-
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.
CHAN HENG CHEE exposes chee's intention
- Thread starter leetahbar
- Start date
YOU'RE EXPOSED!!!
bapok fake monk PAP dog
you stole temple donation money and the chief monk told you to fuck off!
you bashed your 70+ y.o.father until bloody when he threw away your gay porn materials!
you called your mother LAUCHEEBYE when she reprimanded you for doing fuck all at home except prostituting yourself in cyberspace round-the-clock!
you also stole handphones and claimed that handphones waved at you!
you steal other's forum password!
you tried to con a forummer's property
you cursed an old man at his death bed!
you tried to con the same person to include your name in his will when he discovered that you tried to con his property!
you tried to con laukwayboos but you end up only got some free makan!
you eat 4 to 5 persons amount when you go makan with frenz
you did not pay for makan and even said that the makan is fuckup!
you're a most despicable moron most vile and cunning monster!
hidden motives are very dangerous to our society. it tricks many good-hearted and concerned citizens into doing things they thought they were fighting for the peasants but in actual fact, these civic-conscious souls were being exploited and their faiths being abused and misused into something that they least anticipated.
i give u a very straightforward example. when a seemingly mild-mannered respectable professional volunteered to fight against upgrading of hawker centre, on the surface it appeared to be great. everyone knows that after upgrading, food prices sure would increase.
the disappointing part is many hawker centres after upgrading were worst than it was before or nothing much has improved. examples: ABC HC, the recent CHINATOWN HC and many others if u guys could name some u experienced. and so this kind of bad impression was implanted. sad.
so our heelo was bent to stop it but in actual fact, many migitating factors for this upgrading pointed to the benefits of senior residents living around that area. lifts and escalators are added into the proposed upgrading. the whole facade of the HC was re-positioned into a more appealing direction.
worst of all, many old hawkers there wanted to quit, retire and be compensated with quite a substantial sum fi they gave up their stalls. all seem to be fair and advantageous to residents. YET that heelo still wanted to object and stop it by all means.
NOW...think. why was he so bent to stop it even the upgrading was beneficial to residents, senior folks and other hawkers who wish to continue biz? it convenient many, might improve the business there and enhance the comfort of eating there.
WHY WOULD HE STILL WANNA TO OBJECT TO IT?
this was the real motive: he wanted to score a political feather so that he could use it to accredit himself and his "self-serviceness" later to advance his political endeavours.
motive presented: to serve peasants.
real motive hidden : to exploit civic-conscious minded souls and abused their genuine concern to con for peasants' support later in his real intention.
this is what prof chan heng chee is trying to tell us all: BEWARE OF WOLVES IN SHEEPSKIN.
i know the diehards would find it impossible to accept. but that's the real TRUTH. singapore is singapore. singapore is not USA. we are a small nation very vulnerable to external dire forces. but to attack our own beloved country from the internal is like a perfect apple rotting from within.
please be aware and DO NOT ALLOW yourself to be misled further. protect and love our own country.
i give u a very straightforward example. when a seemingly mild-mannered respectable professional volunteered to fight against upgrading of hawker centre, on the surface it appeared to be great. everyone knows that after upgrading, food prices sure would increase.
the disappointing part is many hawker centres after upgrading were worst than it was before or nothing much has improved. examples: ABC HC, the recent CHINATOWN HC and many others if u guys could name some u experienced. and so this kind of bad impression was implanted. sad.
so our heelo was bent to stop it but in actual fact, many migitating factors for this upgrading pointed to the benefits of senior residents living around that area. lifts and escalators are added into the proposed upgrading. the whole facade of the HC was re-positioned into a more appealing direction.
worst of all, many old hawkers there wanted to quit, retire and be compensated with quite a substantial sum fi they gave up their stalls. all seem to be fair and advantageous to residents. YET that heelo still wanted to object and stop it by all means.
NOW...think. why was he so bent to stop it even the upgrading was beneficial to residents, senior folks and other hawkers who wish to continue biz? it convenient many, might improve the business there and enhance the comfort of eating there.
WHY WOULD HE STILL WANNA TO OBJECT TO IT?
this was the real motive: he wanted to score a political feather so that he could use it to accredit himself and his "self-serviceness" later to advance his political endeavours.
motive presented: to serve peasants.
real motive hidden : to exploit civic-conscious minded souls and abused their genuine concern to con for peasants' support later in his real intention.
this is what prof chan heng chee is trying to tell us all: BEWARE OF WOLVES IN SHEEPSKIN.
i know the diehards would find it impossible to accept. but that's the real TRUTH. singapore is singapore. singapore is not USA. we are a small nation very vulnerable to external dire forces. but to attack our own beloved country from the internal is like a perfect apple rotting from within.
please be aware and DO NOT ALLOW yourself to be misled further. protect and love our own country.
