• IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here.

    The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.

An open letter to Lim Kit Siang of Malaysia Democratic Action Party (DAP)

NgEjay

Alfrescian (InfP)
Generous Asset
Written by Ng E-Jay, 09 Aug 2008

Dear Mr Lim Kit Siang,

I am a political blogger from Singapore, with a special interest in Singapore and Malaysian politics, particular the Anwar case. My official politics blog is http://www.sgpolitics.net/ and I also have a personal blog, http://www.ngejay.com/ where I archive media articles as well as most of my personal writings.

I refer to your blog entry entitled “At 84, the fire still burns!” posted on 31 July 2008, written by Ahmad Mustapha, http://blog.limkitsiang.com/2008/07/31/at-84-the-fire-still-burns/.

The article by Ahmad Mustapha correctly identifies what is going wrong with Malaysia’s ruling party and how they are dragging the nation into ruins. But in his haste at criticizing the Barisan National vociferously, he has mistakenly made Singapore’s Government out to be much better than it really is, and has put Singapore’s ruling People’s Action Party (PAP) on a pedestal that it simply does not deserve. As they say, the grass always appears greener on the other side. I’m afraid Ahmad Mustapha has had the wool pulled over his eyes, as far as the track record of Singapore’s PAP is concerned.

Ahmad Mustapha said that Mr Lee Kuan Yew “was the man who outsmarted the communists in Singapore (with the innocent help of Malaya then and the willing help of the British) and who later outwitted the British and outpaced Malaysia in all spheres.

That statement is at odds with history. Early in Lee Kuan Yew’s political career, he worked in close collaboration with the communists who had widespread support of the Chinese working class, and made use of the communists to propel himself into power. After Lee Kuan Yew took power, he allied with the British to betray the very communists who had worked with him, and whom he had used as a stepping stone to power. After Singapore gained Independence from the Federation of Malaya, Lee Kuan Yew used the oppressive ISA to detain members of the Barisan Socialis and end once and for all the political careers of his opponents. At every step of the way, Lee Kuan Yew treated all his allies as pawns in his political game, to be used, abused and discarded as he deemed fit.

Ahmad Mustapha said, “Lee Kuan Yew believed in calling a spade a spade. I was there in Singapore when the People’s Action Party won the elections in 1959. He was forthright in his briefing to party members as to what was expected of them and what Singapore would face in the future. Ideologically, I did not agree with him. We in the University of Malaya Socialist Club had a different interpretation of socialist reconstruction. But he was a pragmatist and wanted to bring development and welfare to the Singaporeans. Well! He succeeded.

I agree with Ahmad Mustapha that Lee Kuan Yew’s vision helped make Singapore an economic success and that his economic policies led Singapore to far outdo Malaysia in the decades following the Independence of both our nations from the British. However, Lee Kuan Yew’s political leadership is also tarred with injustices and repressive tactics that Singapore’s mainstream media is careful to keep out of public view. Under his leadership, the PAP Government has infringed on the rights of Singaporeans to freedom of speech and assembly, and has used the draconian ISA against its political opponents. The PAP Government has made use of the vast machinery of the state to suppress political opposition including the liberal use of defamation laws which its leaders including Lee Kuan Yew invariably win.

Before Independence, Lee Kuan Yew portrayed himself as a democrat who respected Western parliamentary democracy. But after Independence, Lee Kuan Yew became an autocrat and a dictator who ruled Singapore with an iron fist and treated citizens no better than economic digits to be leeched, cheated and exploited. Singapore’s mainstream media, which is completely controlled by the PAP machinery and is utterly compliant to the ruling party, never paints an accurate picture of what Lee Kuan Yew or the PAP is really like, but drowns its citizens as well as the international audience in a steady stream of propaganda that over the years has become a mighty ocean of hogwash.

The PAP’s social engineering policies have also wrecked destruction on our demographics. As a result of the PAP’s two-child policy in the 1970’s, our population growth has been artifically stunted, and this problem is compounded by the fact that Singapore is currently experiencing one of the lowest birth rates in the world. As a result of this conundrum, the PAP has resorted to importing large numbers of foreigners, many of them unskilled, in an attempt to shore up our population and maintain economic growth. The import of such a large number of foreigners has depressed wages for the lower income workers and kept many of them in the poverty zone. Today, working class Singaporeans are exposed to the full pressures of globalization and are forced to compete on equal terms with foreigners for jobs, but without an adequate social safety net to protect them from the ravages of inflation or a downward spiral in wages.

