Opposition politician JB Jeyaretnam argues that the limited freedom of expression has stifled the country’s search for talent.
Jamie Lee
Speaking up came at a great cost for political figure Joshua Benjamin Jeyaretnam.
The 82-year-old, who was only discharged from bankruptcy last year, ended more than five years of withdrawal from politics after the courts found him guilty in a string of defamation suits.
But Jeyaretnam has not been deterred. In a recent one-hour interview, he argued that there must be more space for opinions to emerge, adding that while the Internet has become a place for lively debates, such discussions should not be left online.
“People are feeling that they’ve got to express, but it’s not enough to leave it on the Internet,” said Jeyaretnam, who has applied to set up a new opposition outfit, the Reform Party, this year.
He has pledged to address what he deemed as systemic flaws in Singapore’s governance by working to “educate, empower and energise” the people and focusing on their civil rights.
“They’ve got to come out openly, take part in peaceful processions, expressing their dissatisfaction and what they want,” said Jeyaretnam, who was elected into Parliament in the 1981 Anson by-elections.
He added that through discussions, Singapore will be able to find the next batch of leaders – a deep concern for the current government.
A blanket over discussion and debate
“The government has thrown a blanket over discussion and debate. You’ve got to open it up and have many meetings where people will give talks and others will respond,” said Jeyaretnam, who revealed that he has recruited two university graduates into his new party.
“Somebody will try to sell his ideas and then the more he is accepted, he becomes the leader. That’s how you groom talent. A leader is someone whom people accept and is ready to follow.”
“What else do you do? Put them back in school? That’s school for them, having debates on every topic under the sun,” he said.
“Do we still need capital punishment in Singapore? Let’s get talking on that. Do we need the caning in Singapore? Let’s get talking on that. Let’s get talking on whether the GST (Goods and Services tax) is really necessary in Singapore. I think it is but there should be exemption for basic necessities. Let’s get talking about the CPF (Central Provident Fund), a very sore point among our citizens,” he urged.
It is an uphill task, as he has to work to quell the worries among people for expressing their opinions.
“There is a definite fear. I can see it, sense it. So all for a quiet life, peaceful life, they say, ‘keep quiet, we can’t do anything’,” said Jeyaretnam, who plans to reach out to the working class with his new party.
He intends to first apply for a permit to demonstrate peacefully, in a bid to work with the rules and “play by their game”.
“If they refuse it then challenge it in court and try to impress upon the court that they have to grant that permit,” he said.
But if that fails, Jeyaretnam said he has considered civil disobedience.
“If the time comes for civil disobedience, then I think we should go ahead and do it,” he said.
“What you’ve got to get into the people’s heads is that the law that prohibits them is (an) unjust law. So when you’re going on civil disobedience, you are trying to uphold the law as it should be.”
JBJ of 1981
But using human rights as a political agenda could alienate Singaporean voters, noted Assistant Professor Eugene Tan from the Singapore Management University’s School of Law.
“I’m not sure that the Singapore electorate is ready for a deep discourse on civil rights,” said Tan, noting that such issues would only attract the minority. “Like it or not, civil disobedience and human rights are not going to be issues that will be able to pull at the heartstrings.”
Instead, Jeyaretnam should identify a constituency and work the ground faithfully by tackling bread and butter issues in a time of rising food prices and widening income gap, he said.
These would help to garner support for the next general elections that is expected to be in 2011 and help him enter Parliament, where he can champion other issues there, said Professor Tan.
“In the end, it’s about showing that you have concern for the common man. He should go back to the JBJ of 1981 Anson when he actually focused on very municipal issues,” which were then about addressing the residents’ anger over being evicted from their flats, noted Tan.
“It’s not enough to talk at a national level because you are not going to be elected by the whole population. He needs to start small.”
And by working with a targeted constituency, Jeyaretnam can build credibility among Singaporeans, added Tan.
At the same time, the parallels with the confrontational tone and political tactics of Dr Chee Soon Juan could hurt Jeyaretnam’s return to politics, he said.
Besides sharing similar legal wranglings and subsequent bankruptcy, both Chee and Jeyaretnam had earlier collaborated on the Open Singapore Centre, a political interest group.
“Dr Chee has essentially turned his back on a constructive form of political engagement. He’s a man of all seasons so whatever’s in mood, whatever the flavour of the day, he’ll jump in… I’m not sure if in the end his interest is really about the people, or is it more transient,” said Tan.