Govt rebuts WSJ editorial
Judiciary cannot be denigrated under the pretence of free speech, it says
By Zakir Hussain
ST FILE PHOTO
View more photos
THE Government has rebutted an editorial by the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) that took issue with a recent court ruling which found its sister publication in Asia in contempt of court.
In the editorial last Saturday, titled Singapore Strikes Again, WSJ said Singapore chose to go after the paper 'for the most basic kind of journalism'.
Envoy: Journal repeated scandalous charges
HERE are excerpts from Ambassador Chan Heng Chee's letter, Your Accusations Against Singapore Are Scandalous:
'Your allegations were scandalous and you had no plausible defence. Faced with that situation, your counsel then argued that the law of contempt should be changed. The Singapore High Court rejected that and found you guilty of contempt. You have decided not to appeal. Yet you now repeat the scandalous charges, knowing that they are in contempt of the Singapore courts.
... more
Excerpts from WSJ's Nov 29 editorial
THE editorial was titled Singapore Strikes Again.
'Let us begin with an apology to our readers in Asia. Unless they are online, they will not see this editorial. For legal reasons, we are refraining from publishing it in The Wall Street Journal Asia, which circulates in Singapore.
... more
In reply, Singapore's Ambassador to the United States, Professor Chan Heng Chee, said the Wall Street Journal Asia was cited for contempt 'because it accused Singapore courts of being biased'.
'We do not fear or stifle criticism of our policies. But we will not allow our judiciary to be denigrated under the pretence of free speech,' she said in a letter to WSJ published yesterday.
WSJ's editorial was published on Saturday in its United States and Europe editions, but not in its Asia edition which circulates here. It was also available on WSJ's website. Prof Chan's reply appeared in the US edition and on the website yesterday.
On Nov 25, High Court Justice Tay Yong Kwang fined the publisher of WSJ Asia $25,000 for contempt for three articles it ran in June and July. The first, an editorial on Singapore's democracy, arose out of a May hearing to assess damages that Singapore Democratic Party chief Chee Soon Juan and others had to pay Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong and Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew for libel.
The second was a letter by Dr Chee, rebutting the reply by MM Lee's press secretary to the editorial. The third article was another editorial, on the International Bar Association (IBA) Human Rights Institute's report on the Singapore judiciary, in July.
However, WSJ, in its Saturday editorial, said the two editorials found in contempt were reports on the May hearing and 'what an international legal organisation had said about Singapore's courts'.
It also pointed out that court proceedings are privileged under Singapore law, 'which means they can be reported - though Singapore's media rarely do the job', and that it had published two letters from MM Lee's spokesman.
WSJ also defended the editorial on the IBA report, saying 'if reporting on what such a body says is contemptuous of the judiciary, then Singapore is saying that its courts are above any public scrutiny'.
In addition, it had printed the Singapore Law Ministry's response to the editorial on the IBA. At the same time, it noted, the IBA had weighed in 'to correct some inaccurate comments' in the ministry's reply.
In her reply, Prof Chan said the two editorials and Dr Chee's letter alleged the courts 'to be compliant and a party to the abuse of the court process to suppress legitimate political dissent'. Dr Chee's letter also characterised court proceedings as 'pitiful and shameful', she noted.
'Your allegations were scandalous and you had no plausible defence,' she said.
'Faced with that situation, your counsel then argued that the law of contempt should be changed. The Singapore High Court rejected that and found you guilty of contempt.'
Dr Chan further pointed out that WSJ had decided not to appeal the ruling.
'Yet you now repeat the scandalous charges, knowing that they are in contempt of the Singapore courts,' she said.
In its editorial, WSJ also referred to two previous instances when its sister paper in Asia and the editors were sued for contempt - in 1985 and 1989. 'We are not eager to return to that fractious era,' it said.
WSJ noted that since 1991, its relationship with Singapore 'had been more or less stable until the latest contempt charge'.
It also noted that in September, another sister publication, the Far Eastern Economic Review, lost a defamation suit brought against it by MM Lee and PM Lee over an interview it published with Dr Chee. 'The elder Mr Lee has long used defamation suits to silence his critics in the press and among the political opposition,' WSJ said.