Ahmad Mustapha also wrote, “There was one other aspect that Malaysia practises and that is to politicise all aspects of life. All government organs and machinery were ‘UMNO-ised’. This was to ensure that the party will remain in power. Thus there was this misconception by the instruments of government as to what national interest is and what UMNO vested interest is.

In Singapore, the electorate has been gradually depoliticized over the years. Political societies in universities have been hollowed out, our education system does not teach students to think politically, and our mainstream media has delivered only carefully crafted Government propaganda to fool its citizens. However, in other aspects, Singapore is no different from Malaysia. Over here, all organs of state and the entire machinery of the civil service is co-oped to serve the interests of the ruling party. The PAP Government, like UMNO, does everything to entrench itself and ensures it remains in power, including exerting its control over all public institutions. Elections in Singapore are neither free nor fair, and even today, the Election’s Department is not an independent body, but one that comes under the direct control of the Prime Minister’s Office. Like in Malaysia, the PAP’s entrenchment in all aspects of the economy and its system of patronage benefits the ruling elite at the expense of the nation, especially the working class. Like Malaysia again, transparency is put on hold, with GIC and Temasek refusing to disclose their accounts fully whilst they invest our nation’s reserves in failing US banks and other dubious assets. And like in Malaysia yet again, certain unjust laws are applied selectively to prevent political films from being screened, or to prevent peaceful demonstrators from assembling in public.

Contrary to what Ahmad Mustapha has asserted, Singapore has indeed politicized its instruments of Government, and such politicization is seldom guided by national interest, but party interest. Singapore is efficient, but is efficiency benefits the ruling elite unfairly. Singapore may not be corrupt like Malaysia is, but here, politicians peg their own wages to the highest private sector wages without consulting or receiving any approval whatsoever from the electorate.

To outsiders, Singapore may appear to be an economic paradise with good leaders at the helm. In reality, there are deep cracks in Singapore’s political and social system, cracks that if unaddressed will eventually be our nation’s undoing. The truth is that the PAP Government is not the demigod that foreigners are frequently led to believe it to be. The PAP Government, like your government, is one that will do everything to stay in power, including importing large numbers of foreigners to shore up the economy and replace Singaporean voters who are becoming more pro-Opposition, and applying repressive laws to silence dissent. Singapore may have performed far better than Malaysia economically, but in many other areas including the rule of law, we are no better than you.

To learn more about my own analysis of the political situation in Singapore, please feel free to read my blog postings, whose links are attached below.

Yours sincerely,

Ng E-Jay

Individual versus community rights in Singapore, particularly in relation to freedom of speech and assembly — http://www.ngejay.com/?p=66

There’s a reason it’s called “public service” — http://www.ngejay.com/?p=73

Response to Peh Shing Huei’s ST column on “The partitioning of the opposition” — http://www.ngejay.com/?p=86

Post-Modern Authoritarian Singapore — http://www.ngejay.com/?p=102

The ice-berg of Singapore politics — http://www.ngejay.com/?p=106

PM Lee on Internet lessons — http://www.ngejay.com/?p=108

5 years may be all it takes to save Singapore — http://www.ngejay.com/?p=145

Growing wage disparity is sign of economic mismanagement on part of govt — http://www.ngejay.com/?p=17

Giving back to society should begin at the top — http://www.ngejay.com/?p=29

“Development”, “Democracy”, and false arguments why one must come before the other — http://www.ngejay.com/?p=31

PAP’s monopoly on political space and political ideology — http://www.ngejay.com/?p=53
 

NgEjay

Alfrescian (InfP)
Generous Asset
I would like to clarify that I am NOT the moniker "sgpolitics" in this forum.

I have only ONE moniker here: NgEjay
 

Man in the streets

Alfrescian
Loyal
E-jay

Thank you for educating Ahmad.

Many Malays in malaysia may have the wrong idea of how lee kuan yew came into power.

Is good that they are people like you around to speak up the truth even across the straits.

cheers
 

wallace

Alfrescian
Loyal
I would like to clarify that I am NOT the moniker "sgpolitics" in this forum.

I have only ONE moniker here: NgEjay

Why don't you apply to Sam Leong to have the sgpolitics moniker deactivated or assigned to you since your official blog is http://www.sgpolitics.net/ and the person using the moniker sgpolitics is obviously impersonating you with ill intent.

