It’s really sad to see so-called “journalists” lowering themselves to do the dirty work of their political masters. And Chua Lee Hoong is the epitome of such “journalists”. This, however, is not the first time that she has done it. Her other recent pre-occupation is to also demonise everyone on the Internet.

When such “journalists” try to present themselves as some sort of medical experts but fall flat on their faces, we know something is up. Undoubtedly, the idea of basic common decency and respect for a fellow human being (and a fellow Singaporean) does not even factor in her consideration when she was writing that piece.

Parroting and echoing and finally embellishing what Lee Kuan Yew said with her own stupidity is truly and absolutely pathetic.

However, there is one good thing about her doing this: It will strengthen the resolve of the one she is trying to destroy and his supporters.

To me, Lee Kuan Yew and Chua Lee Hoong are all that is wrong with the govt and their bootlickers.

Someone said that there are people in SPH who are quietly trying to change things from within. I can only hope so – not just for the sake of S’pore but also for the sake of journalism in S’pore. I would urge all those journalists and reporters who are ‘more sensible’ and who are, if true, working for change within, to have the courage to speak out and condemn such atrocious propaganda disguised as “journalism”.

There is a line which we human beings do not cross – that is: to destroy someone so utterly that if left unchecked, a society loses itself. That is what Lee Kuan Yew does and what Chua Lee Hoong supports.

But this sort of base and vile behaviour should have no place in our “compassionate”, “gentle” and “first-world” society.

Just some of my own thoughts on this issue.

As a writer, Chua Lee Hoong holds responsibility for the words that she puts out into the public arena especially when her words are carried in a national newspaper, widely-read by many.

As a journalist, it is her added responsibility of seeking credible sources to substantiate her perspectives on issues. By this account, basing her arguments just on what a website claims is not credible..

As a political commentator, her arguments should focus on the political works, thoughts, theories, achievements of a politician and not veer into the personal.

As a political editor, she is affirmed (by her organisation) and held up as a role model for her subordinates and a leader for her peers. Thus, she should be mindful of the impacts of her words and perspective and how it is reflective of her organisation.

When we are put in a position of influence, even if it’s that of just a political editor for a paper, we should rise beyond the superficial and the personal.

Please do not blame Chua Lee Hoong. She is only reporting and elaborating on what Singapore Leaders have said and that is the duties of a reporter. And I really do not think that reporting on her leaders speeches require her to check the veracities of their(leaders) words. What if she finds them inordinate, incorrect and even offensive and reports them according to her ‘accurate and proper’ understandings? Will she still be able to work as a reporter? She may even be sued for ‘misreporting’.

Let us understand the difficulties of been an employee of which most of us are. In a capitalist, authoritarian oligarchy ruled society, if one lives according to principles of truth, it is hard to survive. Liked Chee SJ, he is targetted for destruction, how many have his tenacity??

I find it absolutely incredible that a person of her (apparent) intelligence thinks she can get away with such bad writing.

when the tide changes…i hope she will be paraded on the street..with crowd spitting at her.

Why don’t we all just boycott the Straits Times and cancel our sibscriptions if all we get is trash.

Another suicidal journalist working in a perceived democracy.
Master’s dog. Woof says the master, woof it will.

With freedom (or monopoloy?) comes responsibility. Well, do they (in the MSM) practise what they preach. It makes me laugh (or wanting to throw out) by reading their “so called balanced articles / analysis”.

I am glad there are still respectable people like Anthony Yeo who are willing to take their time & effort in giving their own alternative views.

If Chee is really a nut case, do you think he can command the support of quite a number of people of decent intelligence and respectable standing in their own rights. There are more & worst cranko cases who preach about the end of the world and yet they are being left alone.

Let us not be confused by delibrate political labelling (in order to score political points) with genuine medical conditions.

I am of the view that she not only tried to paint a picture of a psychiatric case on
Dr Chee Soon Juan but also trying to incite hatred and cause disharmony
among Christians by humiliating and insulting Dr Chee Soon Juan’s personal
Christian faith and drawing the attention of the “mainstream Christians”.

There is no doubt that she was trying to garner the majority of Christians to go against Dr Chee Soon Juan.

I think it could be of malicious intent and could be considered as a seditious act under Singapore’s Laws.

Can someone please advice?

Outraged Citizen.

[...] Lee Hoong : Chee is nuts! – Endoh’s Dungeon: Will the real psychopath please stand up? – TOC: Character assassination of the most uncharitable kind – Feed Me To The Fish: What Utter Rubbish! – Sheep City: Are you mental? – The Good, the Bad and [...]

Outraged Citizen,

Her references to Christianity are not very welcome. Secondly, she is in no position to judge a person’s faith and his denomination.

Chua Lee Hoong and LKY have pushed their luck too far trying to make themselves champions of the saga, and to move on quickly of Dr Chee’case. The tactic they used is if one couldn’t attack them on their action then attack them of their character and state of mind . Now their dubious remark of Dr Chee as Mad , psychopath have been rebuted and backfired by a expert in his field.

But worry not, MSM as usual will quickly ‘move on’ to detract the reader again just like Mas Selamat’s debacle.

Really, Chua Lee Hoong and LKY need to consult Anthony Yeo not of Dr Chee’s matter but as his patients seeking Therapy help in their mind. To keep calling Dr Chee as mad, psychopath just because he questions and acts on the questionable integrity and impartiality of court and the ruling party ? More than often, that person to attack another person’s character is often guilty of that himself, he just make be much psychopath than his intended victim.

Patriot, she has the protection from you know who. She gets the kick out of giving the last kick to the face. It is despicable of her.

Had a friend who used to work as a journalist in the ST.

His favorite line when I question him on the standards of journalism in SG is : “Don’t ask me, I’m just a typist.”

Chua Lee Hoong is political commentator or partisan commentator ?

patriot ,
Chua Lee Hoong has a choice in SPH whether to choose to report or not against her conscience. Why is she doing this ? Is she looking for for another fast promotion or very stable job security. She is the instrument of LKY’s mouthpiece and execution (ex ISD officer) and she choose to be one because the ruling party has treated her well, she become loyal to the party. If she choose the Dark side and continue to support and glorify the regime then blame no one. One can still work in government and keep low profile but to has someone blatantly screw a innocent citizen to appease his master ?

Yes, she has a job to keep but so did many others in SPH that have not written report of her insidious and biased ’standard’.

moral . do u know what tat . chua hope u can sleep soundly

The Chua sisters were both roped in from ISD for the benefit of PAP. Otherwise, there wouldn’t be a need to have them in ST in the first place. Coincidentally, both of them comment very much on politics, especially on opposition and netizens, negatively, of course.

My foot! This is no coincidence. They are recruited in ST for the intended purpose of anti-opposition journalism in which they have to sacrifice their integrity and moral.

Apologies. A mistake! They are not employed to be journalists anyway.

May I suggest The Online Citizen formally invite Chua Lee Hoong to start her blog on this website. This will be a great opportunity for her to reach out and engage all the netizens because the Straits Times does not have the capacity to accommodate all the feedback. It does not really matter if she cannot reply to all the posts, it will still be a useful tool for her to gather feedback. I sincerely hope someone from TOC can charm her into accepting the invitation. Now over to you guys at TOC.

Now commenting on the negatives of the opposition is a second nature to her now. She might have difficulties at first but now her conscience is numb.

Seriously people, this is not to be unexpected.

The machinery will always be stacked against CSJ and his group simpily because the machinery can do so.

This is the way a corporation will always work, destroy all compeition and then you do not have to work so hard as the clients out there do not have any alternatives. You can charge whatever pricing you want and there is no choice.

If any of you are business owners or stake holders in businesses, this is what you would love to have also.

Although this is a country, think beyond the feel good catch phrases and NDP slogans, what do we really have as a core of this nation? The reality is that many of the better educated here will have benefitted from the corporation style of governance and have fairly decent lives. This is a corporation not a country, accept it.

The lesser well offs are people who have to struggle day after day and definitely have no internet access and time to think of the “bigger picture”. Probably, a good 80% of the population will not have read the above article and thus will have no feelings to it all.

While we continue to see rage over all this things here, how will it truly affect the environment we operate in? Do we all quit our jobs and jump on the streets to demonstrate? I think not. Do any of us here really do anything at all? I think not again.

Come the next election, freebies will once again be given out, estates will once again be upgraded and they will come back into power once again with little or no opposition. What is really changed? NOTHING….

The writer of the article probably understands this and thus, she has chosen to look after her family and herself. Is that not what we all are doing on a daily basis? Frankly, until everyone meaning the poor, the middle class and the elites feels the need to change, nothing will ever.

Before anyone bashes me, I am not pro or anti PAP. I have long since given up. Ideals such as free speech, freedom to demonstrate, freedom to whatever it is….does it really change the way you live? Ultimately, some people are upset that we are competing with so many foreigners and thus are upset with the policy. Some others are upset with the cost of living, some are upset with the ministers’ pay, some are just plain upset. BUT if you have not done anything at all to change anything…then quite pointless to be upset.

