Chee: Without rights, there can be no change

[Thick Face Black Heart]

The Singapore Democrats participated in a recent Council for Asian Liberals and Democrats (CALD) event to talk about challenges to fundamental freedoms.

Leading democracy leaders, parliamentarians and members of think-tanks were invited to the three-day meeting to address challenges to civil liberties.

"Without our fundamental freedoms, we cannot hope to bring about change," SDP Secretary-General Chee Soon Juan said in his address. "In the absence of debate, the dangers of misguided and ill-conceived policies are not exposed and corrected.”

Dr Chee was referring to the PAP Government's population White Paper in which it was announced that a population of 6.9 million would be targeted by 2030 for Singapore. He said: "Without our rights of peaceful assembly, the PAP continued with its wayward policy until today we find our well-being coming under threat by a Government insistent on overpopulating this island."

The reality is that the deprivation of our rights has denied us what we really want, Dr Chee said, which is to "live a little more comfortably, to retire with a little more security, and to work a little less stressfully."

"Exercising our freedoms – especially freedom of assembly – must not be seen as taboo," he added, "peaceful protests are necessary and righteous means with which the people can compel the government to act in their interest."

Party Chairman Jufrie Mahmood addressed delegates at a dinner that conferences such as this helped democracy advocates "exchange ideas and insights, and to share strategies to work towards the full range of fundamental freedoms."

The goal is to reach the ideal embodied in the the Universal Declaration of Human Rights that "recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world”.

Dr Vincent Wijeysingha also spoke on the subject of civil liberties: "There appears to be a significant correlation between the power and wealth of individual leaders and their antipathy to the human rights of their citizens."

He pointed out that in Singapore, over the course of five decades of one party rule the media, trade unions, academe, civil society organisations, etc have been dismantled "with the express ambition of collecting policy-making solely into the hands of the People’s Action Party."

CALD also held its Executive Committee meeting. The organisation formed in 1993 will be celebrating its 20th anniversary in Manila, Philippines in November this year. It will also be conducting a series of activities including election observation missions in some of the elections to be held in the region.

Current Chairman Sam Rainsy represented CALD in Rangoon, Burma, last week under the invitation of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi to attend the National League of Democracy's inaugural congress.

CALD comprises democratic parties from Asia (both governing parties and in opposition):

• Civil Will-Green Party (Mongolia),
• Democrat Party (Thailand),
• Democratic Party (Hong Kong),
• Democratic Progressive Party (Taiwan),
• Liberal Party (Philippines),
• Liberal Party (Sri Lanka),
• National Council of the Union of Burma,
• Parti Democratic Indonesia-Perjuangan,
• Parti Gerakan (Malaysia),
• Sam Rainsy Party (Cambodia), and
• Singapore Democratic Party.

 

[Thick Face Black Heart]

Singapore Democrats The Singapore Democrats participated in a recent Council for Asian Liberals and Democrats (CALD) event to talk about challenges to fundamental freedoms. Leading democracy leaders, parliamentarians and members of think-tanks were invited to the three-day meeting to address challenges to civil liberties.

<tbody>
</tbody>

 

[steffychun]

Countries with human rights still have low human development

 

[CannonFairy]

Instead of debating in parliament Chee preferred the debate to be done in Hong Lim Park?

Now, the politicians who claim to be fighting for the most oppressed and the underclass are sitting in posh air conditioned hotel having 10 course meal dinner which the most oppressed in Burma cannot afford even after selling away their rice field, land, cattles, wives and daughters.

Were they served shark fins?

 

[cleareyes]

Now we know why SDP can never win even a single seat in parliment.

 

[steffychun]

Now we know why SDP can never win even a single seat in parliment.

Yup not in a Chee life time

 

[andyfisher]

who is the mei mei near the projector table, shes got pretty sexy legs.

chee is an idealist, I hope he gets into parl, we need some comedy in our lives dont we

 

[metalmickey]

"Without our fundamental freedoms, we cannot hope to bring about change," SDP Secretary-General Chee Soon Juan said in his address. "In the absence of debate, the dangers of misguided and ill-conceived policies are not exposed and corrected.”