If that Jaslyn woman can have Sam do it, I don't see why can't you.
 

lockeliberal

Alfrescian
Loyal
Dear Ejay

For all the flaws in LKY subsequently, I believe his political views have not been softened in any way by time or history and are currently the wrong ideals for the wrong time in history.

He won and he won by taking every political risk possible and by outmaneuvoring opponents in parliament, on the streets, off the streets and within his own political party. Was he machivellian ? Certainly, but that said and done, he was the right politician and the right leader for that time and I for one am glad that we had him at Singapore's birth. I would argue that all the negatives you imply for the start of Singapore's history are in my view positives. I would also argue that as much as LKY tried to kill the Barisan, the Barisan ultimately killed themselves by its suicidal boycott of parliament.

We have certainly outpaced "Malaya". That is an achievement that any Malaysian Chinese will tell you despite years of "Malaysia Boleh." The wool has not been pulled over Malaysian's in any way, they know the corruption and the abuses of power by Umno and Mahatir in the name of Malay nationalism. Anwar's repudiation of Malay nationalism has echoes of the very same message of LKY which got Singapore ultimately booted out of the federation. LKY has been proven more than right in that particular instance. The grass is greener because between PAP dominance and economic success and UMNO dominance . corruption and economic inequality, they or any Malaysian would chose PAP dominance at the drop of a bat.

All those problems you highlight are correct, but I believe that these problems would be better dealt with and fought for under PAP style dominance then under say UMNO style rule in Singapore



Locke
 
Last edited:

kojakbt

Alfrescian
Loyal
Well Marcus Yap, donch we all knoe u truly hero-worship LKY :rolleyes:

I respect people like Locky who is not shy to disclose his respect for his political enemy when the situation warrants it. Unlike clowns like you and SDP, u guys are like a bunch of rabid dogs who would blindly bite anyone as long as you consider them enemies.

Locky is right about one thing. As much as I don't like LKY, I gotta admit that LKY was the right person for Singapore in the 60s, 70s and even part of 80s. In those days, PAP votes were always in the high 70%-80%. You've got to understand the political and economic situation of those times before you can understand why people voted for PAP overwhelmingly then.

A typical example is my grandmother. She went thru WW2 and the turbulent 50s. In those days, very common to have several families squeezed into a unit upstairs in Chinatown. Joblessness was high. Then came LKY. He started HDB and invited foreign investors to come set up factories to create jobs. To us, such measures seemed logical but to my grandma who are uneducated, LKY is like a GOD-SENT to her. When come to election, she will sure vote for PAP.

I agree with Locky. LKY should just move on. He's the wrong person for Singapore now. His presence can only impair Singapore's socio-economic advancement.
 

NgEjay

Alfrescian (InfP)
Generous Asset
Why don't you apply to Sam Leong to have the sgpolitics moniker deactivated

If I tried to act against everyone who impersonated me, I would have no time to do anything else.

That is why I keep to my blog most of the time. Only now and then will I post articles on forums.

But thanks for your advice.
 

NgEjay

Alfrescian (InfP)
Generous Asset
Dear Ejay
Locke

1. Just because LKY created an economic success story does not mean we should not criticize the methods he has employed.

2. He might have been a successful politician, but no one can be sure another person employing vasting different methods would not have achieved the same level of success.

3. LKY was a very different man before and after independence. I have tried to make that distinction clear, and apparently you have not.

4. The wool that I assert has been pulled over Ahmad Mustapha's eyes is not that he has failed to recognize the failings of the BN, but that he has put the PAP on an unnecessarily high pedestal. Again, you confuse my points.
 

kojakbt

Alfrescian
Loyal
1. Just because LKY created an economic success story does not mean we should not criticize the methods he has employed.

But neither should we completely discount his contributions.

2. He might have been a successful politician, but no one can be sure another person employing vasting different methods would not have achieved the same level of success.

You are talking a "what if" scenario now. Likewise, by the same argument, no one can also be sure that another person employing vasting different methods would not have achieved even worse!

3. LKY was a very different man before and after independence. I have tried to make that distinction clear, and apparently you have not.

To a certain degree, I agree with you. Obviously, a certain level of success has gone into his head...