In the ordinary people
Jeyaretnam has lost much in his 37 years of challenging the political status quo, including disbarment after his defamation suit that robbed him of his livelihood. He has since been reinstated and has resumed practice, handling simple cases such as drafting wills that he schedules on a small whiteboard in his office on Smith Street.
But he brushed aside any sympathy or speculation that his return is motivated by a personal vendetta.
“I don’t think I’m suffering but people think I’ve suffered; it’s okay. I’m not crying over it,” he said.
“(People) think it’s personal, they think I want to get even with Lee Kuan Yew. It’s all nonsense. I don’t want to get even. I don’t bear him any animosity or ill will.”
Despite all the battles over the years, his lowest point remains losing his wife 28 years ago to breast cancer, just before his historical victory in the Anson elections.
“She shared my ideals and then, she left me… for a time I thought why should I carry on? I should just give up,” he said. “But if I wanted to give up, I should have given it up before she died. Then, I don’t know. I might have saved her life.”
His devotion to politics has not created tension among his sons, though he admitted that “sometimes, they wished that I wasn’t so aggressive and so pushy”. He has moved to an apartment owned by his elder son in Newton and visits his younger son and prominent lawyer Philip Jeyaretnam at least once a week, discussing the Mas Selamat case with him recently.
Asked if he felt lonely, Jeyaretnam said: “I feel disappointed when people don’t come and stand with me. Not that they don’t agree. They agree but they are frightened. Lawyers who don’t want to come because, ‘please, I don’t want to go into politics’, because they see what has happened to me.”
“So of course I do feel lonely. But the strength is in the ordinary people.”
—————–
By a strange alignment of stars, Jamie Lee snagged this interview with the legendary opposition figure and offered it to TOC. Jamie is an aspiring journalist.
Pictures by Alphonsus Chern
TOC thanks Jamie and Alphonsus for this contribution.
—————–
Related posts:
- Bloggers’ tribute to JB Jeyaretnam
- WP Statement On The Passing Of Mr J. B. Jeyaretnam
- Exchange of letters between Kenneth Jeyaretnam and TOC
- “We deserve prosperity and emancipation” – Kenneth Jeyaretnam
- Political changes are for “long term strength and stability”, says PM Lee
for a man who believe in his belief, he’s a man with principal
Not compentent to take part in this but trying to. Hope it will go ok
Great interview. The man of the people. I hope he’ll stay healthy for many years to come.
Thanks Jamie!
I hope his health permits him to run for GE in 2011. He is an outspoken leader, he makes the political scene more interesting, long live JBJ.
JBJ reminds me of Sir William Wallus from the movie Brave Heart. Our own homegrown hero! 10,000 years to you :)
“Dr Chee has essentially turned his back on a constructive form of political engagement. He’s a man of all seasons so whatever’s in mood, whatever the flavour of the day, he’ll jump in… I’m not sure if in the end his interest is really about the people, or is it more transient,” said Tan.
Prof Tan’s quote on Chee has sort of supported some of my comments on the blogpost “Courtroom as a Theatre”.
there are quite a few comments supporting his actions in court against the Lees, but this piece poignantly puts across JBJ’s passion for doing good for Singapore, and the difference between someone who wants to do something for Singapore, versus someone who has an axe to grind.
Its interesting to hear him saying that he has not suffered in his fight to bring an alternative voice, a check and balance, for Singapore.
Because thats all it is to it – we want check and balance. we dont want drastic change. we want checks and balances either through some good, smart opposition folks, or through a more open media, through public petitions and peaceful public protests.
I think there is a difference in the political desires of the Singapore electorate now as compared to 1981. I’m not so sure that confrontational politics or civil disobedience is the way to go. Often civil disobedience is an action that belies utter despair. To use such methods without exhausting all possibilities creates an impression amongst the electorate of politicking rather than a true desire to help the people.
An example was Chee’s hunger strike in 1993. He could have garnered a lot of sympathy from his sacking by merely continuing a logical process of rationale political activity in true support of Singaporeans. Instead he raised the political stakes by conducting a hunger strike that eventually split the SDP and lost a lot of public goodwill towards the party.