Looking around the world, at every level there will be rubbish like tt happening at all levels, even in the US, the Patriot Act accords almost ISA type rights to administrators. So what’ going on?

Some will call me a sheep or clone or whatever, but in truth, after you have done criticising me, how has your life changed? The environment changed? Or simply, will your estate vote for CSJ if tom he is granted the right to run for elections?

Ask yourself in the truest light, would you have lived your life differently if the macro environment had instantly changed tom? Then ask if it is possible?

What would your next course of action be?

Then you will realise the machinery cannot be beaten and we are back to square one….Sad but true…..

Ikanrajah, I have done that eons ago. I do not believe that I should pay for propaganda.

If SPH air drops the ST onto the streets, I might consider reading the comics section in life. I can also use the scrap paper for other purposes.

But to READ it? Sorry ah, my IQ isn’t too high to begin with, and I’m not about to make things any worse.. LOL

Outraged Citizen,

I believe that Christians are tolerant and will not react violently to her comments. For some other religions, she will not dare to make such connections. She will not only be charged with sedition, but people will bay for her blood.

I was musing just now. After Mas Selamat escaped, some minister told us to focus on the issue at hand and not go on a “witch hunt”. Seems like Dr Chee is worthy of being “hunted”.

Remember Mas Selamat. For all the things Dr Chee was ACCUSED of, he has not allowed a top terrorist to escape. I think that is a greater criminal act than the so-called contempt of court

Ace,

Know what is wrong, what is right, and spread the word. Change will be slow, but it is certain.

If everyone in this world have this kind of defeatist attitude, the Blacks will still be slaves to the Whites, etc etc..

Dr Chee is ahead of his time, but perhaps one day, Singapore will be ready to accept the values he stands for. Whether in his lifetime or not, I do not know. Then again, maybe Singapore might just “implode” in future.

Disappointing that name calling has become a feature of our society. Calling people nuts, dogs, dumb, stupid, psychopath, prostituting etc… Sigh… are these the “important” issues of today?

I think I’ll find something else to read….

This is called selective investigative journalism. it depends on who is the subject of investigation. If the subject is someone like CSJ or Christiainity they can have all the blows, under the belt too. No need to look over the shoulder. But if it is ………. it is OB. These are the downright despicable people if you have to sleep with, it is better with a snake ,at least you are on your guard every moment.

Patriot,

I think that’s the message that Chee SJ is trying to get across to everyone, that principles do matter. If Chua Lee Hoong is so afraid to report the truth or at least not “bend” the truth, then she really shouldn’t be a journalist. She should just have stayed on at the ISD.

Great! Now we have pseudo journalists posing as pseudo Psychiatrists. Just as our leaders must have highest integrity standards that can never be questioned, the journalists in our MSM must be of similar caliber and perform duties of professionals without any training. It must be the miracle of our wonderful education system that we become a Jack of All Trade without the need of further studies. Other countries should learn from us.

“It must be the miracle of our wonderful education system that we become a Jack of All Trade without the need of further studies. Other countries should learn from us.”

In fact, Singapore’s education is the greatest wonder of the world for all we know. Just place any ex-military high ranking officer into any GLC as chairman or leader and he can turn the GLC around with supernormal profit ! Of course, we know better, coverup for loss, if make profit applause openly with MSM starting the celebration campaign. Oh … still these ‘wonder’ get ridiculous pay for success or failure, stil win-win, another wonder of the world.

Thank you Mr Yeo for allowing this to be published. After reading her last article on Mas Selamat’s escape and her excuses for the Minister of Home Affairs, I wrote to ST Forum to ask the editors not to treat Singaporeans as idiots, we can see through their hogwash. Looks like they continue to think Singaporeans are idiots… sigh … I think I can be a political editor of a newspaper too if all it takes is sycophancy…. but then again I do want to be able to look at myself in the mirror….

I admire Dr Chee’s courage to follow his principles and beliefs.

Sometimes I wish I could do the same. So, for every time that I hear him being bullied and unjustly treated by the regime, I will spread word of his good deeds to people around me.

Hopefully, one day, Singaporeans will be strong and brave, just like him.

It’s sad and painful that our country produces highly educated individuals like chua who could only think of stooping so low to earn their keep.

To Chua, “go get a life, you miserable twit of a human lifeform”.

Another JUDAS in the making. money money money, make the soul so healthy. the tree and the gallow is waiting for u.

Lim, that sort of behavior is summed up in Stomp as well. And we’re wondering what the hell is wrong with the younglings today..

As they say, imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. In reference to Shawn’s worry about “implosion”, I hope we never have to reach that stage all because the blinkers have become too comfy in shielding people from the sunlight.

We’re not horses, we’re normal breathing, thinking human beings, at least some of us are.

fisi,

Judas hang himself after he cant fight the guilt of betraying Christ. For the Chua, she betrayed singaporeans who yearn for the truth in MSM and praise the devil high. One day, guilt will catch up with her. The day of reckoning is near. People can get killed in accident, sick with incurable illness or commit silly acts that get themselves killed. We never know. Chua, do you? I hope she leaves some room in her heart for salvation better be ready than sorry. Heavens is looking at you, chua! Lightning can strike twice at the same spot. BEWARE!

MT

CelluloidReality,

To me, Dr Chee is a braveheart. Even if SDP is to fold up due to PAP’s defamation suits, i look forward to Dr Chee ’s new approach to bring political awareness to singaporeans. He always amazed me with his non-stop drive to show us sinkies the truth of our country ’s political system are.

No one is as brave as De Chee. Not even LKY is that brave if not for all the machinery to defend him.

FG

Comments edited by moderator. CR, no personal attacks or accusations against fellow commentators, please. Thanks. :)

It makes my blood boil reading Chua’s article. Also isn’t the “religious” remark seditious in nature? If the CSJ had said something like that, he would have been jailed for sure.

patriot,

Do we need a parrot for a senior political editor? If she knows only to report what has already been stated in the press during the 3 day court sessions, then why she needs to write an article on Dr Chee? If she has no gut to write the real stuffs just keep her big mouth (stinking keyboard unplugged) Shut! She is doing her job we should tolerate what she wrote? I cant! For all the CRAP she has written so far really degrade human sanity and reduced my intelligence to that of a 5 year old kid. She is paid by tax payer to write junk for us to read. What a joke! She is the one with mental problem something like unable to express herself in truth and always get mind controlled by her masters. What illness we called that? Bootlicking and loyal Bitch syndrome.

FG

“It makes my blood boil reading Chua’s article. Also isn’t the “religious” remark seditious in nature? If the CSJ had said something like that, he would have been jailed for sure.”

It is a double standard for LKY and his coffers. They can say all they want and like and be exempted from any kind of their own kangaroo Law, LKY’s LAW aka ‘Law of Kuan Yew (LKY)’. Time and time again, the coffers throw defamation against the opposition party and then push their luck further knowing that they have the PAP godfather to protect them, of which Godfather is no better.

But now citizen are getting fedup and anguish with the same old trick of the ruling party or monkeys.

Farhan wrote; ‘Woof say the master, woof it will’. I had the same impression expressed in a courteous way.

In any case, as I had posted elsewhere before, we do know that even the greatest of villians have had their cronies and adulators. I am not surprised that there are many in the MSM all these years.

patriot.

Mod, are you referring to me or Fever Guy?

My reply to Lim was not aimed at any individual here. It was fully in reference to Stomp.

My apologies if there’s any unintended insult.

To add on, I hope there was nothing negative in that follow-up on Shawn’s comments.

Did we not see that Sharon Stone was made to apologise for the’ Karma’ remarks in reference to the Sichuan quake? and Stone had done it without intent to hurt, sort of slip of the tongue. But this bitch at SPH had maliciously done somebody great injustice without proper facts (medical or otherwise), knowing full well she’s got the protection of her masters.
Can we make her eat her words and apologise like Stone did? Maybe Christians can bring a complaint against her or something like that?

If, according to MM Lee, Chee Soon Juan is a psychopath, why has been charged in court at all. After all, a psychopath would be classified as insane and therefore not able to control his or her actions. Someone should have brought that point to the judge.

Chee Soon Juan is like neo in the martix, he has awaken many sleepy singaporeans who choose not to know or pretend not to know about the issues the average singaporean is facing.

In simple terms he is helping singaporeans achieve a better future, in time to come, his cause will be the cause for many Singaporeans.

There is no need for a brain dead system, where only the so called selected few gives you directions from how to work longer and how to get married and have children, to telling you when ORAL SEX is not allowed.

This is really a insult to the brain,

For those that choose not to know what is actually happening…. I wish you all the best in wonder land.

Dear Mr Yeo,

Being a little voice in the wilderness in the blogsphere, I am indeed encouraged by your letter to Chua Lee Hoong.

