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.

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.

“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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

Sometimes, one doesn’t even need to do anything to get personal attacks.

GOOD JOB!

You are an oasis of rational thought. :)