Another example is the use of the PEMAs. Whilst most in the public have the ability to identify that this does restrict opposition political activity, any sympathy is lost when certain opposition persons choose to break the law (the ultimate sanction) instead of looking at alternatives esp when alternatives are available and when there are still valid reasons in support of the PEMAs. Often, the public’s impression is that the opposition would prefer civil disobedience as the first option. Worse, such actions only lead to a increasingly negative view of Singapore as a whole in other countries when indeed people don’t think such a negative view is warranted or in the people’s interest. Everytime I read one incident in a foreign human rights report that criticises Singapore that gives the impression that Singapore indiscriminately arrest a politician for breaking the law, it just incenses me and makes me want to support the govt even more. If Singaporeans (esp those who want to represent Singaporeans) don’t support Singaporeans, who else will? If you want our support, give us yours in the first place.
I think if JBJ tones down his confrontational rhetoric, he may one day re-invoke the people’s memories of his hey days. The greatest form of flattery is to copy.
My desire of an opposition is to raise alternatives. Alternative ways of doing things that can be better or improve the lives of Singaporeans. If the govt does not adopt such measures, people will only question why. If there are sufficient whys, then people may one day think that perhaps the other person might do a better job. If the govt does adopt such measures and does not come up with their own, people may one day think perhaps the other person might do a better job. The PAP will not sit still either but the only outcome is the increasing benefit to Singaporeans. I like to think most Singaporeans share my view.
Is exempting GST from basic necessities, the only measure that can improve Singaporean lives? I can think of dozens and I lament the opposition who have so many members and yet can’t even present enough alternatives (except in much too rare cases, eg WP election manifesto). Yet the irony is that when a person like me laments the lack of alternatives, it is only met by sarcastic or rabid anti govt responses.
The lack of ideas is disappointing. If politicians don’t even bother to put their minds towards things that can improve Singaporean lives (and forget about PEMA etc), can Singaporeans expect them to do the same in office?
The Singaporean people has in the past shown its open mindedness in giving certain opposition persons the chance in parliament. Sadly, it has only resulted in disappointment. People like Ling, Cheo, Chees have raised the standards required a little bit. I like to think that maybe one day there be people of sufficient calibre (and I assume there are) to re-open our minds. Just don’t expect Singaporeans to be stupid.
Thanks Jamie for the interview with JBJ. I salute JBJ for his passion.
“Is exempting GST from basic necessities, the only measure that can improve Singaporean lives? I can think of dozens and I lament the opposition who have so many members and yet can’t even present enough alternatives ”
It may not improve your live but it will surely improve mine (however small the impact it may be) and a lot of other Singaporeans. It does not take rocket science to size up the obvious impact. Just because someone has created some problems, that does not mean you must be the one coming out with alternative solutions. To begin with, you are not the the one creating the problems in the first place.
“It may not improve your live but it will surely improve mine (however small the impact it may be)”
Read carefully pls. I’m not saying it won’t anybody. I’m just saying there’s a lot more than just GST. The lives of the average Singaporean don’t revolve around GST.
“Just because someone has created some problems, that does not mean you must be the one coming out with alternative solutions.”
I may not need to come out with alternative solutions but do Singaporeans expect the people in parliament and government or those wanting to enter to do so? If yes, then shouldn’t opposition politicians be expected to provide alternative solutions? If no, then if govt encounter problem, we shouldn’t expect the people in govt to resolve them. Yet, I hear complaints about GST etc.
And again, the rest of the post falls on deaf ears in the quest for the most critical but irrelevant post. Sigh….
Dear Lim
Average Singaporean? Whose definition? Yours or mine? Do you allow all Singaporeans to freely come out in the street to have a show of their hands to indicate whether they are in agreement / disagreement over some policy (ies).
Or it could only be directed to some specific & proper institutions in which the results are couched in a tone and manner as determined by the MSM to convey altogether another subtle picture.
Please do not kid us anymore in this internet age about how things are being managed either on a private level or even governmental level.
Who wants to bother parliament and government. We do not want them to create problems in the first place. If you are the one creating any problems in the first place, you jolly well be the one to solve it. Orelse, a lot of more posts will keep on falling of deaf ears.
If others can solve it for you, it is a bonus / incentive. If they can’t, it is not an obligation.
Do you want me to say “take away GST for basic neccessities & other important services like medical, etc” (already suggested in the Blogosphere) and for you to say again that it is not doable.
I repeat.
“Yet the irony is that when a person like me laments the lack of alternatives, it is only met by sarcastic or rabid anti govt responses.”
I rest my case. If you would like to think that all the problems in the world are created by the PAP govt just to spite us Singaporeans, that’s your opinion. Whatever I say will not make a difference to what you think so I won’t waste my breath.