If not for her being Chua Lee Hoong and her blind loyalty and irrational support for her papymasters, her comments on “Christians” would deserve a sack or even a day in court (plus jail) for malice and sedition in disrupting religious harmony and peace of Singapore.

Sometimes, I guess it’s not what you do, but who you know or connected with that matters.

From the bottom of my damaged heart, I salute and thank you for putting your money where your mouth is!

Thank you.

Sincerely,
feedmetothefish

Perhaps we should start a blog collating Chua Lee Hong’s most sycophantic pieces and critiquing them there?

Who’s interested in chipping in?

At the risk of being labelled politically immature, I would like to put to MM Lee that Dr. Chee Soon Juan is a human being, a Singaporean and is somebody’s son, husband and father too. I know you have said that Singapore is not going to be a gracious society in your lifetime, but there is certainly no harm in starting with you. We are all mortals. We have a limited lifespan. What are we fighting for? Do we need to go to such an extent to destroy a fellow human being? Perhaps you would consider putting people like Dr. Anthony Yeo in your government to give it more heart. A Singapore with more heart is what many Singaporeans would like to have. Forgive Dr. Chee if he has irked you, and let him serve Singapore, for I believe he too has certain talents that Singapore needs. If you can be magnaimous enought to extend such generosity to foreigners, then why not to a subject of yours?

Thank You for your patience

Just to update:
10 June 2008

The Straits Times hasn’t published Anthony Yeo’s letter.

Many have criticised Chua Lee Hoong for being a “pseudo psychiatrist”. They have conveniently ignored the fact that Anthony Yeo is also not a qualified psychiatrist. Yeo is a counsellor. He has no medical qualifications at all.

Chua at least quotes medical opinion to support her views. In fact, she quotes MM’s doctors. Whatever you may think about them, it cannot be denied that they are far more qualified than Anthony Yeo.

Yeo’s letter does a great disservice to the tone of political discussion. It is filled with name-calling and personal remarks. We cannot advance any ideas in such a climate.

Chua’s point is not really about Chee’s illness. Rather, it is about Chee being a lost opportunity for the opposition. Chee was heralded as a political prodigy. However, Chua argues that Chee did great damage to the opposition’s cause, and to the SDP. The SDP had three seats in parliament and was on its way to greater things. Chee undermined the party. In the process, he has cast the opposition in a bad light – obstructionist, counter-productive and opposing for the sake of publicity.

Is Chee a lost opportunity? That is the question Chua is asking. That deserves debate.

Quote: Chua’s point is not really about Chee’s illness. Rather, it is about Chee being a lost opportunity for the opposition. Chee was heralded as a political prodigy. However, Chua argues that Chee did great damage to the opposition’s cause, and to the SDP. The SDP had three seats in parliament and was on its way to greater things. Chee undermined the party. In the process, he has cast the opposition in a bad light – obstructionist, counter-productive and opposing for the sake of publicity.
Unquote.

Come on we are not fools. A piece written to smear Dr. Chee camouflaged as a lost opportunity for the opposition. The real reason about the pathetic state of opposition in Singapore after 50 years of continuous Lee Kuan Yew brand of dictatorship is with the tactics of Lee Kuan Yew. This is what LKY actually said “If we considered them serious political figures we would not have kept them politically alive for so long. We could have made them bankrupt earlier.” What more do you want ?

Lee Kuan Yew himself publicly admitted his intentions to destroy any capable opposition. That is why Dr. Chee was sacked as a lecturer from NUS not long after he contested in the Marine Parade by-election. That is why Dr. Chee was sued till bankrupt. He was the most capable. He speaks so much better than Teo Chee Hian. He has a better personality. He not only looks better but he is a kinder soul. Just look at the shifty eyes of many of the pap ministers. Just look at the way Wong Kan Seng speak even after much coaching from speech specialists. Just look at the greed amongst the pap people. Dr. Chee also has ideas. Mony of his ideas in his first books were copied by the pap government in recent years.

Yes Lee Kuan Yew persecution of Dr. Chee to prevent him from contributing to Singapore is a great lost to Singapore and Singaporeans. It is a lost opportunity. However, Dr. Chee is still young and Lee Kuan Yew is nearing the end of his life, so there is still hope that Dr. Chee will still be able to contribute to Singapore in one way or another without obstructions from the pap government. He is a Singaporean patriot. He is committed to Singapore. He could have very easily packed up and make live a confortable life elsewhere.

“Chua at least quotes medical opinion to support her views. In fact, she quotes MM’s doctors. Whatever you may think about them, it cannot be denied that they are far more qualified than Anthony Yeo.”

So who is the MM’s doctors ?
Do read on Molly Meek’s analysis of the whole coffers’ matter and you will know that not even the LKY has the evidence to justify his claim about Dr Chee unless he is psychopath himself since he is referring to his own doctor.

http://mollymeek.livejournal.com/190409.html

Molly writes a excellent post to refute the claim of LKY that Dr Chee is near psychopath. If Dr Chee is psychopath so will be LKY since only a doctor that is expert is able to diagnose and verify the symptom.

I’ve certainly read Molly Meek’s views, but that doesn’t detract from the point I’m making.

Far too often, any criticisim of Chee is interpreted as a criticism of opposition in general. It is also immediately equated with support of the ruling party.

So when a family counsellor chimes in with a (quite abusive) letter attacking Chua, everyone immediately jumps on the bandwagon to question her credentials, forgetting of course to question Yeo’s own credentials.

And anyone who dares to offer an opposing view, that Chee is perhaps not doing the opposition any favours, is shot down by (ironically) those proponents of free speech.

It’s the lack of objectivity that troubles me more than anything else. The issue is Dr Chee. Does he have a plan to influence change in SIngapore? I can at least understand the Worker’s Party’s plan, which is largely the same as Chiam’s plan was. To gradually make inroads into the establishment, and to present an alternative to the ruling party. I’m not saying it will work, but it’s a plan, and it will definitely take time.

Chee’s actions, however, are more dramatic, and more attention-grabbing. But the question we are entitled to ask is how he is going to effect change. What is the long-term plan? Is it to have demonstration after demonstration? Is it to attend conferences and bring foreign pressure to bear? Because, so far, it’s not very clear.

I realise that it is easy to be impatient for change. Anything which the other established opposition parties do is routinely dismissed as ineffectual or too slow. Yet it is the tried and tested formula for change used in many countries. It’s a test of ideas and argument, not personalities.

It’s also important to discuss why the rest of the opposition distances itself from Chee. Chee is also notoriously evasive about removing Chiam from the party which Chiam himself founded. These are questions we are entitled to ask before we anoint Chee as the Saviour.

It should also be recognised that there is also a group of people who invariably will either begin their post with calling Singaporeans ignorant, dumb or some other word that they find justified or end up characterising Singapore and its inhabitants as sheep or some other variety of farm animals and call it creative writing,

regardless of whatever one posts or supports….

and some people will applaud it. That’s life…

My point may be irrelevant to this topic, but I just want to point this out because
I have noticed that many of you guys are referring to the newspapers as MSM or Main Stream Media. I think this term gives too much credit to the newspapers and is also a misnomer in the present time. If we don’t correct this reference now, it may soon become a habitual thing and get embedded into our psyche.

The newspapers may be the main stream media in the past, when there was no
Internet. Now, with the existence of Internet and the the dawn of the Cyberspace Age, this term “Main Stream Media” cannot apply to them any more. Now, the newspapers should rightly be referred to as The Old Media (TOM) and the Internet news medias should be referred to as the Main Stream Media (MSM) instead.

Time has caught up and therefore the term Main Stream Media (MSM) should rightfully belong to the Internet medias, for the mere fact that they are read all over the world freely, to a wider audience, many fold the size of Singapore’s local readers. And the Internet medias are still expanding and here to stay until another new technology takes over.

I think, from now on, all newspapers should be termed as THE OLD MEDIA or TOM! In time to come, may be 100 years from now, they will soon become obsolete and referred to as THE ANCIENT MEDIA, or TAM.

It’s time to switch. Think about it.

Thanks for your patience.

From: TOM, the piper son.

Its obvious the piece about the Chees was hurriedly churned out to appease the MM. After the embarrassing cross examination by CSJ in the court case against the MM, he probably flew into a rage once back into the office, and his displeasure was registered by everyone in office and ST got hold of it. Chua decided to bang something out herself ASAP just to appease MM. Be under no illusion that ST is just a machine to make the MM happy and just a PAP newsletter, NOT a newspaper.

Lim

Yes, that’s absolutely my point. We can either have a forum for reasoned debate, or just have a platform to vent. The second option is quite pointless, in my opinion, because it doesn’t achieve very much except hurl abuse.

I do not think Chee wants his fellow citizens to anoint him as saviour. It is too premature especially when he has been sentenced to jail. I believe he will take comfort just knowing that the ordinary people can see through this government and the policies screwing them each day, with no end in sight.