He's correct about this. This is absolutely true.

Now we all like to say that he's not going to get into parliament, and that his talk about rights does not translate into bread and butter issues.

Let's put it this way: if he talks about rights and the common man does not understand, then it is the fault of the common man. You cannot change reality to suit the perception of the common man. It is the perception that must change to suit the reality.

There are PAP people in parliament, and maybe some of them even want to make a change. But they cannot, because they don't have any rights.

It might be possible for people to go into the streets and make their opinions known, so that an idea can gather steam and spread among the population. That is the whole point of protesting. Protesting is not mainly about stirring up shit and creating chaos. It is also about sending a very clear message to the govt and to the rest of all citizens.

In the end, our system takes after the British system. Everything is constructed around rights. Rights describe what people in power can or cannot do to you. It's time for people to get used to this concept.

 

[scroobal]

People look for immediate needs and a vision to improve their lot in the future. Very seldom during elections even during their early years of democracy in the first world did human rights etc took prominence in any party manifesto. Human rights becomes an issue if highly oppressive regimes. SIngaporeans can go to Changi and take budget flight to Bangkok to shop. There is no climate for a French revolution.

People desire employment, affordable housing, health umbrella and their children to prosper.

Human rights, equality, removal of discrimination, censorship etc are issues that come into being between elections and not during elections. Without a job, a house and quality time with the kids, nobody is going to pursue the human rights agenda.

He's correct about this. This is absolutely true.

In the end, our system takes after the British system. Everything is constructed around rights. Rights describe what people in power can or cannot do to you. It's time for people to get used to this concept.

 

[metalmickey]

Well, as I recall it, during the early years of the American revolution, they said, "no taxation without representation". So they were fighting about rights, weren't they? It was always about that.

Rights are a way of keeping score of who owns what, and who can do what.

Suppose you have a home and a roof over your head that nobody can take away (not for 99 years at least), what's that? Rights.
Suppose you have a job today and you still have a job tomorrow, what's that? Rights.
Suppose you have a functioning legal system and everything had to be done according to proper procedure, where you have to go through proper criminal procedures except in special cases. what's that? Rights.

The structure is all there. Singaporeans have some rights, but they don't have the full package.

Now this is the reason why rights are not at the foremost of peoples' minds in Singapore. In Singapore, our package of rights has always been "this is what you have, take it or leave it". So we've always made do with what we had, and made the best of it. It's always what Alex Au has called the "petitionary state", where when you want something you don't have, you ask nicely from the govt and hope they give it to you.

What Chee is introducing is this new concept of what happens when you still don't agree. What's new about his style, and foreign to most Singaporeans, is ARGUING with the govt or with each other about the rights. Instead of working within the pre-existing framework.

But people in power are smart. They know that in order to fight for your rights, you need some other rights to begin with. So like you said, if they're barely making do for themselves, they won't think about rights. If you whittle away what they have, then maybe they'll be more obedient - up to a point. Eventually people are starting to wonder how they're going to fight for their rights, and they'll start thinking about the questions, more along the lines of what Chee has been doing all these years. He'll just keep on becoming more relevant. Too bad he'll never get into parliament.

Many people are of the mindset that you should just get more Worker's party people into parliament. That is different from what Chee is doing. But both approaches are not mutually exclusive, you cannot say just because you have one, you don't have the other.

 

[scroobal]

Why then Chee did not get elected when he was eligible to stand for elections? In fact he is good looking, best educated, speaks and dress well.

 

[jw5]

Why then Chee did not get elected when he was eligible to stand for elections? In fact he is good looking, best educated, speaks and dress well.

He is better looking and dresses better than you, you manipulative motherfucker.
Why didn't he get elected?
It's because of you, you stinking two headed snake who plays both sides.
You are a double crosser who has been working for both sides and making it difficult for opposition parties to get elected.
You should be careful wherever you go you despicable fucked up son of a bitch.
Utterly disgusting bastard that you are, it's better than you don't have any descendents.