If one does not think it is worth coming up with alternative solutions, that’s a person’s right. I do not obligate anyone to do anything, its just some words of hope. Neither do I expect anyone to agree with what I say.
What I will do is wish you and everyone a nice day :-)
The interview was going well until the paragraph of comments by Eugene Tan.
TOC is learning a trick of two from the Straits Times – neutralise an interview with a dissident by inserting comments by a academic who professes to know the opposition so well that he makes value judgements on a person’s character.
Truth is this – both JBJ and CSJ share the same views on most issues, even the need for civil disobedience. Both have worked together and have publicly expressed willingness to co-operate in the future.
Mark my words – in the next two months, TOC will be totally consumed by opinions and articles by armchair commentators who revel in their comfort zones, while at the same time take pot shots at real activists who gets their faces kicked in the mud.
“Dr Chee has essentially turned his back on a constructive form of political engagement. He’s a man of all seasons so whatever’s in mood, whatever the flavour of the day, he’ll jump in… I’m not sure if in the end his interest is really about the people, or is it more transient,” said Tan.
Interesting choice of phrase..”constructive form of political engagement”.
Now engagement is a two-way street. Question, how do you engage when one party, the PAP, refuse to engage?
Again a case of blaming the victim rather than the criminal?
It is excellent for JBJ to take the lead! I quite agree that human rights and civil disobedience will not fire the belly in the heartlands, so perhaps JBJ should find a constituency of middle to upper class families who do not depend on the govt for much if anything, e.g. Bukit Timah, Tanglin. These probably will be people who may find a chord to resonate and who are quite likely to be unafraid of the govt.
Dear Mr JBJ,
your cause is very noble, but you make a wrong and very serious assumption. You assume that Singaporeans need to be redeemed from whatever living hell they are currently residing in. From what I observe of Singaporeans, they don’t want to be redeemed, unless it is some discount vouchers at some shopping centers. How else can you explain the fact that the PAP gets voted in elections after elections by 60% of the voting electorate? Fact is, Singaporeans are beyond redemptions. They have sold their souls to the devil(s) and they are having a good time as Goethe’s Faust was having a good time raking in the fruits of youth. While they are enjoying themselves, they are not aware that their souls are being exacted, until what is left is but an empty core. In any case, what is a Singaporean? I am not so sure nowadays. It seems so much attractive to given up your Singapore citizenship and become a PR instead. Mr JBJ, foreget about the ordinary citizens of Singapore. They won’t need to be saved, they don’t want to be saved. You have sacrificed enough. Enjoy yourself while you still have time. Give up your Singapore citizenship abd be a PR, then you enjoy more freedom and anytime the government wants to heckle you, just move back to JB.
Is being a PR really better? It depends on the citizenship of the PR holder, and I can\’t say for sure if JB is a better place for everyone. I think Singapore is still quite a nice place to live in compared to many other places, but, of course, this doesn\’t stop one from making it a better place.
So what do I hope to see? Certainly not the confrontational type of opposition (ref: lim on June 3rd, 2008 12.50 pm). They just don\’t give me the confidence that they are a better alternative during elections. Ideally, I want them to help explore all options to a problem, like what lim mentioned. Practically, there may be some difficulties to achieve this. Contrary to the PAP, opposition parties don\’t have knowledge other than what\’s already in the public domain. Neither do they have sufficient administrative experience to provide any insights. As a result, generic and confrontational questions are easier to raise, stir emotions, and get publicity.
This doesn\’t mean a monolithic parliament is the best option. What will be still valuable is sensible criticism and inquiries that are aimed to improve the lives of Singaporeans, not merely for the sake of opposition. To have even the slightest hope of getting any feedback, firstly, PAP needs to open up and show that they are receptive towards criticism. Secondly, people (whether politicians or not) need play the game by conveying criticism within the bounds. Thirdly, both parties must handle disagreement in a civilized manner. Then, hopefully this will encourage the PAP to open up further or give them less excuses for suppressing open speech. Only when people can speak without fear can we see the brightest ideas surface.
Is being a PR really better? It depends on the citizenship of the PR holder, and I can’t say for sure if JB is a better place for everyone. I think Singapore is still quite a nice place to live in compared to many other places, but, of course, this doesn’t stop one from making it a better place.