In response, Dr Chan pointed out that Singapore's laws 'are clear and applied equally and fairly', and the law of contempt is there 'to protect the administration of justice and public confidence in it, which is crucial for the rule of law'.
'The fundamental disagreement between Singapore and the WSJ (and its sister publications) has been that you want to force Singapore to change its rules to comply with US norms, so that journalists will not be sued even if they denigrate our judiciary or publish false, defamatory articles,' she added.
As recent events showed, the WSJ is again campaigning for a change in the laws, Dr Chan said. Singapore does not intend to change laws and norms that have worked for it, she added.
[email protected]
http://www.straitstimes.com/Breaking+News/Singapore/Story/STIStory_310668.html
Judiciary cannot be denigrated under the pretence of free speech, it says
By Zakir Hussain
ST FILE PHOTO
View more photos
THE Government has rebutted an editorial by the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) that took issue with a recent court ruling which found its sister publication in Asia in contempt of court.
In the editorial last Saturday, titled Singapore Strikes Again, WSJ said Singapore chose to go after the paper 'for the most basic kind of journalism'.
Envoy: Journal repeated scandalous charges
HERE are excerpts from Ambassador Chan Heng Chee's letter, Your Accusations Against Singapore Are Scandalous:
'Your allegations were scandalous and you had no plausible defence. Faced with that situation, your counsel then argued that the law of contempt should be changed. The Singapore High Court rejected that and found you guilty of contempt. You have decided not to appeal. Yet you now repeat the scandalous charges, knowing that they are in contempt of the Singapore courts.
... more
Excerpts from WSJ's Nov 29 editorial
THE editorial was titled Singapore Strikes Again.
'Let us begin with an apology to our readers in Asia. Unless they are online, they will not see this editorial. For legal reasons, we are refraining from publishing it in The Wall Street Journal Asia, which circulates in Singapore.
... more
In reply, Singapore's Ambassador to the United States, Professor Chan Heng Chee, said the Wall Street Journal Asia was cited for contempt 'because it accused Singapore courts of being biased'.
'We do not fear or stifle criticism of our policies. But we will not allow our judiciary to be denigrated under the pretence of free speech,' she said in a letter to WSJ published yesterday.
WSJ's editorial was published on Saturday in its United States and Europe editions, but not in its Asia edition which circulates here. It was also available on WSJ's website. Prof Chan's reply appeared in the US edition and on the website yesterday.
On Nov 25, High Court Justice Tay Yong Kwang fined the publisher of WSJ Asia $25,000 for contempt for three articles it ran in June and July. The first, an editorial on Singapore's democracy, arose out of a May hearing to assess damages that Singapore Democratic Party chief Chee Soon Juan and others had to pay Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong and Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew for libel.
The second was a letter by Dr Chee, rebutting the reply by MM Lee's press secretary to the editorial. The third article was another editorial, on the International Bar Association (IBA) Human Rights Institute's report on the Singapore judiciary, in July.
However, WSJ, in its Saturday editorial, said the two editorials found in contempt were reports on the May hearing and 'what an international legal organisation had said about Singapore's courts'.
It also pointed out that court proceedings are privileged under Singapore law, 'which means they can be reported - though Singapore's media rarely do the job', and that it had published two letters from MM Lee's spokesman.
WSJ also defended the editorial on the IBA report, saying 'if reporting on what such a body says is contemptuous of the judiciary, then Singapore is saying that its courts are above any public scrutiny'.
In addition, it had printed the Singapore Law Ministry's response to the editorial on the IBA. At the same time, it noted, the IBA had weighed in 'to correct some inaccurate comments' in the ministry's reply.
In her reply, Prof Chan said the two editorials and Dr Chee's letter alleged the courts 'to be compliant and a party to the abuse of the court process to suppress legitimate political dissent'. Dr Chee's letter also characterised court proceedings as 'pitiful and shameful', she noted.
'Your allegations were scandalous and you had no plausible defence,' she said.
'Faced with that situation, your counsel then argued that the law of contempt should be changed. The Singapore High Court rejected that and found you guilty of contempt.'
Dr Chan further pointed out that WSJ had decided not to appeal the ruling.
'Yet you now repeat the scandalous charges, knowing that they are in contempt of the Singapore courts,' she said.
In its editorial, WSJ also referred to two previous instances when its sister paper in Asia and the editors were sued for contempt - in 1985 and 1989. 'We are not eager to return to that fractious era,' it said.