 

[steffychun]

People look for immediate needs and a vision to improve their lot in the future. Very seldom during elections even during their early years of democracy in the first world did human rights etc took prominence in any party manifesto. Human rights becomes an issue if highly oppressive regimes. SIngaporeans can go to Changi and take budget flight to Bangkok to shop. There is no climate for a French revolution.

People desire employment, affordable housing, health umbrella and their children to prosper.

Human rights, equality, removal of discrimination, censorship etc are issues that come into being between elections and not during elections. Without a job, a house and quality time with the kids, nobody is going to pursue the human rights agenda.

i ver much agree. Look around do you want to blame your grandma for not understanding chee? Or you cousin who is more interested in tablet computers?

 

[metalmickey]

i ver much agree. Look around do you want to blame your grandma for not understanding chee? Or you cousin who is more interested in tablet computers?

So what if I'm going to do just that? You know it's perfectly alright in this forum when we call Singaporeans "sinkies" because they have not understood for the longest time how important it is to vote the PAP out of power. IT's acceptable to lament that they are not forward looking and don't have strategic vision to do just that. But when I talk about human rights and social justice, that's not acceptable?

First, I never said he's electable. Read again what I just said: the electorate didn't vote for him. And it's the electorate's fault.

Second, Chee Soon Juan wasn't saying that human rights are bread and butter issues. He said that human rights are the ability of the Singapore people to change things when the leaders are leading the country onto the wrong path. In 1992, when he was up for elections against Teo Chee HEan, it was the beginning of the time when Singapore was starting to go off-track with the surge in property prices. It was when Singapore had to first decide - do we continue with this gradual process of easing the PAP out of power, or do we continue voting like sheep. They chose voting like sheep.

Another word about 1992: people had said back then that Goh Chok Tong made a promise to the people to put Marine Parade up for election. That sounds like a very filmsy excuse to hold an elections. What we do know now, however, is that that was the elections which introduced a future deputy prime minister to power. So what was that elections really all about? I leave you to form your own conclusions.

But the fact that human rights are about directly intervening in the government when it's about to go wrong means that human rights are a more long range thing - they are about how your bread and butter issues will play out 20 years into the future. If voting opposition people into parliament is about the co-driver slapping the driver, Chee's confrontational politics is about the back seat passenger snatching the steering wheel or reprogramming the GPS when the govt is not looking. It's the same idea, but just a more extreme version of it.

Let me bring a few more issues in which are related to rights. We all know about the WP, but we don't know them as well as we know the PAP. What happens if they were to replace the PAP system with something that is even worse? How do we put a foot in it? What if they keep on putting in lousy ideas? The other issue about rights is about why the WP will have limited power, even if it gets most of the house seats. There is no freedom of information act. There are no laws that will force people to hand information over when people demand it. That is also rights. If people have some notion of what having opposition people in power means, but without those rights, they will be quite disappointed.

Most probably Chee will not get elected, ever. But he still serves a very important purpose. How about Wijeysingha? I'm not sure.

As an aside, in 2011, I threw away my grandmother's polling card. I love her very much but I did what I had to do. She got struck off the register but it doesn't really matter - she's not alive anymore.

 

[Qantas]

CALD comprises democratic parties from Asia (both governing parties and in opposition):

• Civil Will-Green Party (Mongolia),
• Democrat Party (Thailand),
• Democratic Party (Hong Kong),
• Democratic Progressive Party (Taiwan),
• Liberal Party (Philippines),
• Liberal Party (Sri Lanka),
• National Council of the Union of Burma,
• Parti Democratic Indonesia-Perjuangan,
• Parti Gerakan (Malaysia),
• Sam Rainsy Party (Cambodia), and
• Singapore Democratic Party.

[/QUOTE]

Looks like overwhelmingly majority are in opposition (except perhaps Gerakan which is part of Barisan Nasional)

 

[steffychun]

So what if I'm going to do just that? You know it's perfectly alright in this forum when we call Singaporeans "sinkies" because they have not understood for the longest time how important it is to vote the PAP out of power. IT's acceptable to lament that they are not forward looking and don't have strategic vision to do just that. But when I talk about human rights and social justice, that's not acceptable?