So what do I hope to see? Certainly not the confrontational type of opposition (ref: lim on June 3rd, 2008 12.50 pm). They just don’t give me the confidence that they are a better alternative during elections. Ideally, I want them to help explore all options to a problem, like what lim mentioned. Practically, there may be some difficulties to achieve this. Contrary to the PAP, opposition parties don’t have knowledge other than what’s already in the public domain. Neither do they have sufficient administrative experience to provide any insights. As a result, generic and confrontational questions are easier to raise, stir emotions, and get publicity.
This doesn’t mean a monolithic parliament is the best option. What will be still valuable is sensible criticism and inquiries that are aimed to improve the lives of Singaporeans, not merely for the sake of opposition. To have even the slightest hope of getting any feedback, firstly, PAP needs to open up and show that they are receptive towards criticism. Secondly, people (whether politicians or not) need play the game by conveying criticism within the bounds. Thirdly, both parties must handle disagreement in a civilized manner. Then, hopefully this will encourage the PAP to open up further or give them less excuses for suppressing open speech. Only when people can speak without fear can we see the brightest ideas surface.
1 cent
Generally, your approach should be the ideal approach as it should be a win-win for everyone, both the ruling, opposition and Singaporeans as a whole.
But from my observation (I am a reasonably old old man), the incumbent party seems to be testing and stretching us over all these years on how far we can take (I am not so sure that this present time is the last straw / round that a lot of us are going to take it further – tak boleh tahan lah) if you know what I mean.
Remember the frog analogy mentioned by one of our dear leaders many many year ago. You turn on the heat slowly. Once the frog gets acclimatized, you turn on the heat further until the frog gets fully cooked. I have this uneasy feeling that we are the frogs and they are the ones figuring on the heat control.
It seems that now they are now adopting a more conciliatory approach as the wind is not really blowing in their favour because of certain conditions that they cannot control, some of which are from their own making.
Sad to say I am feeling this way. Well, it just happened to me.
Dear JBJ, Your indomitable spirit makes you a success and I will always take inspiration from that. Despite all the despicable methods used to put you down, we still see a man staying the course. To all of us out there, whether you are a wanna be entrepreneur, sportsman dreaming of being the best, scientist thinking of a cure for mankind etc, that trying in itself is always better than failing to try. Please take heart JBJ that there will always be 33.4% of ordinary Singaporeans supporting you. The underhand politics going on for so long has been extremely effective. The ordinary people who seek an alternative voice are rather demoralized.
Dear JBJ,
You’re a true Singaporean and a Patriot, while others have left or escape Singapore
You’re still fighting for us ordinary Singaporeans…..
History will remember you, at lest I and my off springs will not forget you
2 cent, I might have been too wishful. But then, history shows that using head-on brute force is futile. Moreover, so what if we bring the PAP down?
All I can do is to remain wishful that a tactful maneouver can work.
Lim, i hear you.
many times, i get the same responses too, where fellow readers missed the point of the discussion and use the internet to vent. I’ve had many experiences where the comments were personal, the moment i dont agree with their point-of-view.
nonetheless, i’ve also come to understand that many people of our generation never understood the term “with freedom comes responsibility.”
Think about the (R) movie classification. When the govt felt they could loosen up and allowed us to have R movices, what happened? nearly every theatre began showing soft-porn, to the point they had to pull it back.
Speakers’ Corner came up – it was meant to be a place similar to Hyde Park…people bantering and discussing. What happened? Some individuals (and members from the opposition) turned it into an unruly pulpit to shout their unhappiness at the government.
so now we have the Internet. i’m not surprised that a blogger like Rockson became one of the most popular bloggers for singpaoreans at one time – and all he did was spew obscenities at the govt and members of the govt.
Sometimes, i tend to agree with the govt’s position to control the press and control freedom of speech. Because many of us are not ready to handle the responsibility that comes with freedom.
Thanks aygee,
Personally, I think the press freedom thing is overblown as well. What control? I read most of the world’s newspapers on the web. Foreigner control their media by imposing fees yet no one says a thing. Foreigners control their media by restricting access times to certain hours yet no one says a thing.
True control over the Internet is not possible. The Govt can’t control what people say in coffeeshops, in such forums etc. They may think they can. Some dumb opposition member may even believe that they can. Some foreigners and locals even think Singaporeans can’t think for themselves cos the assumption is Singaporeans only read Singapore printed press. lol. There’s no true control.
Some people complain non-stop about the Singapore press. The SDP whines about attempts to control electronic media as well. However, opposition politicians forget that its not just what the PAP does that matter (although its a major factor) but what they themselves do as well.