Chiam is docile and LTK is no better. Both are comfortable with the present political situation and is probably the main reason why they distance themselves from Chee. Because Chee is a go getter. And what is so dramatic about his actions ? Has he advocated any form of violence or instigated some widespread chaos ?

In the mean time , are we to wait for several more decades before we see a regime change ? The exodus of so many young people is a clear sign that the present regime needs a major overhaul. I am not against the idea of Chee being invited by the ruling party to help run the country in any capacity that they are comfortable with. It appears radical, but look no further than Mandela as an example.

Perhaps one day Chee may reveal the reason for removing Chiam. Whatever the case, it pales in comparison to the persecution of political opponents. Any person with an ounce of humanity would not have kept Chia Tye Poh in detention for 32 years. Mandela would still be rotting in jail if the regime in S.Africa had applied the same methods as the “emperor”, and Gandhi would not have won the freedom for his country if the British had also done the same. Come to think of it, the world will be very different if every country including the west, were to use the same methods of engagement in politics.

It is a historical fact that the stronger a government, the longer it will last. The Han dynasty lasted as long as 400 years (notwithstanding lots of people killed as a result of rebellions).

Malaysia’s opposition took a couple of decades to reach where it is today. Chiam took 13 years to go from 1 MP to 4 MP.

The lack of patience has ironically faster results. I would even venture to say that the lack of patience is exactly what happened to Chiam’s original party.

However, the bright spot to some is that no government has lasted forever.

Judging by history and the state/direction of our opposition, I’d say owl is due for a longer wait….

TheOwl

I’m trying to avoid the “if you don’t support Chee, then you must be a PAP supporter” mentality.

I brought up the issue of Chee’s ouster of Chiam. You said “it pales in comparison to the persecution of political opponents”. But that is really not the point. Just because the present regime behaves in a certain way doesn’t mean that Chee’s actions are right, or are less bad.

And it’s not enough to say that “perhaps one day Chee may reveal the reason for removing Chiam”. Chee champions transparency when it suits him. It’s fair for us to ask questions about his own motives behind Chiam’s removal. When we ask such questions, it doesn’t mean that we support the present regime. All it means is that we are holding Chee to the same standard of transparency that he wants to hold the PAP.

What could be more important than seeing how Chee came to power within the SDP? And the SDP’s fortunes thereafter? It illustrates Chee’s capabilities.

As for Chiam being docile, I can’t agree. Chiam was very much a champion of the opposition in his time. He realised he had to plan for succession, and he identified Chee as his successor. Sadly, Chee removed Chiam. Chiam is now much older, but he certainly paved the way for the opposition by winning more seats for his party than anyone else since independence. LTK is set on the same path, by gaining power gradually. That is what the populace is comfortable with, as shown by the polls.

You have asked if we are to wait several more decades before we see a regime change. That is precisely my point. Have Chee’s actions advanced the opposition’s cause in any way? My opinion is that he has taken the opposition backwards. The general public tends to associate Chee’s antics with the rest of the opposition. That is why the rest of the opposition, including JBJ, distanced themselves from him.

My main question is this: Can Chee show a concrete strategy for advancing the opposition’s cause by gaining power? If not, then he is a liability to the opposition.

William the con,

“He has no medical qualifications at all.”

I think he has – 36 years of working with disturbed persons. He has also been interviewed and consulted for his opinion over the years by the media.

As for Chua Lee Hoong, as you said and she admitted herself, all she did was to consult a ‘medical website’.

I think I’d believe and trust Anthony Yeo than a journalist who’s well known for her poor writing.

Andrew

I don’t think “working with disturbed persons” for any number of years is a medical qualification. With due respect to Anthony Yeo, he’s a counsellor. It’s not the same thing as being a psychiatrist or any sort of medical professional.

On the other hand, Chua is going by a doctor’s opinion. Admittedly, it’s hearsay. But it’s still hearsay from a medical professional.

I don’t think Yeo’s opinion is any more valuable or insightful than Chua’s.

My point was that Chua’s piece was about Chee’s wasted potential. The attempt to focus only on the “near psychopath” remark (by MM, not Chua) seems to miss the point. It’s more important to consider whether Chua is correct to say that Chee’s potential was wasted.

And whether or not Chua is well-known for poor writing is also not the point. That’s an ad hominem – a personal remark which has nothing to do with the issues. I think most Singaporeans are more interested in the issues.

So far, no one has been able to identify Chee’s strategy for unseating the government. That’s not surprising, because Chee himself has always avoided stating publicly what his strategy is. My view is that he is simply interested in oppposing and raising topics where no solutions are offered. He condemns trading with Myanmar, he says there are many poor people affected by inflation, he claims there is no freedom of speech (although he is a prime example of someone who is able to say what he likes). But there is nothing constructive and long-term to offer.

William the con,

Between trusting a person with 36 years working with disturbed persons and one who consulted a ‘medical website’, I’d prefer trusting the one with 36 years of personal experience.

Of course, you have your own prerogative about who to believe. In that we differ in view. But do note that Chua LH did not reveal which website she consulted. Or did she?

As for Chee being a “squandered potential”, well Chee has been at it only 16 years or so and he is only 46 years old. But the question is: Squandered in what sense? By whose yardstick? Whose standards?

I would say this: Politics is a funny thing. The fat lady hasn’t sung.

Any debate about whether someone has “squandered” his potential is actually just that – an intellectual discussion. Does it serve any purpose? Maybe. But I would guess that at the end of the day, it will still be just that – an intellectual discussion.

My own take is that Chee’s methods, though may not be currently accepted by the majority, will continue. And whether he will achieve anything and thus accomplish his potential, is left to be seen.

Like I said, the fat lady hasn’t sung. The wheels are still in spin.

William the Con,

I do not support the methods of Chee completely but I do understand where he is coming from. At least I think I do.

I have had the opportunity to listen to him over the years – during his protests, forums and interviews and I can tell you one thing: Chee has no illusion that his methods will achieve its aim overnight. Indeed he has said on several ocassions that his struggle is a long-term one – one which is aimed at structural change rather than piece-meal changes of policies.

Therein lies his belief in his methods.

In the last protest at the gates of the Istana, where they demonstrated against the rising cost of living, Chee said that it is through giving a voice to S’poreans that they can voice out for themselves their grievances, instead of being fearful to even speak out.

This explains his methods, again – leading by example, even if we disagree with him on its effectiveness.

The media being what it is, Chee has no way to get these messages of his out. But if you want to know more about his philosophy, please do spend some time and money attending his forums and buying his books.

That is, if your interest is in understanding the man and his methods – whether you agree with them or not.

The real issue at heart is focusing on the present regime. Please be more specific with what you mean by ” the regime behaves in a certain way “, and please don’t hold back . For the record I am not affiliated to any political party. I just want to see fair play in politics or any other activities. The people should not treat each other as enemies because of political difference. Do you agree with the ruling party’s method of engagement in politics ?

As to Chiam and LTK being docile, I stand by what I say. However that does not diminish my respect for them. It is extremely difficult and takes a lot of guts to be involved in politics, especially with our political situation.

Chee has his own way of doing things and there are people like yourself who may not agree. To each his own then, as long as Chee did not cause chaos. You are already looking at Chee’s strategy. Did he not stand up to the despot, and look at the way the S.T. put him down. This in itself makes the people more aware of this government and the policies screwing them. Hopefully, the people will overcome their fear.

The only strategy is to get voted in first before you talk about gaining power. Your party may field candidates to contest every seat, but there is no guarantee of winning the majority of seats to form the government. Do you see this happening at the next elections ? So why jump the gun and think Chee is a liability. Then again, you are free to express your opinion. I hope for more opposition members getting into parliament to make a difference. It can only be good for the country and perhaps the better talent will step forward.

Just for the record:

Anthony Yeo was the Clinical Director and current Consultant Therapist of Counselling and Care Centre and has served as lecturer in various theological colleges and universities in Singapore and various parts of Asia. He has authored books on counselling, stress, grief and marriage, besides being a consultant to various government and non-government organizations in Singapore and the region. (Source)

ANTHONY YEO is the Consultant Therapist of Counselling and Care Centre as well as lecturer in Pastoral Care and Counselling at Trinity Theological College. He has also been involved as the resource person with Wicare after having developed the Grief Recovery Weekend program and training the first batch of committee members. Anthony is currently one of the advisors to Wicare. In addition, he has worked with SIA and SilkAir to provide help and training in coming alongside bereaved family members and staff. (Source)

And according to this website, Anthony was also psychotherapist.

I think Alex Au did a rather good analysis of what the SDP is doing.

The Singapore Democratic Party: method or madness?

William the Con,

“I don’t think “working with disturbed persons” for any number of years is a medical qualification. With due respect to Anthony Yeo, he’s a counsellor. ”

Just to divert a little bit. Let us go back to Chee himself, a qualified neuropsychologist (with a Ph.D. to boot). So now who is more qualified. What is your take ? Chua or Chee ?