First, I never said he's electable. Read again what I just said: the electorate didn't vote for him. And it's the electorate's fault.

Second, Chee Soon Juan wasn't saying that human rights are bread and butter issues. He said that human rights are the ability of the Singapore people to change things when the leaders are leading the country onto the wrong path. In 1992, when he was up for elections against Teo Chee HEan, it was the beginning of the time when Singapore was starting to go off-track with the surge in property prices. It was when Singapore had to first decide - do we continue with this gradual process of easing the PAP out of power, or do we continue voting like sheep. They chose voting like sheep.

Another word about 1992: people had said back then that Goh Chok Tong made a promise to the people to put Marine Parade up for election. That sounds like a very filmsy excuse to hold an elections. What we do know now, however, is that that was the elections which introduced a future deputy prime minister to power. So what was that elections really all about? I leave you to form your own conclusions.

But the fact that human rights are about directly intervening in the government when it's about to go wrong means that human rights are a more long range thing - they are about how your bread and butter issues will play out 20 years into the future. If voting opposition people into parliament is about the co-driver slapping the driver, Chee's confrontational politics is about the back seat passenger snatching the steering wheel or reprogramming the GPS when the govt is not looking. It's the same idea, but just a more extreme version of it.

Let me bring a few more issues in which are related to rights. We all know about the WP, but we don't know them as well as we know the PAP. What happens if they were to replace the PAP system with something that is even worse? How do we put a foot in it? What if they keep on putting in lousy ideas? The other issue about rights is about why the WP will have limited power, even if it gets most of the house seats. There is no freedom of information act. There are no laws that will force people to hand information over when people demand it. That is also rights. If people have some notion of what having opposition people in power means, but without those rights, they will be quite disappointed.

Most probably Chee will not get elected, ever. But he still serves a very important purpose. How about Wijeysingha? I'm not sure.

As an aside, in 2011, I threw away my grandmother's polling card. I love her very much but I did what I had to do. She got struck off the register but it doesn't really matter - she's not alive anymore.

There was change in many countries post world war two. South Korea changed despite the people having no rights under the Park Regime. It grew economically. What sort of logical is that from Chee? There was no change at all in the US despite them supposing to have rights; Bush stayed on for a second term. There were suppose to be rights in America; yet there is Guantanamo Bay.

 

[steffychun]

People look for immediate needs and a vision to improve their lot in the future. Very seldom during elections even during their early years of democracy in the first world did human rights etc took prominence in any party manifesto. Human rights becomes an issue if highly oppressive regimes. SIngaporeans can go to Changi and take budget flight to Bangkok to shop. There is no climate for a French revolution.

People desire employment, affordable housing, health umbrella and their children to prosper.

Human rights, equality, removal of discrimination, censorship etc are issues that come into being between elections and not during elections. Without a job, a house and quality time with the kids, nobody is going to pursue the human rights agenda.

The statistics from UNDP HDI scores are clear. Not all human rights free countries have great standards of living.

 

[metalmickey]

There was change in many countries post world war two. South Korea changed despite the people having no rights under the Park Regime. It grew economically. What sort of logical is that from Chee? There was no change at all in the US despite them supposing to have rights; Bush stayed on for a second term. There were suppose to be rights in America; yet there is Guantanamo Bay.

What? you want to bring up South Korea and the USA? South Korea. How did they change from a Singapore style dictatorship to what it is today? You never read the newspapers during the 80s? People protesting in the streets. Students getting beaten and jailed by the police and the army. Former presidents sent to jail for killing their own people. Chee Soon Juan entered politics in the 90s because he thought that something similar would happen in Singapore, but it didn't happen. Taiwan and South Korea achieved democracy because of Chee Soon Juan style politics. Hong Kong has a protest culture but too bad they're under China.

The idea of protesting to achieve your rights was practically invented in the USA during the 60s, during the civil rights movement. That was when, 50 years ago, black people fought for their rights. Right now, the same tactics are used by gay people. I am convinced that we will see gay marriage in Singapore by the time I get old. Most countries who criminalise gay marriage are Commonwealth countries. Recently the queen of England made a statement on gay people that shows they want to persuade the Commonwealth to turn their backs on anti-gay laws.