WSJ noted that since 1991, its relationship with Singapore 'had been more or less stable until the latest contempt charge'.
It also noted that in September, another sister publication, the Far Eastern Economic Review, lost a defamation suit brought against it by MM Lee and PM Lee over an interview it published with Dr Chee. 'The elder Mr Lee has long used defamation suits to silence his critics in the press and among the political opposition,' WSJ said.
In response, Dr Chan pointed out that Singapore's laws 'are clear and applied equally and fairly', and the law of contempt is there 'to protect the administration of justice and public confidence in it, which is crucial for the rule of law'.
'The fundamental disagreement between Singapore and the WSJ (and its sister publications) has been that you want to force Singapore to change its rules to comply with US norms, so that journalists will not be sued even if they denigrate our judiciary or publish false, defamatory articles,' she added.
As recent events showed, the WSJ is again campaigning for a change in the laws, Dr Chan said. Singapore does not intend to change laws and norms that have worked for it, she added.
[email protected]
http://www.straitstimes.com/Breaking+News/Singapore/Story/STIStory_310668.html
You must be referring to LKY? A master conman extraordinary!
Hey Hypocrite LTS,
perhaps your tale would be more compelling and persuasive if you came with 'clean hands'.
I mean on one hand you continually and vehemently attack Dr Chee/SDP no end, implicitly at the very least supporting the PAP govt, and then on the otherhand you create threads and posts appearing to attack the PAP govt.
Can't have your cake and eat it Bob
perhaps your tale would be more compelling and persuasive if you came with 'clean hands'.
I mean on one hand you continually and vehemently attack Dr Chee/SDP no end, implicitly at the very least supporting the PAP govt, and then on the otherhand you create threads and posts appearing to attack the PAP govt.
Can't have your cake and eat it Bob
hidden motives are very dangerous to our society. it tricks many good-hearted and concerned citizens into doing things they thought they were fighting for the peasants but in actual fact, these civic-conscious souls were being exploited and their faiths being abused and misused into something that they least anticipated.
i give u a very straightforward example. when a seemingly mild-mannered respectable professional volunteered to fight against upgrading of hawker centre, on the surface it appeared to be great. everyone knows that after upgrading, food prices sure would increase.
the disappointing part is many hawker centres after upgrading were worst than it was before or nothing much has improved. examples: ABC HC, the recent CHINATOWN HC and many others if u guys could name some u experienced. and so this kind of bad impression was implanted. sad.
so our heelo was bent to stop it but in actual fact, many migitating factors for this upgrading pointed to the benefits of senior residents living around that area. lifts and escalators are added into the proposed upgrading. the whole facade of the HC was re-positioned into a more appealing direction.
worst of all, many old hawkers there wanted to quit, retire and be compensated with quite a substantial sum fi they gave up their stalls. all seem to be fair and advantageous to residents. YET that heelo still wanted to object and stop it by all means.
NOW...think. why was he so bent to stop it even the upgrading was beneficial to residents, senior folks and other hawkers who wish to continue biz? it convenient many, might improve the business there and enhance the comfort of eating there.
WHY WOULD HE STILL WANNA TO OBJECT TO IT?
this was the real motive: he wanted to score a political feather so that he could use it to accredit himself and his "self-serviceness" later to advance his political endeavours.
motive presented: to serve peasants.
real motive hidden : to exploit civic-conscious minded souls and abused their genuine concern to con for peasants' support later in his real intention.
this is what prof chan heng chee is trying to tell us all: BEWARE OF WOLVES IN SHEEPSKIN.
i know the diehards would find it impossible to accept. but that's the real TRUTH. singapore is singapore. singapore is not USA. we are a small nation very vulnerable to external dire forces. but to attack our own beloved country from the internal is like a perfect apple rotting from within.
please be aware and DO NOT ALLOW yourself to be misled further. protect and love our own country.
You trying a lame pathetic feeble attempt at McCarthyism is it Bob?
Like I said before, come with 'clean hands' first before coming out with such spiel ok
Like I said before, come with 'clean hands' first before coming out with such spiel ok
You trying a lame pathetic feeble attempt at McCarthyism is it Bob?
Like I said before, come with 'clean hands' first before coming out with such spiel ok
it's in the paper. use your blain lah!
many are accusing STRAITS TIMES are paps' propaganda media, could WALL STREET JOURNAL be said the same to be the foreign force acting behind chee soon juan?
which one speaketh the truth? which is acting against their own conscience? which is the wolf and which is the sheep?
hint here: foreign press which has no qualms over singapore speaking for a dissdent who is more loved by them than by his own compatriots. ironical isn't it?
which one speaketh the truth? which is acting against their own conscience? which is the wolf and which is the sheep?
hint here: foreign press which has no qualms over singapore speaking for a dissdent who is more loved by them than by his own compatriots. ironical isn't it?
