Well, Chee Soon Juan had been sued by the PAP leaders once again.
Wonder when will it end?
The question now is where will Chee Soon Juan go from here?
That question is best answered by himself. Nonetheless these are some considerations he might like to see if there are any relevance:
As a human being, as a politician, as a family man, Chee Soon Juan has responsibilities:
(1) To his ownself, his wife, his children
All of us crave a happy life. We want our lives to be fulfilling. Thus whilst we had seen MM LKY in his younger days fighting for his cause, we had also seen photos of him and his family - rich, contented, happy. Is it not therefore an ideal condition of a politician to be alive for his ideals and at the same time to be rewarded for it.
Consider and contrast Low Thia Kiang and JB Jeyaretnam. An MP income is around $200,000 per annum (? - heard it ranges from $15K to $20K per month - please correct if wrong) in income. This means that for each term of successful election, LTK gets $1M. JBJ, on the other hand, insisted on his ideals, and end up with losing his assets, losing his earning capacity as a lawyer and in the end, unfulfilled dreams.
CSJ is a family man. He has a growing daughter. He will want to provide for his daughter, to give his daughter the capacity of an overseas education, good food and luxuries. How can he do that as a bankrupt? Moreover is it right to submit his family for a cause that is born out of his ideals?
Even worse, such ideals are not shared by the majority of voters. To say that it will be vindicated is to live in the future. And as JBJ’s case shows, the future is not always what is wanted. It is far better to live as LTK does now, in the present.
To conclude this first point, his bankruptcy, his antagonism of the PAP leaders carry burdens that he alone carry, burdens that impact his family, burdens that the people of singapore could not care less about.
Is it not time to think this through?
(2) To his party
A leader always care about his people.
Those who follow him must be happy.
A leader leads his people to fulfillment.
By advocating civil disobedience and provocative speech, will this not lead to problems for those who trusted and followed him?
A picture of CSJ was shown after the judge’s ruling. In the picture, CSJ looked distraught and very tense. Who will not be, in his shoes?
The question here is ‘is it neccessary to do things this way?’
Let us consider if there is another way.
(a) Take a position that is the same as that of the PAP, making SDP indistinguishable from the PAP. The only difference is that the SDP is a true blue opposition and under the law, is able to make a difference in the lives of singaporeans by making the PAP accountable for detailed explanations on their policies
(b) SDP work within the legal framework and thus, with CSJ’s charisma attract the moderate voters with his intellectual capabilities as a previous NUS lecturer, a doctorate holder
(c) In the meantime, hold visibility in the public’s mind by going to speaker’s corner and talk about where to find the best food in singapore. This week talk about the best rojak store. Next week the best mee siam. The week thereafter the best roti prata. In this way, it will be very safe for CSJ and SDP
(d) Explain to the public that you have to be very cautious with your words. However if they were to tell you their concerns, you will listen intently and do your best to do something for them.
(e) hold a public donation drive to ask the public to donate to pay off the legal suits. Tell the public that you will no longer do this this way, so contentiously. Now you will work on a consultative manner with the public, understand their needs and represent their needs to the government. It may not bear fruit now but it is certainly better than no opposition at all. It is the voters’ choice if they want viable opposition. Either way, the voters will get the future of their choice. Or non-choice.
(3) To the voters
Voters want a good life.
There is a cost to voting in an opposition candidate.
The question is why should a particular voter wants his constituency to pay the cost so that voters from other constituencies will benefit?
You need to make it easy for the voters to make such a choice.
And you can only do so if the voters feel you can be trusted.
Without the voters, you cannot even gain entry into Parliament and will always be marginalized.
So, which road will Chee Soon Juan travel?
Voters need viable choices.
It is hope that he will travel the high road.
To his benefit and the voters’ benefit.
Wonder when will it end?
The question now is where will Chee Soon Juan go from here?
That question is best answered by himself. Nonetheless these are some considerations he might like to see if there are any relevance:
As a human being, as a politician, as a family man, Chee Soon Juan has responsibilities:
(1) To his ownself, his wife, his children
All of us crave a happy life. We want our lives to be fulfilling. Thus whilst we had seen MM LKY in his younger days fighting for his cause, we had also seen photos of him and his family - rich, contented, happy. Is it not therefore an ideal condition of a politician to be alive for his ideals and at the same time to be rewarded for it.
Consider and contrast Low Thia Kiang and JB Jeyaretnam. An MP income is around $200,000 per annum (? - heard it ranges from $15K to $20K per month - please correct if wrong) in income. This means that for each term of successful election, LTK gets $1M. JBJ, on the other hand, insisted on his ideals, and end up with losing his assets, losing his earning capacity as a lawyer and in the end, unfulfilled dreams.
CSJ is a family man. He has a growing daughter. He will want to provide for his daughter, to give his daughter the capacity of an overseas education, good food and luxuries. How can he do that as a bankrupt? Moreover is it right to submit his family for a cause that is born out of his ideals?
Even worse, such ideals are not shared by the majority of voters. To say that it will be vindicated is to live in the future. And as JBJ’s case shows, the future is not always what is wanted. It is far better to live as LTK does now, in the present.
To conclude this first point, his bankruptcy, his antagonism of the PAP leaders carry burdens that he alone carry, burdens that impact his family, burdens that the people of singapore could not care less about.
Is it not time to think this through?
(2) To his party
A leader always care about his people.
Those who follow him must be happy.
A leader leads his people to fulfillment.
By advocating civil disobedience and provocative speech, will this not lead to problems for those who trusted and followed him?
A picture of CSJ was shown after the judge’s ruling. In the picture, CSJ looked distraught and very tense. Who will not be, in his shoes?
The question here is ‘is it neccessary to do things this way?’
Let us consider if there is another way.
(a) Take a position that is the same as that of the PAP, making SDP indistinguishable from the PAP. The only difference is that the SDP is a true blue opposition and under the law, is able to make a difference in the lives of singaporeans by making the PAP accountable for detailed explanations on their policies
(b) SDP work within the legal framework and thus, with CSJ’s charisma attract the moderate voters with his intellectual capabilities as a previous NUS lecturer, a doctorate holder
(c) In the meantime, hold visibility in the public’s mind by going to speaker’s corner and talk about where to find the best food in singapore. This week talk about the best rojak store. Next week the best mee siam. The week thereafter the best roti prata. In this way, it will be very safe for CSJ and SDP
(d) Explain to the public that you have to be very cautious with your words. However if they were to tell you their concerns, you will listen intently and do your best to do something for them.
(e) hold a public donation drive to ask the public to donate to pay off the legal suits. Tell the public that you will no longer do this this way, so contentiously. Now you will work on a consultative manner with the public, understand their needs and represent their needs to the government. It may not bear fruit now but it is certainly better than no opposition at all. It is the voters’ choice if they want viable opposition. Either way, the voters will get the future of their choice. Or non-choice.
(3) To the voters
Voters want a good life.
There is a cost to voting in an opposition candidate.
The question is why should a particular voter wants his constituency to pay the cost so that voters from other constituencies will benefit?
You need to make it easy for the voters to make such a choice.
And you can only do so if the voters feel you can be trusted.
Without the voters, you cannot even gain entry into Parliament and will always be marginalized.
So, which road will Chee Soon Juan travel?
Voters need viable choices.
It is hope that he will travel the high road.
To his benefit and the voters’ benefit.