• 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.

Kenneth Jeyaretnam joins in the fray over TOC's article

SNAblog

Alfrescian
Loyal
http://theonlinecitizen.com/2009/12/exchange-of-letters-between-kenneth-jeyaretnam-and-toc/

Kenneth Jeyaretnam's letter to TOC

An open letter to The Online Citizen

I would like to add my point of view to the furore that has been created by Terence Lee’s remarks in the opening paragraphs of his otherwise excellent article on the Youth Wing of the Workers Party.

I would thank Seelan Palay for his loyalty to the opposition cause and feel that this issue is grave enough for me to also come to the defence not only of my late father but of the concept of opposition and even of Democracy.

Like Seelan I am gravely concerned that a write up of the Workers Party Youth Wing was used as an opportunity to attack JBJ and I believe, by association, the RP as the Young reformers write up showed them sitting in front of a portrait of JBJ. TOC has promised to introduce us to each party’s youth wing in turn and as each party will be given a fair bite of the apple it really is unseemly to use the space to attack other parties and individuals.

In addition JBJ is no longer with us, is unable to defend himself and the dead are unable to sue for libel, so this ’out of the blue’ and completely graceless attack on the man who was not only the founder of The RP but also the WP’s own former SG and their current SG’s mentor was particularly cowardly.

I must admit to being confused throughout the article as to whether this definition of The WP as “what they are not”, is a device of the TOC writer Terence Lee or is a result of impressions he formed during the interview. As the interview was conducted by email I feel it not unwise to assume that the paragraph, “Don’t expect rabble-rousing politics from the Worker’s Party of today. Unlike the late JB Jeyaretnam, who was nicknamed ‘The Tiger’ for his unrestrained election rally speeches and rambunctious attacks on the PAP….” comes from Terrence himself.

The whole article begs the question of why the youth wing of the Worker’s Party has to be defined in terms of not being like JBJ. Really the Worker’s Party of yesteryear is ancient history and I would disagree that it was ever rabble-rousing in any objective sense. I wouldn’t describe the decent, honest, hard-working citizens of Anson as a rabble. Does anyone suffer from the delusion that TOC readers might expect The WP to engage in rabble-rousing politics unless told by Terence that they don’t intend to? I hardly think that rabble-rousing is a criticism that any sane person is likely to hurl at the WP so why bring up such an inept and ridiculous comparison. He may as well have written about the RP, “Unlike the former Nazi Party of Germany the RP of today won’t be engaging in genocide.”

When Terence uses the word ‘rambunctious’ he may simply have been looking for a colourful or impressive long word or he could have deliberately chosen the word most in line with PAP policy and most likely to discredit JBJ. Rambunctious is defined in the dictionary as ‘unruly’, ‘rowdy’ or ‘out of control’. Terence is simply continuing a 30 + year tradition of portraying JBJ as a mindless vandal intent on destroying Singapore. This tradition has seen its latest embodiment in our Prime Minister’s disingenuous explanation of the need for a cooling off period as being to prevent the risk of public disorder. In one paragraph Terence has reduced JBJ to being a mere hooligan and those patriots truly interested in improving their country to being an out of control crowd.

I said earlier that this is a cowardly attack but it is neither unusual nor unexpected. At the time of JBJ’s death it became apparent that there would be a concerted effort by those in power in Singapore to continue with this 30 year long character assassination and that, even more insidiously, steps would be taken to downplay JBJ’s role in Singapore’s history, if not to erase it altogether. This started with the unpleasant obituary in the Straits Times where, amongst other smears, JBJ was described as engaging in confrontational Westminster style democracy. Shortly afterwards I was involved in an attempt to start a foundation to procure a scholarship fund in JBJ’s name. However I was told that it would be a non starter as JBJ had a criminal record. Hmmm- tell that to all the recipients of the Mandela awards and foundations. In any case let’s not forget that he was completely and absolutely exonerated by The Privy council in 1988.