[...] Squandered Potential of Chua Lee Hoong Chua Lee Hoong wrote a most despicable piece in the Straits Times portraying Chee Soon Juan as a nut case. The Straits Times really sunk to a [...]

Chee’s fight is pointless when the majority of Singaporeans are contented with whatever the current government dishes out.

Next!

I wonder by some fluke chance or by some incredible miracle, CSJ is discharged as a bankrupt and stands in the next GE and wins. It will be interesting what CLH will say then.

Let’s not mince words. Chee is an election liability as the past 16 years of election history will show. Whilst some may regard his tenacity as an asset, his steadfastness in his refusal to recognise any alternative course of action is his weakness. That’s just my humble opinion.

Changing course is a matter of a single person’s actions. Adopting the same actions will require changing the minds of a few thousand voters. Which is easier, it shouldn’t take a phd to know. Some people may regard only things that are difficult to do as worth doing, more lazy people like myself tend to prefer to take the easier way out.

For those who are contented with the PAP govt, you can choose to live as you are. In my opinion, it is not the majority of Singaporeans that have supported the PAP govt. It is rather the tweaking of the constitution and electoral boundaries that has effectively but unjustly changed the outcome of the past elections.

For those who are contented with the PAP govt, look out of the material wealth of self and think of policies on a wider context, on how those policies impact on your fellow Singaporeans across the different income levels.

Singaporeans, by and large, have sacrificed selflessly for the sake of the country by absorbing CPF cuts, lower wages, foreign talent/worker job competitions, etc. At the same time, we have to absorb rising costs of living, so-called subsidized market price of exorbitant HDB flats, island wide ERPs, unnecessary increase in GST, etc, etc, etc…………………………………………….

After all the sacrifices, our ministers unjustly justified their astronomical pay increases because of their successful “Milk Singaporean Policies”.

Is this what we accept and sacrifice for? Change has to come sooner than later!

I am still coming to terms with CSJ’s methods. I used to think he’s a self-promoting politician wannabe yelling for the sake of yelling (from all these years of reading about him in the ST). However, having been prompted to reconsider his methods by one of Molly’s posts, and having read interviews with the man himself, I’m beginning to reconsider my previous assessment.

The ST portrays him as a somewhat incoherent and borderline hysterical person, but I get a totally different picture from reading his interviews and writings. I should have known better than to trust the ST in this respect but the ST painted such a convincing picture of CSJ that I was totally taken in. Now, I’m not that sure.

If we want change in the country’s political system, how far are we prepared to go to fight for it? I think in CSJ’s case, he is prepared to go THAT far, to break the rules established by the PAP in order to perhaps pave the way for Singaporeans who dare to follow through (that’s how I see it).

BTW while I’m not a trained mental health professional in any way, I have probably read more about mental illness than many here due to mental illness in my family. LKY and CLH’s labelling of CSJ as a “psychopath” is wholly inappropriate. Clinicians rely on clinical checklists to aid them in diagnosing a disorder and there is no evidence that LKY (or his doctors) and CLH did that.

To me, the MM Lee a founding father of Singapore is like a father to all Singaporeans; a figure head of a country in the past, present and future. I truly trembled with fear after what he called CSJ with those words. CSJ is one of our precious sons of Singapore. If Singaporean is treated in this manner, I am afraid for our sons and daughters who dare to speak up and get themselves lock up , sue till bankrupt just for their convictions of wanting a more open society. I am not sure Singapore can be called a home because I fear the politics played here; the ever-changing education policies; the social ills when the casinos are open; the wrong emphasis in future pursuits; etc.

Let me tell you when I truly trembled. It was when the call to break the law was made. That was when I had visions of of rioters and police clashing, people bleeding on the streets, subversive elements here and the foreign media celebrating no end.

Harrison,

All the tweaking (or gerrymandering as some people might call it) can only affect the distribution of votes.

If a majority of Singaporeans truly voted for the opposition, no amount of boundary drawing will amend that. Even if redrawn to a single GRC of 84 MPs :-)

To everyone,

if Chee becomes the next PM, does it mean we as citizens are now entitled to break the laws that we find unjust or does he intend to enforce it via police state/ military junta and contradict himself again?

I think trying to reconcile the above question results in a severe brain-dislocation.

I have heard and read of character assassinations in the past, especially in office
politics, but I have never read such a frightening and terrible piece of writing with
the obvious aim of “murdering” a fellow human being, fellow Singaporean, with
the pen in a national newspaper; and moreover, as an INSIGHT piece on that.
What kind of insight is Chua Lee Hoong projecting, if her expression of thoughts
and analysis are so lob-sided, unbalanced and bordering on half-truths and
hearsays?

Whether Dr Chee Soon Juan has squandered whatever he has is none of Chua
Lee Hoong’s business. That is Dr Chee’s personal prerogative to answer to
himself and to his family members. Who is to know whether Dr Chee has
squandered his future or “potential”? The past is gone and can never return.
The future is yet to come and nobody is the wiser how the future will turn up.
The present is what we are experiencing and these experiences can never
be permanent. They are just fleeing moments in a long series of motions of
energy which can never accurately predict what the ultimate outcome would be.

What Dr Chee is doing may seem to certain people as illogical, and therefore
they jumped to the conclusion to label him with all sorts of unkind and hurtful
names. But who can really tell what the impact and outcome would be in 10,
20 or 30 years’ time? Not to defend him, but Dr Chee may be planting the seed
for a better and freer Singapore which may lead Singaporeans to a greater height
than what it is in the past or at the present. Who can really tell?

The future of Singapore is really dependent upon the collective will of the people
and not on the will of Dr Chee, LKY or any single person. If there is a collective
will of the people to finally see, understand and grasp what Dr Chee is trying his
very best to pave the way, that will be THE WAY forward. So, therefore, it is too
early to stir up a debate as to whether Dr Chee has really squandered his
potential or anything at all. Even if he has, so what? Does it affect anyone of us
to the extent and detriment that we would not be able to eat and sleep peacefully?

I believe, instead of wasting time writing and hoping to stir up a debate on Dr
Chee’s character, personality and his past and future, journalists would do more
justice by providing insights into whether our CPF savings and National Reserves
are being squandered in the way the GIC and Temasek are pouring monies into
failing banks and other business ventures that have raised the fury of certain
foreign governments, such as in Thailand and in Indonesia.

In addition, they could also keep reminding the authorities, as well as the public,
as to why Mas Selamat (an alleged highly dangerous terrorist) has not been
recaptured after such a long period of time, because the longer he is not
recaptured, the greater would our society be exposed to terrorist attacks and
risks of loss of lives and damage to properties.

Also, the journalists could stir up a series of debates on how we are going to
tackle the rising cost of living, the persistent run-away inflation, the widening
income gap, and how to motivate our people to be more happy, more caring,
more responsible and more accountable but less arrogant, less bossy, less
kiasu and kiasi, and less greedy for higher salaries and less ruthless and
inhuman in their dealings with fellow Singaporeans regardless or creed, race,
language, religion and political affiliation.

And, last but not least, journalists can also provide insights into whether the
restructuring of our economy for the past ten years has been successful or are
there cracks and unrevealed difficulties and problems that have yet to be
confronted? How come there is not a single report on such a vital issue of
national interest in the last two years or so?

Those are some of the issues that will definitely have political implications and
consequences, which a political writer should really take on and write about for
the education of Singaporeans and in the interest of Singapore’s future.

Just my humble one cent’s worth. Cheers and be Happy!

Pandora. 11-06-2008.

Dear Ah Lim

“If a majority of Singaporeans truly voted for the opposition, no amount of boundary drawing will amend that. Even if redrawn to a single GRC of 84 MPs”

You are right. But as far as our own situation is concerned, do you think that the conditions here are such that each and every Singaporean is able to vote. Let us not mince words (to use your own phrase), there are subtle and and not so subtle constraints that opposition parties face unless you are truly blind (not literal of course).

“if Chee becomes the next PM, does it mean we as citizens are now entitled to break the laws that we find unjust or does he intend to enforce it via police state/ military junta and contradict himself again?”

Well, if that happens (and it can only be known after the fact), then it is the duty of the citizens to remove him. Nothing is cast in stone. There will always be a lot of ifs as regards the future but we must make decision to correct something that is not right now.

Yes, I agree with Pandora wholeheartedly. Put in the context of what Pandora has described, it is abundantly clear as to the motivations of Chua Lee Hong, who as a political commentator, should have put her writing skills to good effect for the benefit of Singapore and all Singaporeans. That she has not, according to some forummers here, since I do not subscribe to the Straits Times and hence may have missed it if she has ever written on such topics, clearly showed her motivations. If it is indeed so, then she has not only shirked her responsibility as a Singaporean and political commentator, but she has truly insulted all her Singaporean readers intelligence in the process as well. She will do well to reflect on her own inclinations and may her conscience question herself in the dark of night where she can answer truthfully to her own conscience without fear or favour. May she then find the true meaning and value of her own existence.