4. The wool that I assert has been pulled over Ahmad Mustapha's eyes is not that he has failed to recognize the failings of the BN, but that he has put the PAP on an unnecessarily high pedestal. Again, you confuse my points.

"unnecessarily high" is a subjective term. At least we are sure that PAP has done better than BN in terms of economic success....
 

lockeliberal

Alfrescian
Loyal
Dear Ejay

Ohhh go ahead and criticize but nevertheless I am trying to put some context to the criticism. Ejay if one looks at the political and economic history of that era, there were near to zero the number of liberal stable democracies in Asia. Coups dictators , military strongmen were the norm and LKY would have been a political Mother Theresa by the standards of the day. He may not have been a liberal democrat but neither was he a pol pot or a suharto. If you have to judge him or evaluate him historically to be fair I would say judge him by the standards of yesterday and not the values of today.

Whether or not a die hard liberal would have achieved the same results is a matter for historical speculation, all I would say is that based on history and the history of other countries in that era, Singapore was the norm and not the exception.

You have made that distinction in order to criticize , I have put that distinction in the context of success and a politician being a politician in every sense of the word.

Ahmad praises the PAP because in his view a PAP style dominance would be infinitely more preferable to an Umno style dominance. Has it ever crossed your mind that Ahmad knows exactly the situation you have tried to EXPLAIN or enlighten him about ? Has it ever entered your head that Ahmad knows and has made that judgement that however bad the PAP is that Umno is a lot worse and that the PAP is the lesser of two evils and thus he puts the PAP on the high pedestal which you so despise.



Locke
 
Last edited:

Porfirio Rubirosa

Alfrescian
Loyal
Why go down the what ifs, assumptions, conjecture route? What does this achieve? I believe even Tan Wah Piow in an interview a couple of years back graciously conceded that Singapore would probably have not achieved such a high level of success without the type of leadership performed by LKY and the PAP Old Guard. However Wah Piow qualified his comments by saying that Singapore may well have been a more relaxed, compassionate, less stressful and inclusive society if LKY and the PAPs were not inpower.

LKY was probably the right man, in the right place, at the right time to succeeed in the way he did. No doubt with the great help of the Old Guard PAP and the commitment of all Singaporeans. Now what happened after he stepped down as PM is something else altogether. History shall judge him accordingly.

2. He might have been a successful politician, but no one can be sure another person employing vasting different methods would not have achieved the same level of success.
 

lockeliberal

Alfrescian
Loyal
Dear Porfirio

The problem is one of 'degree' 'extent" 'objectivity' and a martydom or persecution complex. My biggest disagreement with the SDP and its assorted supporters and cloned minions is their everything or nothing method of opposition for the SDP and my way or the highway attitude for their supporters.

For them no praise for the PAP or Singapore is deserved because we do not have a perfect liberal democratic system. For them any praise is gall because no one understands the persecution, injustices or the pains that they have suffered for daring to tell the truth about the PAP and its evil dictatorship.

The problem with such a viewpoint is as follows. One, many of us dislike and disagree with the PAP but more importantly we do not "hate it", secondly neither do we think of them as evil and finally some of us do not see them as "dictators" per say.
Life is always easier in black and white for activists, politicians tend to see life in many shades of colors and greys.


Locke
 
Last edited:

Porfirio Rubirosa

Alfrescian
Loyal
I think those who wish to push the liberal democracy model in a more constructive and effective way would do well to read Arthur Kroeber's article which was published in ST a couple of days ago. Kroeber was addressing PRC but I think his comments would also hold true in Singapore's context. In short Kroeber says that liberal democracy activists would probably get more support from the all important "middle classes" if they were able to constructively and effectively demonstrate the real benefits of the liberal democracy model to this group as opposed to the present benign pragmatic authoritarian model status quo.

Dear Porfirio

The problem is one of 'degree' 'extent" 'objectivity' and a martydom or persecution complex. My biggest disagreement with the SDP and its assorted supporters and cloned minions is their everything or nothing or my way or the highway attitude.

For them no praise for the PAP or Singapore is deserved because we do not have a perfect liberal democratic system. For them any praise is gall because no one understands the persecution, injustices or the pains that they have suffered for daring to tell the truth about the PAP and its evil dictatorship.

The problem with such a viewpoint is as follows. One, many of us dislike and disagree with the PAP but more importantly we do not "hate it", secondly neither do we think of them as evil and finally some of us do not see them as "dictators" per say.
Life is always easier in black and white for activists, politicians tend to see life in many shades of colors and greys.