I found ‘confrontational Westminster style’ to be a strange description of Parliament in London which is hardly a place where punches are thrown, unlike in some Asian democracies. One of the salient features of British Parliamentarians is that whilst they may robustly challenge their colleagues in the house, later in the evening members of opposing parties can be found swapping stories in the Commons bar. I am not holding up Britain here as a shining example of government. I am simply pointing out a PAP policy of attempting to discredit Democracy as a system of government by linking it on the one hand with riotous behaviour and on the other as a purely Western concept. And for the record do I need to say that Democracy is NOT a purely Western phenomenon totally unsuited to Asian styles of thinking. Most Asian countries are currently prospering under Democracy.

There are many criticisms that can be thrown at JBJ but unruly is not one of them. So he was a fiery orator and he was able to turn a mere crowd into a cheering rally but he was never an advocate of civil disobedience. In fact to the contrary, the only rebellion he believed in was a democratic one at the ballot box. He was honest, courageous and completely selfless. JBJ’s legacy to Singapore is of the utmost importance and we all of us, not least the Workers Party, owe him a great debt of gratitude. I urge you all to be vigilant to the continued attempts to rewrite history and to attempts to persuade you that wanting to have a say in how your country is run is somehow un-Asian, dishonourable or even downright criminal.

If we are going to patronise the New Media then I would ask the New Media to return the favour by bringing us new and alternative styles of writing and not by trotting out the hackneyed Big Brother speak that we can read in the government-controlled MSM.

I would only add that some of the remarks posted in the comments following these two articles degenerated into party bashing and as I had lunch with MP Mr. Low Thia Kiang only yesterday I can assure you that relations between the RP and the WP are friendly.

I will be celebrating JBJ’s legacy on his birthday January 5th, 2010 and welcome you all, of whatever persuasion, to join me and ensure that his legacy is not forgotten.

Kenneth Jeyaretnam
 

SNAblog

Alfrescian
Loyal
TOC Terence Lee’s reply:

JBJ: Always a rambunctious rabble-rouser

I refer to the letters from Seelan Palay and Kenneth Jeyaretnam in response to my article entitled “Milder but more credible.”

In both letters, the insinuation is made that my article has somehow disparaged the reputation of JB Jeyaretnam, with his son going so far as to call my article “graceless”, “cowardly” and “out-of-the-blue” — an assortment of colourful terms which I find regretful and unfortunate.

I wonder if they know what they are talking about.

First of all, it is shocking that Mr Jeyaretnam, who carries his father’s legacy as the Secretary-General of the Reform Party, claimed in his letter that his father had never advocated civil disobedience. He said:

“So he was a fiery orator and he was able to turn a mere crowd into a cheering rally but he was never an advocate of civil disobedience.”

He is utterly wrong about his father. Below is a partial transcript of JB Jeyaretnam’s interview with the Far Eastern Economic Review in 2008, where he talks about his style of politics (emphasis mine):

FEER: So they’re more like the docile opposition parliament members who are often praised by the PAP?

JBJ: That’s right, yes, you’ve said it. That’s why Lee has said that they would accept Low Thia Khiang and Chiam See Tong. And I think he said once or twice that it’s because they’re not against the system, whereas Jeyaretnam is, and Jeyaretnam has to be destroyed. So after I came out of bankruptcy I decided to form a new party. Our statement is that it is because of the present system that we got this great inequality between the rich and the poor. Our citizens are denied of their fundamental rights?

FEER: What is your opinion of the campaign of civil disobedience that Chee Soon Juan has been waging against the govt?

JBJ: Certainly civil disobedience has a place, and as I told the foreign correspondents at the lunch on the 31st of July, I suppose there might have to come a time that if the government is not prepared to listen to our peaceful protests, there must come a time where we have to resort to civil disobedience.

I myself am not against it, but I didn’t think the time has yet come for that. Before you can effectively launch a disobedience campaign, you’ve got to educate the people; you’ve got to get them ready to participate in it. That is just not possible today in Singapore, because of the fear that girds Singaporeans. They say yes alright if we come and participate in this civil disobedience, what’s going to happen to us? Aren’t we going to be arrested and carted off into courts, and then put into prison?