Lim,

You must be joking! You should tell LKY that there is no need to tweak the election system nor change the electoral boundaries because the vast majority of Singaporeans support his PAP policies. He must be a pyschopath to have done that.

Just like LKY, wrong also must make it look right. That’s how he brags about his credibility.

By the way, please enlighten us how to obey unjust laws. Kindly be reminded that since the 1990s, a very large percentage of our population has attained secondary education and beyond. Vast majority of Singaporeans know what is wrong in Singapore.

We can differentiate white from black, even if it’s white on black. If you can’t reconcile, it’s because you choose to remain in your cocoon.

Quote: So when a family counsellor chimes in with a (quite abusive) letter attacking Chua, everyone immediately jumps on the bandwagon to question her credentials, forgetting of course to question Yeo’s own credentials. – willian the con Unquote

Well, Chua Lee Hoong has angered many a long time ago for her lopsided political propagandas camouflaged as politcal insights. Way before this piece by Anthony Yeo, there are tons written on the Internet condeming her.

Quote: So far, no one has been able to identify Chee’s strategy for unseating the government. That’s not surprising, because Chee himself has always avoided stating publicly what his strategy is. – william the con Unquote.

How on earth do u come to represent so many people ? There are tons written and posted on the Internet on the SDP’s and Dr. Chee’s objectives and strategies. By just reading the SDP newsletter you will have got a very good idea of the SDP’s and Dr Chee’s objectives and strategies. From the way you posted it is obvious you have not read any of them.

There was this brilliant critic by the name of Northrop Frye who made some perceptive remarks about what a society is made up of, although he was obviously speaking of the society to which he belonged, and the role of the satirist in it:

‘For society to exist at all there must be a delegation of prestige and influence to organized groups such as the church, the army, the professions and the government, all of which consist of individuals given more than individual power by the institutions to which they belong. If a satirist presents, say, a clergyman as a fool or hypocrite, he is, qua satirist, attacking neither a man nor a church. The former has no literary or hypothetical point, and the latter carries him outside the range of satire. He is attacking an evil man protected by his church, and such a man is a gigantic monster: monstrous because not what he should be, gigantic because protected by his position and by the prestige of good clergymen.’

Nonetheless, in the context of Singapore, you have to be wary when you do socio-political commentary, or for the matter, satire. You might just be slapped with something like a defamation suit. Now, if you cannot see that there are better opportunities elsewhere for satire, namely in the area of fiction, then you’ve probably never encountered much of it in your life.

‘Imagination is more important than knowledge,’ so says the man who came up with the Theory of Relativity (whom various scientists have described as the greatest fraud of the last century), but I counterpoint that with ‘Fiction is more important than fact’ especially in a place where the threat of law suits is very real.

In fact you can be sued anywhere, as long as you irk someone enough (and with enough to launch a suit). The only place you cannot be sued in is fiction, with a well-placed disclaimer.

The other point to add, however, and going by the biographies of great satirists, is always to reimburse the subject or character you lampoon by the narrative’s end (with what poetic licence you wield), before it is too late and the characters come round to haunt.

Let’s not mince words. Chee is an election liability as the past 16 years of election history will show. Whilst some may regard his tenacity as an asset, his steadfastness in his refusal to recognise any alternative course of action is his weakness. That’s just my humble opinion.

Lim, Even if CSJ is not contesting in any election, I still support his cause, him as a political activist, his right to freedom of speech. Also regarding his ideas and intentions, maybe reading his books will give you a better idea. Unless someone better comes along, we’ve only got him for now. Also I think most support for him only strengthen after every blow from the first world Government. What doesn’t destroy CSJ only makes him stronger.

Editor: Why is there no write up on the equally formidable Chee Siok Chin? Seems she is not getting much coverage.

Hi pandora;

patriot hereby says thank you for your brilliant post.

patriot.

Lim. You mentioned in your post that Chee has never been elected even after 16 years. So now you are assuming he can become the next P.M. Wow, Chee must be really flattered. You sure are jumping the gun, because Chee will need a lot of his party members to get elected before he can think of forming the government and of course make himself the P.M. Do you see that happening at the next elections ? Let ’s focus on the incumbent government ,because their policies and the way they run the show have an immense impact on the people. The people are feeling the pain and they are demoralized. Is this statement true ? And please elaborate. And Lim, trying to reconcile my questions ” will not ” result in severe brain dislocation. I am not that presumptuous to assume the majority of our readers can not tackle my questions.

I had the privilege of going through the election atmosphere of 1991 when 4 opposition MPs were voted into parliament. I can tell you that the atmosphere was as electrifying as it was a beacon of future hope. The results trumpeted as a change in Singapore politics.

Most have forgotten how such an atmosphere was created. The power of the vote was not forgotten then. I remember a GCT who appeared on TV as if the world had fallen and the result was to create a GRC concept that re-distributed votes. I remember too, GCT acknowledging for the first a leader of the opposition akin to how other such leaders are acknowledged. A certain person took over that same role via unelected means. Today, a leader of an opposition is only if that person is unelected and champions “human” rights that does not include the right to common decency. Sigh…

I remember the fight for Cheng San GRC. The fear of the implications of a fall of a GRC. I remember too how a weak link in Aljunied had to be found just to ensure that a certain Ms Sylvia Lim does not enter parliament. The fear of the power of the vote. All this is unimportant to a certain leader of an opposition.

If Singaporeans themselves do not recognise the power of their own votes, how can one expect Singaporeans to understand the meaning of an electoral democracy?

To Owl, you may like to ignore the word “if” but I don’t. If I were the PM of Singapore, I’d be very happy.

You may think I am going to be PM soon but I certainly don’t think so and most reasonable persons would laugh at such an assumption. The question stands, if Chee is right in persisting in civil disobedience, then wouldn’t it justify any Singaporean in ignoring the law in our own sovereign country?

lol, you might want to think why Gandhi, Mandela did civil disobedience. That’s because they and the people were excluded from the process. What they wanted from civil disobedience was the right to self determination.

If Chee’s civil disobedience is ok, then under what circumstances would civil disobedience be not ok? I can only see that it is not ok only if it is against Chee’s laws.

If one can’t even define what Chee’s civil disobedience is about, then we are expected to just guai guai listen & support? We would indeed deserve to be called a nation of sheep then.

The 2 characters couldn’t have stand out more in sharp opposite contrast – Dr Chee gives up all material gains to stand up and fight for what he believes in. CLH sold her dignity inorder to reap material returns from her boss and political masters.
Perhaps she is hopping to get a ride in a GRC in the next GE just like her colleaque,

Lim,

Can you enlighten us here what were the civil disobediences that the SDP members carried out to warrant arrest and harrassment from the AUTHORITY?
Thanks in advance.

Lim. You are totally out of sync with the netizens who took the trouble to provide you with reasonable explanations. Your latest post is simply not coherent. I shall leave it to our readers to draw their own conclusions from your numerous posts and the response from netizens.

“If one can’t even define what Chee’s civil disobedience is about, then we are expected to just guai guai listen & support? We would indeed deserve to be called a nation of sheep then.”

Wow pian, Ah Lim, just because you have framed up a superduper question, that does not mean that we must be guided to answer it. And if not, “we are expected to just guai guai listen & support? We would indeed deserve to be called a nation of sheep then.”

Have you noticed that you have slowly morphed (or you are already one) to sound more & more like our system – very arrogant. “guai guai listen & support”, you must be crazy lah. Pay them to hear them preach that you should be “guai guai listen & support” and to hear them sing about how good they are so that we can continue to pay for their upkeep.

Now I can claim that I pay their salary (taxation in the form of GST lah), last time I did not need to pay so much tax lah except for the usual inflated prices of government services – I can say this without any tinge of guilt because here everything is run like a corporation.

Can you guys even identify what you or chee means by civil disobedience? Instead I have to give examples of how SDP members break the law? I tot that’s pretty factual on which laws have been broken yet even this simple sentence also need to ask. sigh…

Since that’s so difficult, let me assist you guys by citing which are the laws which have been broken by Chee in the course of his illustrious career.

- Trespassing
- Contempt of court
- Illegal assembly
- Speaking in public/designated area without permit
- Attempting to leave country as a bankrupt without leave

My question stands. If breaking law = ok, as chee argues, then when is breaking law not ok? I tot that’s a simple question but can’t get any answer.

I ask again, what do you mean by civil disobedience? Tot its a simple question.

If I do not know what civil disobedience means, how am I able to support Chee in his acts of civil disobedience? If I clap without knowing what I’m clapping for, doesn’t that make me a sheep or is there some other definition of sheep?

I readily admit, I have no idea what civil disobedience means to Chee.

Since you guys appear to be clapping chee, I presume you guys would know since I don’t make a presumption that anyone is a sheep. Can anyone clear this?

“The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren’t enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws”

‘Atlas Shrugged’ – Ayn Rand

It certainly takes an American to say that… According to UK home office “world prison population” report 4th edn, Singapore has 14,704 persons in prison (mid-01) figures out of a population of 4.1m. This translates into 359 per 100k compared to 686 per 100k for US.

