. Any opposition once branded confrontational would lose public confidence whether in polling or in recruitment.

Any opposition branded non-confrontational and acceptable become counter-branded by less moderate opposition as government approved opposition, being not real opposition at all.

This catch-22 cycle ensures the entire opposition remains too small in numbers to mount any serious challenge to government.

How to attract voters and recruits when if you're branded confrontional, you're likely to get yourself and others into trouble? Whereas, if you're counter-branded government approved, how to be effective channel for someone seriously aggrieved by government policies?; April 16, 2010 2:53 PM
Anonymous said...: Mr Tharman explained that “this is a system that relies on trust in the individuals who are in charge, including those appointed to the CPA and the Elected President.”

Well, come voting time, we can see how many people will "confront" and how many people will "trust".

In Dr Chee's (uncensored) letter, he has listed out many reasons why need to confront.; April 17, 2010 12:07 AM