It becomes quite clear from the interview excerpt that JB Jeyaretnam himself was a fierce critic of the Worker’s Party’s current style of politics, and it is disturbing that his son has no knowledge of his support for conditional civil disobedience.

Besides the glaring error made by him, both critics took issue with the contrast I made between the Worker’s Party of the past and the present, found in the introductory paragraphs of the article:

“Don’t expect rabble-rousing politics from the Worker’s Party of today. Unlike the late JB Jeyaretnam, who was nicknamed ‘The Tiger’ for his unrestrained election rally speeches and rambunctious attacks on the PAP government, the party is set on treading the careful path. At least, the Worker’s Party seems adamant about avoiding the bevy of defamation suits suffered by its former Secretary-General.”

Mr Jeyaretnam, playing the English teacher, finds dissatisfactory my use of the words “rabble-rousing” and “rambunctious” as they seem to portray his father as a trouble-maker. However, a check with the Cambridge’s Advance Learner’s Dictionary reveals that these words do not necessarily connote a negative meaning.

A rabble-rouser, for instance, can be defined as “a person who makes speeches that make people excited or angry, especially in a way that causes them to act as the person wants them to.” This aptly describes the political career of JB Jeyaretnam.

I also do not think that my use of the word “rambunctious” discredits in any way his style of politics. While the word can mean “unruly” and “out of control” as rightly pointed out by Mr Jeyaretnam, it can also mean “full of energy and difficult to control”, which is an entirely different shade of meaning altogether.

I’m not sure which dictionary Mr Jeyaretnam or Mr Seelan is using, but it sure differs from mine.

That aside, it is more helpful to focus on the spirit of the article’s introduction rather than be bogged down by its details. In that respect, it is quite clear that I strove to compare the Worker’s Party which was led by JB Jeyaretnam with that helmed by Low Thia Khiang. There was never any intention to propagate the ruling party’s point of view, unlike what Mr Jeyaretnam or Mr Palay would like to allege.

Lastly, I would like to address Mr Seelan’s grouse with my statement about how the Worker’s Party is conscious about avoiding the defamation suits faced by JB Jeyaretnam. What I intended the statement to mean was that the Party would most certainly want to avoid the defamation suits faced by JB Jeyaretnam simply because it has a cautious approach to politics, nothing more.

No insinuation has been made anywhere in the article, whether explicitly or implicitly, about who is to blame for the lawsuits he faced. I suspect that the conciseness of my introductory paragraphs might have caused Mr Seelan to tack on additional meanings onto the article that was never there in the first place.

From the looks of it, it seems that both Mr Jeyaretnam and Mr Seelan are somewhat averse to the honest portrayal of JB Jeyaretnam as a fiery politician who ruffled quite a lot of feathers in Parliament. While descriptions like “rabble-rousing” and “rambunctious” — which suggest disorder and rebellion — are shunned by these two individuals, words like “fiery” and “courageous” seem safer and thus more acceptable.

Which really makes me wonder: Who is really the one trying to repaint the portrait of JB Jeyaretnem?
 

SNAblog

Alfrescian
Loyal
TOC’s Andrew Loh’s reply:

It is regrettable that Mr Jeyaretnam would insinuate in his letter that The Online Citizen is somehow involved in or is a part of any alleged “concerted effort by those in power in Singapore to continue with this 30 year long character assassination” of Mr JB Jeyaretnam.

Mr Jeyaretnam says: “If we are going to patronise the New Media then I would ask the New Media to return the favour by bringing us new and alternative styles of writing and not by trotting out the hackneyed Big Brother speak that we can read in the government-controlled MSM.”

The above two paragraphs in his letter, taken together, seem to insinuate that TOC is part of a “concerted effort by those in power” to “continue with this 30 year long character assassination” of the late Mr JB Jeyaretnam (JBJ) by “trotting out the hackneyed Big Brother speak.”

Nothing could be further from the truth.

TOC has been supportive of Mr JBJ’s efforts and works and has the utmost respect for these and Mr JBJ himself. A search on the TOC website reveals the many reports and articles which we have published which were supportive of these.