Please do not distort and twist Bob.
My position on Dr Chee/SDP has always been clear and consistent. I generally agree with his/its principles on making Singapore a truly more liberal democractic country with proper independent checks and balances. However where I depart and disagree with Dr Chee/SDP is on his/its political strategies.
You know Bob, you keep claiming Dr Chee is out to "cheat" Singapore and Singaporeans but your claims appear to be baseless, unfounded and without concrete evidence save for your patent bias and pathetic and feeble reliance on the 154th which btw is not ranked 154 for nothing and PAP govt stooges.
Pleaes Bob, please tell us you have something more concrete and substantial apart from your apparent patent personal vendetta
My position on Dr Chee/SDP has always been clear and consistent. I generally agree with his/its principles on making Singapore a truly more liberal democractic country with proper independent checks and balances. However where I depart and disagree with Dr Chee/SDP is on his/its political strategies.
You know Bob, you keep claiming Dr Chee is out to "cheat" Singapore and Singaporeans but your claims appear to be baseless, unfounded and without concrete evidence save for your patent bias and pathetic and feeble reliance on the 154th which btw is not ranked 154 for nothing and PAP govt stooges.
Pleaes Bob, please tell us you have something more concrete and substantial apart from your apparent patent personal vendetta
comparing to your postings about sdppies, i m still way off.
please tell us u weren't contacted by them. F&D can really do magic!!
Rational objective matured well informed thinking Singaporeans and forumers can draw their own conclusions. Oh and also smell your pathetic lame feeble personal vendetta a mile away Bob
You don't appear to come with 'clean hands' Bob, you just don't appear to come with 'clean hands' on this one
You don't appear to come with 'clean hands' Bob, you just don't appear to come with 'clean hands' on this one
Not rants Bob, just the TRUTH, sorry if that hurts
Oh and I never mix VIRTUAL reality with REALITY
Also I tend to agree with Alex Au's take on Dr Chee although once again I say that I do not agree with his political strategies/tactics. But to me Dr Chee appears to pro Singapore and pro Singaporean and in this regard I wish him well.
The Singapore Democratic Party: method or madness?
Esther (not her real name) sat opposite me at lunch. Somehow, the topic of conversation got to the multiple trials involving Chee Soon Juan, Yap Keng Ho and Chee Siok Chin of the Singapore Democratic Party (SDP). These were for speaking in public without a police permit, for libel against Singapore strongman Lee Kuan Yew and Prime Minister Lee Hisen Loong, and finally for contempt of court.
More generally, Chee and the SDP have acquired a reputation for attempting street protests, and hurling belligerent accusations at the People's Action Party (PAP) government.
"I don't believe in what he is doing," Esther said, referring to Chee. "I don't think there'll ever be a substantial number of people supporting him. He'll get nowhere."
I daresay she spoke for a lot of Singaporeans. In fact, if you scan through various blogs, you'll find similar opinions expressed, either disapproving of Chee's high-decibel methods or stressing the futility of such a strategy.
At the last general election in 2006, the main SDP team stood in Sembawang Group Representation Constituency. They received only 23% of the vote, which from previous elections we know is roughly the irreducible fraction of the electorate that will never vote for the PAP. Mostly, that 23% vote-share represented not any love for the SDP, but visceral rejection of the government party. As one unkind soul said, even if you put a troupe of monkeys up for election, 23% would still vote for them.
While looking at vote-share might have been a relevant gauge when the SDP was standing for elections, things have changed, and understanding this change is necessary for a proper measure of what they are now doing. Thus, to point out that the majority of Singaporeans will never be able to bring themselves to support them is in a large way, off the mark.
Extra-parliamentary struggle
The SDP arrived at the conclusion a few years back that the PAP will never allow themselves to be defeated electorally. The rules will be rewritten as necessary, the levers of mass communication will always be used to advantage and as many people as they can entice will be co-opted (with high salaries) to deprive opposition parties of talent.
I don't think anyone can prove the contrary. Certainly, none of the other opposition parties have yet made any significant inroads to even begin to cast doubt on this reading of the PAP's bottom line. In fact, I would say, at least half, if not three-quarters of Singaporeans would generally agree with this analysis.