Still waiting for an answer to the earlier questions though…

Do you have breakdown on some other European countries. Take Switzerland, Finland, German, France, etc for better & wider comparison or provide us with web link so that we can selectively pick a few countries to counter.

By the way, Ayn Rand (born Russian) migrated to America just like our GN.

Agreed, western europe is lower – on average less than <150 per 100k. Our rate is ~ eastern Europe’s numbers which is between 2-400+ with the exception of Russia at ~600+ (2007 numbers). China is interesting at 118 per 100k (2007 numbers). I hardly think anyone would characterise China as a beacon of human rights.

How far does “one declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws” apply to any country currently? You can say 99 out of every 100 don’t fall in the definition of “men” above.

Still waiting for an answer to the earlier questions though…looks like its going to be a long wait…

You are so good and smart that I have to admit I do not have any answer to convince you judging from several posts you have put up. But one thing for sure, I have the answer to my own inner question.

Sorry for the long wait.

@lim

If Singaporeans themselves do not recognise the power of their own votes, how can one expect Singaporeans to understand the meaning of an electoral democracy?

If you are knowledgeable and capable of critical thinking, you should by now realise that just having elections alone does not mean that a country is a democracy. Russia, Belarus, Zimbabwe and even China (at least at the village level) have regular elections, but will anyone call them democracies? That shows that the person making the statement does not know anything about what democracy really is and what it entails.

Without freedom of expression and a vibrant civil society etc, to talk about the power of voting and having a genuine democracy is absurd and bizarre. It’s like having chicken rice without the chicken.

@lim

If a majority of Singaporeans truly voted for the opposition, no amount of boundary drawing will amend that. Even if redrawn to a single GRC of 84 MPs

Then why not go back to the 3 member GRCs we used to have? After all, like you say, it is just a mere redistribution of the votes :)

@lim

China is interesting at 118 per 100k (2007 numbers).

Why the surprise, lim? You need to consider that the People’s Republic of China enjoys the privilege of having the honour of carrying out the highest number of actual executions in the world. Do the math. Merely punching numbers without critical analysis of the figures is not very prudent.

Let’s do the math. Let’s say China has 1 billion (it has more). Assume that their actual rate is equivalent to Singapore at a ballpark figure of 400. That means an assumption that china executes 2.82 million people a year.

There are some deeper implications behind Anonymous posting above. Is anonymous above extending the line of argument to suggest Singapore should perhaps raise its execution rates to lower its prison rates? Or that executions lower the crime rate that hence allows lower prison rates?

Last I heard from Amnesty International, China executes about 600-1000 people a year. I still don’t see how the figure can go up beyond 119 per 100k even if executions is taken into account. Perhaps one needs to rethink that line of argument.

to Lim

You do too much maths lah & all the extrapolation. You are too mechanistic lah, frightening so.

Real life interaction (very fluid & shifting) is not simply denominated in number and cannot be formulated lah – very much as a lot of experts would like us to believe. You can show me tonnes of numbers with their correlative effect, so what lah ? The causative relation is more important lah and it takes a lot of work to find out.

That is why a lot of top notch of economists / high powered ministers still cannot solve a lot of problems – and sometimes their “so-called corrective policies” make thing worst.

@lim on June 13th, 2008 9.21 am

I am suggesting ONE of the many factors as to why prison inmates statistics cannot be interpreted in such a simplistic, monocausal manner. It is clear that you see countries as Siamese twins essentially, having the same age structure, same demographic, same socio-economic status, same judicial systems, if not you won’t just happy quote statistics like these gleefully without questioning the mutiple factors behind the differences in the figures.

Does it occur to you when you happily quote those numbers that differences in prison inmate statistics can be due to:
1) The abolition of capital punishment in some countries and not others;
2) The different social attitude towards drug-trafficking and drug-taking (eg. Singapore versus Australia)
3) That some countries, such as the tribal areas in Pakistan and remote areas in Indonesia resort to a community-based justice system, such as villagers taking law into their own hands and not going to the mainstream justice system of the country. I am sure large number of taking law into one’s own hands are in the rural areas of China too.
4) That developed countries have a higher percentage of urban population and more material goods to steal. Crimes like break-ins, organised crime, white collar crimes, armed robbery, petty theft etc, tend to be brought to the attention of the courts and sentenced. Will it be the same for a village in China or a Russian staying in the vast Siberian plain?
5) And racial differences. A person of a minority race maybe more likely to get imprisoned. That may account for the differences between a multiracial country and a relatively homogeneous country.

Merely quoting statistics without critical thinking is not the wisest thing an educated person should do. That’s why statisticians are called as such, and not analysts or strategists. It seems that analyzing figures and seeing things beyond the numbers does not occur to you when you saw certain numbers that favours your argument and happily grab them like a prize.

@ lim

This is a reminder that just you were waiting for others to give you the long-awaited answers, i am also doing that patiently for your answers to my two earlier posts about going back to 3-member GRCs and my rebuttal to your notion of elections = democracy. :)

Thanks for the above posts. I ironically agree in many circumstances with Winston Churchill when he quoted “lies, damn lies and statistics”.

To the single individual who feels that there is no way he can avoid breaking a law in any country, such statistics are indeed meaningless. It can even be 1 for every 100k but if a person is that 1, it doesn’t help that person.

But at the same time, it should be recognised that to claim that everyone in any country cannot avoid breaking laws is of course something that is equally extreme.

My sole purpose is merely to illustrate that this is indeed a gray and subjective subject and indeed very personal. If the use of such statistics frightens anyone, then my apologies is extended cause that is not my intention.

Rather than generalising this issue, I think perhaps the focus should be on specific circumstances on why people go or are sent to jail and how people esp employers react to those who have gone to prison before. For that, I would point out my support for the yellow ribbon project.

Having said the above, I do note with dripping irony, the very same people who criticise the use of statistics, will not hesitate to quote or support statistics or rankings from organisations like reporters without borders as if a holy gospel to support their contentions. Such contradictions are indeed part of life :-)

My new phrase of the day is: not all Singaporeans are dumb.

Wrt anonymous,

The decision to go back to 3 member GRC or even the need for GRC is not something I alone decide. That requires the votes of Singaporeans to vote in a party that does not want GRCs.

However, the underlying question is how useful are votes in the first place. The contention by posters is that votes are useless in the first place hence the need for civil disobedience. As above, I disagree with this contention cos I believe that votes are important.

On your post regarding electoral democracy, I do not and have not made comments on whether Singapore is or is not an electoral democracy so I don’t see how this can a debate on what is an electoral democracy.

However, if one doesn’t even know what a vote means, entails or valued, how does one expect even to understand what an electoral democracy means. An electoral democracy may not mean just votes (that I agree) but definitely votes are fundamental to an electoral democracy.

Don’t worry about responding to my earlier questions on civil disobedience. I do not expect any and am only surprised to find that not as many of the usual insults followed.

@lim
But at the same time, it should be recognised that to claim that everyone in any country cannot avoid breaking laws is of course something that is equally extreme.

The Burmese junta often justified breaking up rallies organised by Aung San Suu Kyi by saying that she did not obtain a permit to speak in public. So given your statement above, especially those underlined, you should be on the side of Gen. Than Shwe, am i right?

Let’s have a historical review of the Apartheid Laws in South Africa to see if any decent black folk back then can possibly and reasonably expected to be law-abiding if he or she were to live as a decent and free person with dignity:

* Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act, Act No 55 of 1949
* Immorality Amendment Act, Act No 21 of 1950; amended in 1957 (Act 23)
* Population Registration Act, Act No 30 of 1950
* Group Areas Act, Act No 41 of 1950
* Suppression of Communism Act, Act No 44 of 1950
* Bantu Building Workers Act, Act No 27 of 1951
* Separate Representation of Voters Act, Act No 46 of 1951
* Prevention of Illegal Squatting Act, Act No 52 of 1951
* Bantu Authorities Act, Act No 68 of 1951
* Natives Laws Amendment Act of 1952
* Natives (Abolition of Passes and Co-ordination of Documents) Act, Act No 67 of 1952
* Native Labour (Settlement of Disputes) Act of 1953
* Bantu Education Act, Act No 47 of 1953
* Reservation of Separate Amenities Act, Act No 49 of 1953
* Natives Resettlement Act, Act No 19 of 1954
* Group Areas Development Act, Act No 69 of 1955
* Natives (Prohibition of Interdicts) Act, Act No 64 of 1956
* Bantu Investment Corporation Act, Act No 34 of 1959
* Extension of University Education Act, Act 45 of 1959
* Promotion of Bantu Self-Government Act, Act No 46 of 1959
* Coloured Persons Communal Reserves Act, Act No 3 of 1961
* Preservation of Coloured Areas Act, Act No 31 of 1961
* Urban Bantu Councils Act, Act No 79 of 1961
* Terrorism Act, Act No 83 of 1967
* Bantu Homelands Citizens Act of 1970

And the responses given by Strijdom, Verwoerd, Vorster and PW Botha? Nelson Mandela and the likes were dealt with because they BROKE the laws above in one way or another.