With regards to Mr Jeyaretnam’s comment that our “write up of the Workers Party Youth Wing was used as an opportunity to attack JBJ and I believe, by association, the RP…”, Mr Jeyaretnam is completely off the mark here.

Nowhere in Terence’s report did he “attack” the RP, whether directly or by association, as alleged by Mr Jeyaretnam who, curiously, used as basis for his allegation, TOC’s earlier interview with the “Young reformers [which] showed them sitting in front of a portrait of JBJ.”

I find this a rather flimsy and tenuous reason for making such a serious allegation against TOC and it is indeed regrettable, especially when it is coming from the Secretary General of the Reform Party.

The Online Citizen stands by Terence’s report and rejects completely the allegations made by Mr Jeyaretnam.
 

scroobal

Alfrescian
Loyal
KJ has chosen to use one of the many definitions or meanings associated with the word "Rambunctious".

Interestingly, all players seem more confrontational with each other in the opposition space then with the PAP and that includes TOC.

Compared to Low and the present WP, JBJ was certainly a "rabble-rouser and rambunctious" but in a positive way and people appreciated him for his style. It was also a style that bothered old man tremendously.

If KJ wants to know how his father was like to people, he should stroll down to Cold Storage at Centrepoint and ask the supervisors and cashier of those days when he did his shopping there. The word "cantankerous" was quite apt.
 

rainnix

Alfrescian
Loyal
FEER: What is your opinion of the campaign of civil disobedience that Chee Soon Juan has been waging against the govt?

JBJ: Certainly civil disobedience has a place, and as I told the foreign correspondents at the lunch on the 31st of July, I suppose there might have to come a time that if the government is not prepared to listen to our peaceful protests, there must come a time where we have to resort to civil disobedience.

I myself am not against it, but I didn’t think the time has yet come for that. Before you can effectively launch a disobedience campaign, you’ve got to educate the people; you’ve got to get them ready to participate in it. That is just not possible today in Singapore, because of the fear that girds Singaporeans. They say yes alright if we come and participate in this civil disobedience, what’s going to happen to us? Aren’t we going to be arrested and carted off into courts, and then put into prison?

Not against something civil disobedience doesn't mean an advocate for it, am I failing my English here?

When writers in TOC are writing sensitive issues, words used shouldn't have double meanings.

I did a check on dictionary.com on the word
Rambunctious
–adjective
1. difficult to control or handle; wildly boisterous: a rambunctious child.
2. turbulently active and noisy: a social gathering that became rambunctious and out of hand.

Did the writer in TOC bother to specify that the word used portray the second meaning instead of the first?
 

lockeliberal

Alfrescian
Loyal
Dear Scroobal

Firstly whilst JBJ might have contemplated civil disobedience at some extreme stage, his actions at all points spoke of his heartfelt desire for constitutional change. Terence in this regards was ninety cents short of a dollar.

TOC should learn that there is a difference between straight reporting and an OP/ED and whilst it may be more work, not to mix two as they have done with the article in question.

Secondly, Kenneth is entitled having taken over his father's mantle to define his father in whatever way he sees fit for his political ambitions. In that he is in conflict with those of a liberal democratic persuasion who desire a more confrontational JBJ in your eyes style of politics. For them JBJ was about fire and brimstone, and whilst KJ will need to build on that legacy he is not as far as I can see building a cadre of young Go to Jail and be politically martyred types( i,e SDP types ) . More vocal than the WP at present certainly, more forceful but will never be quite the same 100% as his father in terms of aggression and total opposition to the system. he will also like the WP avoid lawsuits like the plague though he will unlike the WP dance closer to that thin line




Locke
 

Lee Hsien Tau

Alfrescian
Loyal
If KJ is sincere about defending his father's legacy, would he be dancing so close with the likes of LTK and CST?
 

scroobal

Alfrescian
Loyal
Though I agree with some of your points in regard to TOC, I think KJ "exploded". TOC is next best or the only thing of a media that can be considered to give fair airplay to all. Not a smart move by KJ.