What the SDP has done is to take the analysis further. If the PAP will never allow themselves to be defeated through the electoral route, what else can be done?
The answer: They have to be defeated morally. This in a nutshell is what the SDP's tactics are designed to do, and their success or failure should be measured by how much moral opprobrium sticks to the PAP.
If you look at it from this angle, you find yourself conceding, grudgingly perhaps, that the SDP is not completely unsuccessful. Time and again, they bring out the worst in the PAP for everyone to see. The police overreact at Hong Lim Green. Four people standing on the sidewalk saying nothing but wearing similar T-shirts (i.e. less than the minimum five that require a police permit) are nevertheless arrested for refusing to disperse. Judges are made to look like hatchet men for the PAP and both the Attorney-General and the Law Minister have recently been provoked to say outrageous things, making themselves look quite unbecoming. Lee Kuan Yew himself is made to look the bully that he is while on the witness stand.
The SDP strips the PAP of their smiling mask, and reminds us that while we may be fearful of the government party, there is no reason to love them. More, the PAP's power is maintained by a perversion and corruption of many institutions of state. In short, the SDP cast doubt on the moral legitimacy and long-term wisdom of the government.
That is what the SDP has set out to do, and fair credit should be given to them for achieving it, at least to a degree (and I say "them" because it is not just Chee Soon Juan alone, but many equally dedicated confederates of his too). No doubt, they have done it at great personal cost, but instead of dismissing their efforts as pointless, I think we ought to reflect on how our views of the PAP are shaped by the SDP's determination and sacrifice, however loath we are to credit them for it.
And I understand why too we are loath to give credit to them: Because of fear. Subliminally perhaps, we fear being associated with them and the risks posed to ourselves. It may even get to the point where we refuse to believe that our views of the PAP are partly shaped by the way the SDP has shown them up
The die was cast long ago
The other thing to watch out for is the tendency to treat the SDP as irrational. I see, for example, Lee Kuan Yew trying to character assassinate Chee by asserting that he fits the description of a psychopath, and as you might have noticed, the mainstream media dutifully played it up.
Chee strikes me as intensely rational. While he is unusually single-minded and almost unimaginably brave -- and these traits make him not like 99.9% of us, which is rather alarming -- they do not mean he is mad.
Furthermore, one can even argue that he didn't really choose this course of action, and that to a large part, Lee Kuan Yew chose it for him. The moment Lee chose, I think in 1994, to persecute him by hauling him over the coals over a taxi fare claim when Chee was still teaching at the National University of Singapore, and then attacking him relentlessly over some health care statistics in 1996, the die was cast.
Lee had made up his mind that Chee must be "demolished", to use a word that Lee rather favours, and from that point on, it was only a matter of waiting for Chee to trip up, which he did -- perhaps foolishly -- in the 2001 general election. He said something defamatory during the hustings and the PAP leaders sued and bankrupted him.
As a bankrupt he cannot stand for election until he is discharged, so what is he to do?
The future
The big unknown is: Where will this lead? What changes will any of this bring about? Won't the stranglehold that the PAP has on power remain as tight as ever?
This feeling lies behind the "It's all so futile" opinion that we see around us.
Indeed the SDP has burnt so many bridges -- it is likely to be deregistered as a result of one of the recent court cases -- that it is extremely improbable that it will ever participate in, let alone win, elections again. That being the case, one might say: Isn't that a dead-end road?
But that is linear thinking, which tends to blind us to other effects and outcomes. History, in fact, has many examples of how political agitation of this kind, even without mass support, can break down a political system.
In essence, to succeed the agitation has to provoke an over-reaction by the regime. It need not be a single event, but can be cumulative. Typically, the regime does not even realise that it is over-reacting; it is just acting according to its instincts or doing what it has successfully done before. But at some point, it is seen as excessive, self-serving and immoral, either by a plurality of the people, or within the elite.
The rarer consequence is for people to speak out and say, "Enough. Things must change".
The more common consequence, but also less headline-making, which is why most people are not even aware of such processes, is for rumblings within the elite to cause soul-searching. A few members of the elite may speak out publicly, but most will either speak privately, or act tacitly, distancing themselves from the core group of power-players. In other words, an unspoken mark-down of loyalty.
Then two alternative scenarios can arise. Either a moderate faction emerges within the ruling clique and tussles for power with the hardliners thereby destabilising what had hitherto been a solid regime, or the top man himself, worried about rumblings among the elite and softening of support, decides to change course. He embarks on what my friend Russell Heng has coined "the politics of retreat".