There is an unsaid persistent fear that a SDP no 2 will emerge. I would even hypothesise that voting trends mirror public perception of what opposition politicians can do. A person, newspaper or party that continually exaggerates events or actions without logic loses credibility.
Don’t expect Singaporeans to be stupid.
Aygee,
“many times, i get the same responses too, where fellow readers missed the point of the discussion and use the internet to vent. I’ve had many experiences where the comments were personal, the moment i dont agree with their point-of-view.”
That’s why discussion and debate is all about. Whether comments are personal attacks depends if you do the same to him or her. This is modern times where people do not see your point only but a collective of thoughts and ideas. If you ask me to BAN internet because of anonymous comments and undesirable contents, i would say NO.
” nonetheless, i’ve also come to understand that many people of our generation never understood the term “with freedom comes responsibility.” ”
Which generation of people are born with knowing what freedom is in Singapore? Do we enjoy more freedom when we are a colony of Britain or now? I believe nobody can tell you what freedom is until we learned to get freedom first. Who do you think is holding us back from having a more free society? US? or Gahmen? Are we forever treated like a children with 5 years old IQ when comes to freedom and rights or a citizen?
“Think about the (R) movie classification. When the govt felt they could loosen up and allowed us to have R movices, what happened? nearly every theatre began showing soft-porn, to the point they had to pull it back.”
What ’s wrong with cinema showing R movies? What is wrong? There are many good oscar movies that are classified as R. Those you mentioned sex-movies cannot be shown to less than R21 audiences. Therefore i don see a problem at all as it doesnt cause families to breakup due to money or social ills. I rather gahmen ban Singapore Pool from operating 4d/TOTO/Singapore Sweep/ Soccer Betting/F1 betting/Horse Betting in the heartlands. These are great social ills…gambling breaks up family. Should we also give a classification to gambling? If we cant watch a R movie responsibly can we gamble responsibly too?
“Speakers’ Corner came up – it was meant to be a place similar to Hyde Park…people bantering and discussing. What happened? Some individuals (and members from the opposition) turned it into an unruly pulpit to shout their unhappiness at the government.”
Where do you think is the best place for citizens or opposition to speak out? Why is Speakers Corner such a big failure? You need permit from police in order to say what you want. You need to specify what you need to say first and no bad mouthing the gahmen. At last, what can you talk about? Nowadays, there is no need for the forgotten ruins (Spk Corner) we have the blogs and forum to express our love/unhappiness of the gahmen.
“so now we have the Internet. i’m not surprised that a blogger like Rockson became one of the most popular bloggers for singpaoreans at one time – and all he did was spew obscenities at the govt and members of the govt.”
For every Rockson there is a Mr Brown and Mr Wang and Yawning Bread. Give and take is the way to go. If the gahmen is good to her people and has a big caring heart. Do you think any bloggers so free to condemn the gahmen? A chinese saying “No wind no wave will be stirred”. How good this gahmen treats her people and telling them promises which are not kept will never be forgotten. As the net will keep a good record of what are dear highly paid leaders have said. Now we are less forgetful.
“Sometimes, i tend to agree with the govt’s position to control the press and control freedom of speech. Because many of us are not ready to handle the responsibility that comes with freedom.”
Sorry. That’s your view and the gahmen. As i strongly against the gahmen treating me like a child when freedom and rights are involved. Am i an idiot? NO WAY. If a Casino can be build when we know all the social ills attached to it and gahmen disregard 50% who voted against it. Who is wiser? Who has greater responsibility when given 100% freedom to run the country? Tell me those poor and aspiring to be rich citizens should they be given freedom to enter and gamble in casino? Surprisingly, Gahmen did not disapprove us from gambling because we are deem responsible enough to handle it. We aregiven freedom of gambling. What so different from freedom to gamble and freedom of speech?
I do not share the view that many of us are not ready for freedom. If we are going to be babysit forever and i can tell you we are never going to be ready.
Its a pity that he is over 80 years old. If only he is 20 years younger, I think he have the ability to garner support and build a strong opposition force. To form a new party now is like wishful thinking. I don’t think many will support him.
He is indeed someone worth to be respected for his passion and perserverance in Singapore politics. Hope miracle will happen and he is able to attract someone of strong calibre and passion towards politics to join him.
Adrian Khiat
http://akhiat.blogspot.com
Excellent interview, Jamie. Hope to see more articles from you.
Modern Times, who wrote on June 4th, 2008 8.21 pm…
GOOD JOB!