So whose is KJ and the reform party going to rely on for publicity - facebook?

His brother did a damn good job of questioning the intergrity of the SPH prostitute while being savvy and extremely polite over the recent interview.





Dear Scroobal

Firstly whilst JBJ might have contemplated civil disobedience at some extreme stage, his actions at all points spoke of his heartfelt desire for constitutional change. Terence in this regards was ninety cents short of a dollar.

TOC should learn that there is a difference between straight reporting and an OP/ED and whilst it may be more work, not to mix two as they have done with the article in question.

Secondly, Kenneth is entitled having taken over his father's mantle to define his father in whatever way he sees fit for his political ambitions. In that he is in conflict with those of a liberal democratic persuasion who desire a more confrontational JBJ in your eyes style of politics. For them JBJ was about fire and brimstone, and whilst KJ will need to build on that legacy he is not as far as I can see building a cadre of young Go to Jail and be politically martyred types( i,e SDP types ) . More vocal than the WP at present certainly, more forceful but will never be quite the same 100% as his father in terms of aggression and total opposition to the system. he will also like the WP avoid lawsuits like the plague though he will unlike the WP dance closer to that thin line




Locke
 

Perspective

Alfrescian
Loyal
Though I agree with some of your points in regard to TOC, I think KJ "exploded". TOC is next best or the only thing of a media that can be considered to give fair airplay to all. Not a smart move by KJ.

So whose is KJ and the reform party going to rely on for publicity - facebook?

His brother did a damn good job of questioning the intergrity of the SPH prostitute while being savvy and extremely polite over the recent interview.

People who are acquainted with both brothers get the impression that the younger is generally more savvy and astute.
 

Goh Meng Seng

Alfrescian (InfP) [Comp]
Generous Asset
My comment in TOC's article:

I read with interests the exchange between KJ and TOC. Particularly about the supposed position taken by JBJ with regards to “Civil Disobedience”.

Many people thought that in politics, or even Singapore’s context, “Civil Disobedience” is definitely “restricted” to “confrontational” politicians and definitely not in a “mild but credible party” like WP.

First of all, let me qualify this, “Civil Disobedience” is never a “No No option” strikes out from any political (opposition) parties, although some did not practice it. Just like JBJ, he did not RULE OUT the use of “Civil Disobedience” as a political means but it doesn’t mean that he would go to that extend to practice it. It will always be the LAST RESORT, the LAST CARD that we would throw in if there is a serious abuse of the powers.

Even WP, in the post-JBJ era under LTK, has not ruled out “Civil Disobedience” either. Maybe the WP Youth Wing members are new to the party but the WP CEC has seriously considered the option of “Civil Disobedience” in certain instances which was actually raised by the SG himself as an option to protest against the authority for certain unfair treatment (I shall not divulge the details here). But the CEC has finally decided against the “Civil Disobedience” option but to wait out. This is the democratic process happening in the party itself AFTER GE 2006.

The option of “Civil Disobedience” must be carried out with the notion of the party taking the high political moral grounds. If not, it may just backfired and portray the party as “trouble makers” or “extremists”.

Personally, I will keep my option open to Civil Disobedience instead of writing it out totally. There is nothing to feel “shameful” of to keep this option in time of need. It is just a matter of judgment on whether it will do more good than harm to the party eventually.

Goh Meng Seng
 

lockeliberal

Alfrescian
Loyal
Dear GMS

I can't help but laugh at the Irony the ST reporting only one half of PJ's answer to the ST on KJ's taking over of the reform party and the TOC reporting only one half of JBJ answer on civil disobedience.

The position is quite clear, nuanced and qualified, which the TOC only chose to report half of.



Locke
 

Goh Meng Seng

Alfrescian (InfP) [Comp]
Generous Asset
Well, you and I would agree that such practice is unprofessional in terms of journalism but I would excuse TOC because they are after all just citizen-reporters whom may not have formal training in journalism. As for ST, that is definitely a total different type of monsters. They deliberately miss out the most critical and crucial part to project certain perception that is in line with their own agenda. This is not the first time, neither it will be the last as long as PAP has total monopoly power in Singapore.