Locke
 

NgEjay

Alfrescian (InfP)
Generous Asset
Dear Porfirio The problem is one of 'degree' 'extent" 'objectivity' and a martydom or persecution complex. Locke

Dear lockeliberal,

Why do you insist on marring this discussion by unceremoniously dragging in half-truths, misrepresentations, and flagrant biases against the SDP, which was never part of this discussion?

1. You claim SDP & its supporters have an "everything or nothing or my way or the highway attitude".

2. You claim "any praise is gall because no one understands the persecution, injustices or the pains that they have suffered"

3. You also claim "many of us dislike and disagree with the PAP but more importantly we do not "hate it""

Firstly, I personally have praised the PAP for bringing economic success, but never once have I lost sight of the fact that the PAP also denied Singaporeans basic rights or marginalized the lower income and working class with their overly-liberal foreign talent policy. I have also never lost sight of the fact that it is the hard work of Singaporeans that ultimately make our nation great, not just govt policies.

Secondly, you always claim you do not hate the PAP, yet when Dr Chee Soon Juan claims similarly, you are quick to assert he is not being truthful. Isn't this flagrant bias?

Since you have chosen to drag irrelevant topics into this thread, this might be a good place to end our discussion.

E-Jay
 

scroobal

Alfrescian
Loyal
Written by Ng E-Jay, 09 Aug 2008

Dear Mr Lim Kit Siang,

Ahmad Mustapha said that Mr Lee Kuan Yew “was the man who outsmarted the communists in Singapore (with the innocent help of Malaya then and the willing help of the British) and who later outwitted the British and outpaced Malaysia in all spheres.

That statement is at odds with history. Early in Lee Kuan Yew’s political career, he worked in close collaboration with the communists who had widespread support of the Chinese working class, and made use of the communists to propel himself into power. After Lee Kuan Yew took power, he allied with the British to betray the very communists who had worked with him, and whom he had used as a stepping stone to power. After Singapore gained Independence from the Federation of Malaya, Lee Kuan Yew used the oppressive ISA to detain members of the Barisan Socialis and end once and for all the political careers of his opponents. At every step of the way, Lee Kuan Yew treated all his allies as pawns in his political game, to be used, abused and discarded as he deemed fit.

What you wrote is exactly what Ahmad Mustapha is saying. The term is riding the Tiger which old man has stated in his memoirs and his close confidante Dennis B wrote in his book. Its one of Mao's key tactic - "the United Front Doctrine". Unfortunately looks like the Old Man read the same manual and got the better of the chaps that supposed to have followed it.

By the way, Lim Kit Siang hates old man's guts to the core. Might one to brush up your history. Its a typical ploy to run down your enemies by crediting the devil.
 

kojakbt

Alfrescian
Loyal
Dear Porfirio
For them any praise is gall because no one understands the persecution, injustices or the pains that they have suffered for daring to tell the truth about the PAP and its evil dictatorship.

Worse, they will accuse u to be a PAP dog or spy or mole or whatever if u ever praise PAP... I wonder if they would accuse the 66.6% Singaporeans as PAP dogs since they voted for PAP?
 

NgEjay

Alfrescian (InfP)
Generous Asset
What you wrote is exactly what Ahmad Mustapha is saying. The term is riding the Tiger which old man has stated in his memoirs and his close confidante Dennis B wrote in his book.

Yes, you are right. Thanks for being the first person to point out this.
 

lockeliberal

Alfrescian
Loyal
Dear Ejay

Some of your points have validity and I stand clarified as to my statements. The reference to "my way or the highway" is specific to SDP supporters, the reference to "all the way or nothing" is with regards to the SDP.

The "gall reference" is a very general reference borne out of my observation of both the SDP and its supporters. If your views reflect that of the majority then I stand corrected as I do agree with your statements on the suppression of certain basic freedoms at the high costs of economic development and income inequality, more so today than in the past.

I still view the battle between Dr Chee and the PAP more as something born out of a personal fight with a high degree of personal animosity and emotion. I hope that JBJ and the reform party does not fall prey to the same failures.
I stated "we" because I believe I do reflect the views to some extent of that of the silent majority or the swing vote. The electoral facts do point do that silent majority not "hating the PAP." Something which you can chose to accept or not.



Cheers

Locke
 
Top