Yes, you are right that some people don't have rights in the USA. The homeless, the muslims and the blacks. But there are other important reasons why people don't have rights. The middle class is disappearing because of income inequality (but that is the fault of businesses, not government). Guantanamo bay is a small thing. You never heard of the Occupy movement? In the US, the problem is that businesses have too much rights. The government sues citizens on behalf of the banks, but they never sue the banks. Achieving human rights is never ever a permanent thing. You need to keep on fighting every day against people who are taking your rights away from you. We all used to have the right to cheap housing. Now that's almost disappeared.

As for Singapore there was a protest recently, wasn't there? Thousands of people in Hong Lim square. I never thought I would see the day happen. There was even a strike by the bus workers, even though it ended badly. Chee Soon Juan will never get into parliament - probably not until he's an old man. But his style of politics is on the rise, there's no doubt about it.

 

[steffychun]

What? you want to bring up South Korea and the USA? South Korea. How did they change from a Singapore style dictatorship to what it is today? You never read the newspapers during the 80s? People protesting in the streets. Students getting beaten and jailed by the police and the army. Former presidents sent to jail for killing their own people. Chee Soon Juan entered politics in the 90s because he thought that something similar would happen in Singapore, but it didn't happen. Taiwan and South Korea achieved democracy because of Chee Soon Juan style politics. Hong Kong has a protest culture but too bad they're under China.

The idea of protesting to achieve your rights was practically invented in the USA during the 60s, during the civil rights movement. That was when, 50 years ago, black people fought for their rights. Right now, the same tactics are used by gay people. I am convinced that we will see gay marriage in Singapore by the time I get old. Most countries who criminalise gay marriage are Commonwealth countries. Recently the queen of England made a statement on gay people that shows they want to persuade the Commonwealth to turn their backs on anti-gay laws.

Yes, you are right that some people don't have rights in the USA. The homeless, the muslims and the blacks. But there are other important reasons why people don't have rights. The middle class is disappearing because of income inequality (but that is the fault of businesses, not government). Guantanamo bay is a small thing. You never heard of the Occupy movement? In the US, the problem is that businesses have too much rights. The government sues citizens on behalf of the banks, but they never sue the banks. Achieving human rights is never ever a permanent thing. You need to keep on fighting every day against people who are taking your rights away from you. We all used to have the right to cheap housing. Now that's almost disappeared.

As for Singapore there was a protest recently, wasn't there? Thousands of people in Hong Lim square. I never thought I would see the day happen. There was even a strike by the bus workers, even though it ended badly. Chee Soon Juan will never get into parliament - probably not until he's an old man. But his style of politics is on the rise, there's no doubt about it.

You never read about South Korean economic miracle under a dictatorship? They progressed faster than your human rights country. Tell me, what so great about rights? Americans have rights but they dont free the true native Americans who are imprisoned by their government. Where is the change?

 

[metalmickey]

That was South Korea 30 years ago. Dictatorship and economic miracle. Same story as Singapore. But now South Korea is very different from 30 years ago. It's more of a functioning democracy. They protested in the streets, and they won their freedom by fighting for it. And this economic miracle bullshit - Singapore is an economic miracle. We had stunning GDP growth for a long time. Why are people so unhappy? Now I no longer believe anybody who talks about "economic miracles". It's all bullshit. Why don't you say, Singapore is an economic miracle under a dictatorship, and therefore nothing has to change? Why did we accept a dictatorship 30-40 years ago, but we don't accept it anymore?

In any society, not everybody in the country has rights. Everybody who wants rights will have to fight for it. It is not true that Native Americans are imprisoned. But they have had their lands taken away from them. How about the rest of the Americans? But then again, the rest of the Americans are also slowly losing their rights. People got kicked out of their houses. Rights is also about being able to make a living. Job opportunities are disappearing. Nobody has a right to a job. But some people consider economic opportunities as a right as well.