Goh Meng Seng



Dear GMS

I can't help but laugh at the Irony the ST reporting only one half of PJ's answer to the ST on KJ's taking over of the reform party and the TOC reporting only one half of JBJ answer on civil disobedience.

The position is quite clear, nuanced and qualified, which the TOC only chose to report half of.



Locke
 

Perspective

Alfrescian
Loyal
Perhaps we can attribute it to the legal training. Notice how successful lawyers are in politics?

Not necessarily. It seems to me that the astute knows how to stay away from the prospectless opposition politics in Singapore.

You know, I get the uncomfortable shudders when I feel that the opposition environment that attracts the brave but witless to become of majority of what we have in the current opposition today, seems to have been deliberately tailored by the PAP through the accurate amount of pressures in all areas. Doesn't seem a good thing.
 

rainnix

Alfrescian
Loyal
GMS,
Can I say that Barisan Socialist practiced civil disobedience since they boycotted the 1967(?) election?

Terence's use of the example of "civil disobedience" to substantiate that JBJ is "rambunctious" is not justifiable in my opinion.
 
Last edited:

scroobal

Alfrescian
Loyal
Thanks for that. Good to hear that the option is there. We all tend to worry when the perception starts to form that only the PAP guided pathway is an acceptable. And everyone knows that their pathway is for the opposition while they themselves will resort to extrajudicial means including immersing themselves more than ankle deep in conflict of interest realtionship.

My comment in TOC's article:

The option of “Civil Disobedience” must be carried out with the notion of the party taking the high political moral grounds. If not, it may just backfired and portray the party as “trouble makers” or “extremists”.

Personally, I will keep my option open to Civil Disobedience instead of writing it out totally. There is nothing to feel “shameful” of to keep this option in time of need. It is just a matter of judgment on whether it will do more good than harm to the party eventually.

Goh Meng Seng
 

Goh Meng Seng

Alfrescian (InfP) [Comp]
Generous Asset
Boycotting the 1967 elections is not civil disobedience because they were not going against any laws.

So far, I didn't see how JBJ has practiced any "civil disobedience" although he did not rule it out totally. He may even advocate it at certain point of time for certain situation but he definitely didn't practice it on his own.

Thus, Terrence's justification cannot stand at all. Even if civil disobedience is used, it does not automatically mean that the politician is a rogue, trouble maker or "rambunctious". It depends very much on the context of the actions. For eg, does Mandela of South Africa a rogue or considered to be "rambunctious" in defying the apartheid laws?

Goh Meng Seng


GMS,
Can I say that Barisan Socialist practiced civil disobedience since they boycotted the 1967(?) election?

Terence's use of the example of "civil disobedience" to substantiate that JBJ is "rambunctious" is not justifiable in my opinion.
 

Perspective

Alfrescian
Loyal
Thanks for that. Good to hear that the option is there. We all tend to worry when the perception starts to form that only the PAP guided pathway is an acceptable. And everyone knows that their pathway is for the opposition while they themselves will resort to extrajudicial means including immersing themselves more than ankle deep in conflict of interest realtionship.

Seems to have turned into SDP's understanding that avoidance has to be fear. We avoid the drain when see one and watch out for cars when we cross the road. It's quite hard-pressed to tell your friends that you have a phobia of drains or cars without looking ridiculous.
 

rainnix

Alfrescian
Loyal
Boycotting the 1967 elections is not civil disobedience because they were not going against any laws.

So far, I didn't see how JBJ has practiced any "civil disobedience" although he did not rule it out totally. He may even advocate it at certain point of time for certain situation but he definitely didn't practice it on his own.

Thus, Terrence's justification cannot stand at all. Even if civil disobedience is used, it does not automatically mean that the politician is a rogue, trouble maker or "rambunctious". It depends very much on the context of the actions. For eg, does Mandela of South Africa a rogue or considered to be "rambunctious" in defying the apartheid laws?

Goh Meng Seng

Yes agreed.
 
Top