Like military retreat, political retreat too is fraught with risks. The very fact that it is ordered is a major confession that the previous position has become untenable. It blows away the aura of invincibility that leaders have come to rely on for amassing either support or acquiescence. Arguments break out over where the second line of defence ought to lie. Opponents are emboldened to demand more. Too many times in history, what is planned as an orderly retreat quickly becomes a rout. And a new political system is born.
That's Chee's and the SDP's hope. And frankly, it would be churlish to deny that such an end result -- a freer, more normal political system -- is generally ours too. We may be afraid to stand with them, but at least for the sake of our own moral integrity if nothing else, we shouldn't disparage or discourage them.
© Yawning Bread
Oh and I never mix VIRTUAL reality with REALITY
Also I tend to agree with Alex Au's take on Dr Chee although once again I say that I do not agree with his political strategies/tactics. But to me Dr Chee appears to pro Singapore and pro Singaporean and in this regard I wish him well.
The Singapore Democratic Party: method or madness?
Esther (not her real name) sat opposite me at lunch. Somehow, the topic of conversation got to the multiple trials involving Chee Soon Juan, Yap Keng Ho and Chee Siok Chin of the Singapore Democratic Party (SDP). These were for speaking in public without a police permit, for libel against Singapore strongman Lee Kuan Yew and Prime Minister Lee Hisen Loong, and finally for contempt of court.
More generally, Chee and the SDP have acquired a reputation for attempting street protests, and hurling belligerent accusations at the People's Action Party (PAP) government.
"I don't believe in what he is doing," Esther said, referring to Chee. "I don't think there'll ever be a substantial number of people supporting him. He'll get nowhere."
I daresay she spoke for a lot of Singaporeans. In fact, if you scan through various blogs, you'll find similar opinions expressed, either disapproving of Chee's high-decibel methods or stressing the futility of such a strategy.
At the last general election in 2006, the main SDP team stood in Sembawang Group Representation Constituency. They received only 23% of the vote, which from previous elections we know is roughly the irreducible fraction of the electorate that will never vote for the PAP. Mostly, that 23% vote-share represented not any love for the SDP, but visceral rejection of the government party. As one unkind soul said, even if you put a troupe of monkeys up for election, 23% would still vote for them.
While looking at vote-share might have been a relevant gauge when the SDP was standing for elections, things have changed, and understanding this change is necessary for a proper measure of what they are now doing. Thus, to point out that the majority of Singaporeans will never be able to bring themselves to support them is in a large way, off the mark.
Extra-parliamentary struggle
The SDP arrived at the conclusion a few years back that the PAP will never allow themselves to be defeated electorally. The rules will be rewritten as necessary, the levers of mass communication will always be used to advantage and as many people as they can entice will be co-opted (with high salaries) to deprive opposition parties of talent.
I don't think anyone can prove the contrary. Certainly, none of the other opposition parties have yet made any significant inroads to even begin to cast doubt on this reading of the PAP's bottom line. In fact, I would say, at least half, if not three-quarters of Singaporeans would generally agree with this analysis.
What the SDP has done is to take the analysis further. If the PAP will never allow themselves to be defeated through the electoral route, what else can be done?
The answer: They have to be defeated morally. This in a nutshell is what the SDP's tactics are designed to do, and their success or failure should be measured by how much moral opprobrium sticks to the PAP.
If you look at it from this angle, you find yourself conceding, grudgingly perhaps, that the SDP is not completely unsuccessful. Time and again, they bring out the worst in the PAP for everyone to see. The police overreact at Hong Lim Green. Four people standing on the sidewalk saying nothing but wearing similar T-shirts (i.e. less than the minimum five that require a police permit) are nevertheless arrested for refusing to disperse. Judges are made to look like hatchet men for the PAP and both the Attorney-General and the Law Minister have recently been provoked to say outrageous things, making themselves look quite unbecoming. Lee Kuan Yew himself is made to look the bully that he is while on the witness stand.
The SDP strips the PAP of their smiling mask, and reminds us that while we may be fearful of the government party, there is no reason to love them. More, the PAP's power is maintained by a perversion and corruption of many institutions of state. In short, the SDP cast doubt on the moral legitimacy and long-term wisdom of the government.
That is what the SDP has set out to do, and fair credit should be given to them for achieving it, at least to a degree (and I say "them" because it is not just Chee Soon Juan alone, but many equally dedicated confederates of his too). No doubt, they have done it at great personal cost, but instead of dismissing their efforts as pointless, I think we ought to reflect on how our views of the PAP are shaped by the SDP's determination and sacrifice, however loath we are to credit them for it.