You are an oasis of rational thought. :)
Haha, I somewhat think that it has become a culture to complain and to be heard (like a child) under the name of a debate. Look at the bright side of life!
“Whether comments are personal attacks depends if you do the same to him or her.”
Sometimes, one doesn’t even need to do anything to get personal attacks.
Great insights into a great Singaporean.
\”Sometimes, one doesn’t even need to do anything to get personal attacks.\”
For a start, I encourage everyone to attack issues, not people, and to understand and to be understood, but not demand agreement. Let\’s improve our ability to articulate and engage in discussion.
Hey Lim, I hear you too.
Why not list down all the statements which you have been personally attacked and let us fellow bloggers kaypoh kaypoh “arbitrate” for you.
So as to determine whether you are really personally attacked or you just cannot take the heat of non-moderated robust counter arguments.
Its not about me. If people want to attack me, its ok with me since my views are only those of a single ordinary Singaporean. No need anyone to arbitrate.
What I do not wish is people in general getting attacked just for posting. I agree with (-; , issues are more important. However, you won’t see anyone really “arbitrating” when it goes into a flame war.
Also, what is a non-moderated robust counter argument? The Gahmen is to blame for all problems in Singapore? The gahmen makes life absolutely miserable for Singaporeans? Everything wrong = the gahmen’s fault?
I think this type of non-moderated counter argument, I prefer not to engage in. I need to preserve my few remaining brain cells:-) Hope u understand.
Hey Lim
I am back again
Some wrong = the gahment’s fault not
Everything wrong = the gahmen’s fault. Wrong mathematical equation lah. 0 mark for you. I hope you will not label this as flaming war lah.
People who are comfortable with gahment policies will not complain and will not make noise lah because they are benefitting from it and enjoying it – it is not in their natural interest to complain lah. Of course, there will always be those who suffer without making or fearful to make a single bit of noise (this is the type that our gahmen loves and will no doubt encourage lah and may be labeled the constructively quite & appreciative lot lah).
Again, there will always other groups of people who may be grievanced by certain policies here and there. It is these people who are making noise (oops who are making positive feedback) and add all these many individual positive feebacks together, it may give you the impression that Everything wrong = the gahmen’s fault? (and in some other sites, it is labeled as cry father cry mother).
As you can see, we can always play with words – depending where you stand.
Dear Mr JBJ
When i was at my teenage years, i saw you once before, standing in front of centrepoint, voicing your opinions and believes. Looking at your seniority but yet delicate composure, I stood before you and saluted you with a smile. You looked at me, and gave me the smile i will always remember.
And looking at you now, the same you, still as passionate as ever. Not many knows of your silent screams! I encourage you to continue to leave a legacy for me to tell my children. You definitely not going to change Singapore, but I guarantee that you will spark the brain that will change Singapore.And i still salute you Sir be ordinary, As the strength is in the ordinary people. May God bless you with great health and strength.
Rgds
Orang Pertama
Hi Adrian K,
“Its a pity that he is over 80 years old. If only he is 20 years younger, I think he have the ability to garner support and build a strong opposition force. To form a new party now is like wishful thinking. I don’t think many will support him.”
Wisdom comes with age. I believe JBJ can contribute more to Singapore than our MM now. He has gone through hell during his worst years and seen more poor singaporeans suffered then the high and mighty leaders in IVORY TOWERS. If old man can still be MM at age 84, i strongly think JBJ 4 years younger can do better.
“He is indeed someone worth to be respected for his passion and perserverance in Singapore politics. Hope miracle will happen and he is able to attract someone of strong calibre and passion towards politics to join him.”
He has my greatest admiration and definitely worth our support. Will you also give support? He has your respect too why not consider joining and there is no miracle in politics. Either you have the people’s heart or you dont. I do believe he has to recruit more young working professionals fast and trained them properly and unite all opposition parties. In the modern age of information, social networking has bring people closer to one another. Finding people is not hard but one who have a big heart for people is tougher of course Million Dollar Talents who looks good on paper are easy to find. Just open the BIG FAT Cheque book and droves will queue to be one.
MT
at age 80, its time to enjoy the fruits of his labour. well, guess he didnt execute his succession planning early enough.
but good for him, smart move, not to be messed up by CSJ.
