CNA: Condescending and Arrogant!

Deciphering CNA's propaganda:

...the real test of Singapore's electoral process coming of age must, we think, hinge on a related theme: Do we have First World voters?

Do you think CNA is trying to 'teach' the electorate how to vote? After months of bitter campaigning for the PAP, why does it seem as though CNA suddenly owns the higher moral ground of media objectivity? When was it given such audacious authority?!

In his dialogue with young Singaporeans, Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew mentioned how the PAP generally preferred to field Chinese males in single-member wards, presumably because the electorate still carried racial and gender biases to the polling both.

Despite the large sums of money invested in Mediacorps courtesy of PAP, CNA continues to put the very people, it's campaigning for, in some godawful positions of public scrutiny. Just this week, the CNA published the much publisized comment of how the Prime Minister would like to 'fix' the opposition MP's and 'buy' voters. Today, it quotes Mr. Lee Kuan Yew exclaiming that the only reason the PAP exercises racial discrimination is because, it's the Singaporeans who are racists and have gender biases! Thank you for the flattery, sir!

A First World voter would be more persuaded by the bigger picture than who gives the most entertaining rally speech. He would not be swayed by sniping and potshots aimed at the political opponent - empty talk that rates high on style but low on substance.

How exactly would CNA know that even the most entertaining rally speeches could contain tangible substance? Recall, Martin Luther King's most celebrated "I have a dream" speech, which essentially sparked the American Civil Movement. Recall, Nehru's profound "Tryst with Destiny" speech made at the Indian Constituent Assembly on the eve of India's independence? These were both entertaining because they were passionate, honest and proud. Indeed, the CNA can only resort to bullshit since they didn't even cover the opposition rallies!

The ruling party has stressed that the Singapore system is unique. It has asked whether Singapore really needs to follow a model of democracy in which governments are forced to think short-term - from election to election - and come up with populist, if harmful, policies just to keep the Opposition at bay. It has pointed to its track record and asserted that it has both the vision and the personnel to deliver the goods.

The current Singapore system is one of totalitarian rule propagated by fear and intimidation. This is nothing new or 'unique'; Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini have all used this to perfection. While no Singaporean ever disagrees that Lee Kuan Yew's leadership has enabled Singapore's independence in 1965, every individual, who is not dwelling on the past accomplishments, knows that this so-called 'economic miracle' is coming to it's end. We're currently at the crossroads, and unless there is a socio-political reform underway, Singaporeans ought to be very worried. This year's General Election has proven that the PAP continues to regurgitate the same policies from 47 years ago, despite the dramatic political and environmental shifts in many of our neighbouring countries. Conversely, the opposition parties have revealed a dynamic breeze of modernity, intelligence and an awareness of their global standing. CNA: quit misleading the public. We've been to the rallies, we've read the manifestos, and we do know who's going 'to deliver the goods' and to whom!

A First World voter will think, weigh and decide what is good for him in the long term. He will not be churlish or petty.

So, CNA, are you suggesting that in order to be a 'First World Voter' one needs to be a male? Do you think that the 1.2 million people voting today are all males or individuals going under the knife to become 'male'?

Right. Churlish? What would that mean, CNA

churl·ish adj.

1. Of, like, or befitting a churl; boorish or vulgar.
2. Having a bad disposition; surly: “as valiant as the lion, churlish as the bear” (Shakespeare).
3. Difficult to work with, such as soil; intractable.

Hmm? So, just because the electorates are demanding better health care, more civil liberty and transparency at the government level, we're being termed: boorish, vulgar, and difficult to work with? Just wondering, is the government supposed to work for us, or are we supposed to be their subordinates? Considering the CNA doesn't exercise their democratic obligation, how would Singaporeans know what their votes are meant for, right? WRONG! You see, unlike your writers who have to put up with the same amount of respect from PAP as all Singaporean citizens but contend in being their parrots in exchange for their monthly salaries, Singaporeans have gone onto the Internet and educated themselves on the hypocrisy that underlies the Singaporean electoral system. It seems that not giving Singaporeans the credit they deserve is an uniform attitude in all PAP owned organizations! Thanks again for underestimating us!