And I understand why too we are loath to give credit to them: Because of fear. Subliminally perhaps, we fear being associated with them and the risks posed to ourselves. It may even get to the point where we refuse to believe that our views of the PAP are partly shaped by the way the SDP has shown them up
The die was cast long ago
The other thing to watch out for is the tendency to treat the SDP as irrational. I see, for example, Lee Kuan Yew trying to character assassinate Chee by asserting that he fits the description of a psychopath, and as you might have noticed, the mainstream media dutifully played it up.
Chee strikes me as intensely rational. While he is unusually single-minded and almost unimaginably brave -- and these traits make him not like 99.9% of us, which is rather alarming -- they do not mean he is mad.
Furthermore, one can even argue that he didn't really choose this course of action, and that to a large part, Lee Kuan Yew chose it for him. The moment Lee chose, I think in 1994, to persecute him by hauling him over the coals over a taxi fare claim when Chee was still teaching at the National University of Singapore, and then attacking him relentlessly over some health care statistics in 1996, the die was cast.
Lee had made up his mind that Chee must be "demolished", to use a word that Lee rather favours, and from that point on, it was only a matter of waiting for Chee to trip up, which he did -- perhaps foolishly -- in the 2001 general election. He said something defamatory during the hustings and the PAP leaders sued and bankrupted him.
As a bankrupt he cannot stand for election until he is discharged, so what is he to do?
The future
The big unknown is: Where will this lead? What changes will any of this bring about? Won't the stranglehold that the PAP has on power remain as tight as ever?
This feeling lies behind the "It's all so futile" opinion that we see around us.
Indeed the SDP has burnt so many bridges -- it is likely to be deregistered as a result of one of the recent court cases -- that it is extremely improbable that it will ever participate in, let alone win, elections again. That being the case, one might say: Isn't that a dead-end road?
But that is linear thinking, which tends to blind us to other effects and outcomes. History, in fact, has many examples of how political agitation of this kind, even without mass support, can break down a political system.
In essence, to succeed the agitation has to provoke an over-reaction by the regime. It need not be a single event, but can be cumulative. Typically, the regime does not even realise that it is over-reacting; it is just acting according to its instincts or doing what it has successfully done before. But at some point, it is seen as excessive, self-serving and immoral, either by a plurality of the people, or within the elite.
The rarer consequence is for people to speak out and say, "Enough. Things must change".
The more common consequence, but also less headline-making, which is why most people are not even aware of such processes, is for rumblings within the elite to cause soul-searching. A few members of the elite may speak out publicly, but most will either speak privately, or act tacitly, distancing themselves from the core group of power-players. In other words, an unspoken mark-down of loyalty.
Then two alternative scenarios can arise. Either a moderate faction emerges within the ruling clique and tussles for power with the hardliners thereby destabilising what had hitherto been a solid regime, or the top man himself, worried about rumblings among the elite and softening of support, decides to change course. He embarks on what my friend Russell Heng has coined "the politics of retreat".
Like military retreat, political retreat too is fraught with risks. The very fact that it is ordered is a major confession that the previous position has become untenable. It blows away the aura of invincibility that leaders have come to rely on for amassing either support or acquiescence. Arguments break out over where the second line of defence ought to lie. Opponents are emboldened to demand more. Too many times in history, what is planned as an orderly retreat quickly becomes a rout. And a new political system is born.
That's Chee's and the SDP's hope. And frankly, it would be churlish to deny that such an end result -- a freer, more normal political system -- is generally ours too. We may be afraid to stand with them, but at least for the sake of our own moral integrity if nothing else, we shouldn't disparage or discourage them.
© Yawning Bread
Bob,
Now that I have complied with your request, care to answer my question which I have posed to you on afew occasions now?
What caused you to fall out with F4, brief narrative would be welcome so that forumers can draw their own conclusions. Also who is the fourth member of F4? Was it really Blue Sotong?
TKQ
Now that I have complied with your request, care to answer my question which I have posed to you on afew occasions now?
What caused you to fall out with F4, brief narrative would be welcome so that forumers can draw their own conclusions. Also who is the fourth member of F4? Was it really Blue Sotong?
TKQ
I take it then that you disagree with Alex's article?:p If so, why? And please no bare bald baseless claims hor Bob
:p If so, why? And please no bare bald baseless claims hor Bob Similar threads