It is easy for many to put the Chee siblings down from their comfortable position. The ruling party’s supporters can gloat and feel smug about their jail sentence. It is now up to the ordinary people to take stock and do something about it through their votes. Anwar Ibrahim and Nelson Mandela were also jailed and many of their countrymen wrote them off and concluded that their fate were sealed. Look at where Anwar is now. As for Mandela, he survived the 20 + years in jail and was elected President of S. Africa. He forgave his captors and set the tone for the rest of the country, neutralizing the deep seated hatred between the ‘blacks’ and ‘whites’. This is Mandela’s legacy to his people. To those who disagree with the Chee siblings’ way of doing things, ask yourself why ? It is extremely difficult to ignore the injustice and policies screwing the people. Surely the purpose to life is to try and make a difference. I cannot accept that I should live like a sheep and die as a sheep.
This article got me thinking about civil disobedience again. I doubt it’s something that’s good, I don’t want to make any moral judgements pertaining to ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ here, but I should say that disobeying authorities is not a good thing.
What, march on the streets, even if peacefully, if not given a permit? No way. In fact I’m not likely to march on the streets with demonstrators even if they’d been given one. I don’t see any figure (not that I should) behind the authorities as well, and even if Jeyaretnam is an authority figure he cannot convince me to take part in civil disobedience.
One remark on ‘the people’ is worth quoting: ‘…the law that prohibits them is (an) unjust law. So when you’re going on civil disobedience, you are trying to uphold the law as it should be.’ Intriguing, if not surprisingly unintelligent.
“But using human rights as a political agenda could alienate Singaporean voters, noted Assistant Professor Eugene Tan”
I am appalled by what this Eugene said.
Human rights and politics are interwined together for good and for bad. Without human rights, what is there about politics ? Without human right, everything is only one way to the agenda of politic manipulator. It is ironic that this professor can even human rights relate to voting. It there is respect for human right, why is it that I couldn’t even cast my vote due to some GRC changing the rule of election ? Just because some get to vote doesn’t mean that there is human right. As LKY once says, either there is democracy or there is none, and by the very fact that he said it indicate we DO NOT HAVE DEMOCACY AT ALL. Is human right and democracy the same thing ? One thing for sure, lt is definitely closely related. So isn’t Singapore voters unwise not to associate with human right with politics ? And why after PAP win power, they try to disassociate human right, democracy from politics , and why JBJ insist that that human right, democracy are part of politics and willing to fight for it.
Notice Eugene did not mention whether human rights is essential to politics but just say that it alienate voters. So quite possibly, the key to Singapore politics could be human rights but it is prevented by the ruling party because it is the essential important KEY.
Why talk about politics if there is no human right and democracy ? Singapore is a good example. Law can be twisted, created, modified as they like and please just to keep regime in power. Rubbish and nonsense can be dumped by ministers and gahmen to justify whatever they want to justify even when the citizen smell a fish. INsulting the citizen intelligence is the norm rather than the exception in Singapore. No need to know reserve. No need for transparency and accountability etc. You get the idea.
“Dr Chee has essentially turned his back on a constructive form of political engagement. He’s a man of all seasons so whatever’s in mood, whatever the flavour of the day, he’ll jump in… I’m not sure if in the end his interest is really about the people, or is it more transient,”
I even more surprise someone will want to interview Eugene that seem partisan and play by rule. As we know all along, what is meant by CONSTRUCTIVE is defined by the establishment and their own dictionary the same way they can defined honest mistake, integrity and credibility. Remember LHL says of JBL as not been constructive ? So what is the meaning of constructive defined by PAP ? To be subservient and support the establishment even their practices and laws call into question ?
“He’s a man of all seasons so whatever’s in mood, whatever the flavour of the day, he’ll jump in… I’m not sure if in the end his interest is really about the people, or is it more transient”
Why did it not seen as part of Chee’s strategy. If in war and if you are shortage of manpower, you want to catch and hit the enemies by surprise, and therefore you cannot be too predictable. You don’t confront them outright with such small number and not when the enemies came prepare for you. It is a strategy and to think that Eugene Tan can even be called a professor is just a joke. If such a professor can comment on politic thing, he surely be aware of poltical strategy and manoeuvre. Maybe he hope that gullible and naive Singaporeans can just accept his reasons just like the citizens accept the establishment’s policies and excuses with “ALL SOUND AND FURY” but “SIGNIFY NOTHING”.
You can’t accuse anyone of lying just because he just did not “tell the truth”.
I think Singaporean can do better than that.
“It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.”
Voltaire quotes (French Philosopher and Writer. One of the greatest of all French authors, 1694-1778)