@lim

The decision to go back to 3 member GRC or even the need for GRC is not something I alone decide. That requires the votes of Singaporeans to vote in a party that does not want GRCs.

But didn’t you say that it wouldn’t matter because after all it is merely a redistribution of votes? Can you account for the growth to the mega-size 5-member GRCs? After all you say that even if there is just one gigantic GRC of 84 candidates doesn’t matter as well? Come on, you can come up with something better than that :)

Ah Lim

That is why your view is as good as mine / or others and vice versa. Different people just see things differently in which you have also mentioned in one of your posts.

The ultimate measurement is really yourself and all other examples merely act as secondary (or primary or whatever) support. Your own case is always already settled. And mind you, certain examples given do not even have a causative bearing in your situation.

My benchmark is always on how the life of mine & my close ones are being affected by gahmen policies. If it is positive, you will hear me blow their trumpet for free. Unfortunately, that is not what I am doing now.

@anonymous

As above, I disagree with this contention cos I believe that votes are important.

Erm, how do you vote if there has been walkovers in your ward?

[...] in General the Internet sure has got good reads. « [...]

@ anonymous, I recall Ms Aung winning the election to govern Burma. That the election was ignored is a reflection of what votes mean in Burma.

Did the blacks in South Africa even have the right to vote and self-determination?

Civil disobedience is clearly defined in those countries. The legitimacy of government and thus laws made by those governments are in question.

The question is not about civil disobedience in those countries but its definition and thus application to Singapore. What is civil disobedience in the context of Singapore? What is the justification for civil disobedience in Singapore’s society?

That the Singapore Government is illegitimate? If one cannot define what civil disobedience means in the context of Singapore, can we justify using or supporting its use in Singapore?

@ lim
I don’t see how this can a debate on what is an electoral democracy… However, if one doesn’t even know what a vote means, entails or valued, how does one expect even to understand what an electoral democracy means. An electoral democracy may not mean just votes (that I agree) but definitely votes are fundamental to an electoral democracy

But you were the one who said that people who cannot understand the importance of their votes cannot understand the meaning of electoral democracy. And the term “electoral democracy” was coined by none other than yourself. By lumping election and democracy into “electoral democracy”, it is obvious that you see elections as fundamental to democracy. BUT having elections alone is meaningless without freedom of expression, freedom of press, a vibrant civil society unless you think that elections, such as those carried out in Zimbabwe, Belarus, Russia etc are means that they are the so-called “electoral democracies”.

The key here is, are elections ALONE meaningful if freedom of expression, free press, civil society is absent? We want the answer on this instead of one throwing out countless strawman arguments and red herrings.

Anonymous: it is merely a redistribution of votes?

Of course it is. The same number of voters apply whether it is a 84 member GRC or 84 single seats. It doesn’t increase the number of voters.

Anonymous said: Erm, how do you vote if there has been walkovers in your ward?

So whose responsibility is it to ensure that a vote takes place? An election has to be held but I would think it takes 2 hands to clap. At this stage, I can postulate that will be a circular argument approaching…

@lim

I recall Ms Aung winning the election to govern Burma. That the election was ignored is a reflection of what votes mean in Burma.

Another strawman being thrown out. Without a permit obtained for public speaking as justified by the Burmese generals, please answer that.

The generals also won votes in the National Referendum on the New Constitution obtaining over 92% of the valid votes. I am sure the Burmese people mired in the cyclone does value the importance of their votes like you do :)

Anonymous said: “But you were the one who said that people who cannot understand the importance of their votes cannot understand the meaning of electoral democracy.”

Yes, of course. I repeat. Simply put, if you don’t understand what votes mean, can there be an electoral democracy? Are you claiming you can?

Anonymous said: And the term “electoral democracy” was coined by none other than yourself.

Yes, but as mentioned, and repeat again, I’m not stating that Singapore is or is not an electoral democracy.

Anonymous said: By lumping election and democracy into “electoral democracy”, it is obvious that you see elections as fundamental to democracy.

Yes, I said that. Can you have an electoral democracy without one? Of course not.

Anonymous said: BUT having elections alone is meaningless without freedom of expression, freedom of press, a vibrant civil society unless you think that elections, such as those carried out in Zimbabwe, Belarus, Russia etc are means that they are the so-called “electoral democracies”.

Ah, it now becomes a question of what is an electoral democracy. But first, the fundamental question is, are votes important to an electoral democracy? Can you have an electoral democracy without votes?

Anonymous said: the key here is, are elections ALONE meaningful if freedom of expression, free press, civil society is absent? We want the answer on this instead of one throwing out countless strawman arguments and red herrings.

I’ve answered that twice.

Anonymous: Another strawman being thrown out. Without a permit obtained for public speaking as justified by the Burmese generals, please answer that.

What is the question?

LIM,

Thanks for playing the devil’s advocate in giving us the opportunity to discuss the matter in-depth here.

So, unjust laws that were initiated by the ruling party should be strictly followed without the right to question? Persistent questioning means anti-PAP, anti-govt, anti-social, divisive, psychopathic, lunatic, civil disobedient, vengeful, etc? What’s fundamentally wrong with questioning policies and laws that are questionable or not acceptable?

A government is not a ’sheep farming’ co-operative. The right to govern is given by the majority of a population through fair and proper election. Any election won through manipulating the electoral boundaries and/or unwarranted changes of the constitution simply cannot be credible.

If the policies are really beneficial to the vast majority of the population, then why resort to all these unwarranted changes in the election system? A vast majority of the population would wholeheartedly be supporting the ruling party.

Well, the sentiment speaks for itself. Obviously, the support level has been declining over the past decades. PAP knows why and that’s why they have resorted to tweaking the system to unjustly secure their hold on power in parliament.

A ruling party that erects invisible obstacles and ridiculous laws to close all practical avenues of being challenged or questioned simply prove to the public that they are less than honourable and credible, and that the party does not have the consensus support of the people.

Lets discuss ‘Civil Disobedience’:

Trespassing: – When?

Contempt of court:
With so much controversy surrounding the process and the verdict, is it fair to pursue this course of judgement, which was heavily stacked against CSJ? With so many relevant questions disallowed during cross-examinations, can it be deemed a fair trial? The fact that LKY chose not to answer or given the priviledge that he don’t have to answer by none other than the judge, only fuels suspicion. Is this a fault of the people’s opinion or the court?

An aggrieved person cannot simply let a seemingly less than impartial court (as felt by the aggrieved party) to pass sentence without a robust challenge. Of course, the presiding judge has the final say. More importantly, the process and the judge’s decision are also subject to public scrutiny.

Was there fair play in this case? By netizens’ responses and points highlighted, the answer is obvious.

Illegal Assembly:
A law was enacted such that any group of 5 (or was it 3?) or more people can be charged with illegal assembly. Technically, the police can round up my family of 4 plus my aged mother, during our weekend outing, under this ridiculous law.

Technically, the MPs and their accompanying entourage on their usual rounds can be charged with illegal assembly too. We know why this ridiculous law was introduced. Is it a just and acceptable law?

Speaking in public/designated area without permit:
Did our MPs and ministers who spoke in public during their rounds, have a permit to speak? Or do they have the privilege to speak without a permit? Is it a just and fair law?

Attempting to leave country as a bankrupt without leave:
Well, he should had been penalised for it. Does this constitute civil disobedience?

Civil obedience would not be an issue if laws are justly enacted. We are too human to resemble sheep in the physical form but that does not mean we will not be groomed to be one.

Whether white sheep or black sheep, only those that can stand up to public scrutiny cannot be slaughtered like one.

@lim

Of course it is. The same number of voters apply whether it is a 84 member GRC or 84 single seats. It doesn’t increase the number of voters.

Then i think politicians paying the top dollars for campaign managers and election strategists are nuts since it doesn’t matter becuase it is just a redistribution of votes.

I thin you have not read news before 2001: George W Bush won the presidency in 2000 over Al Gore although the latter won the absolute number of votes. Why? Because electoral divisions such as the electoral college system means that electoral boundaries can just make the difference.

Lets look at Singapore: PAP won 82 out of 84 seats. That’s 97.61 % of the total number of seats. Yet, the party only received 66.6% of total votes. Going by vote share, the opposition parties could have won 33.3% of the seats in a proportional representation system given the 33.3% of votes they received. The first past the post system in Singapore means that electoral divisions is one of the most important factors as to how many seats you can get because it is a winner takes it all system. With 66.6% of the votes, PAP could have only about 55 seats in a PR system. Mere redistribution? I think you lack a thinking cap.

@lim

What is your opinion on the fact that the Burmese generals forcibly break Aung San Suu Kyi’s rallies on the grounds that she broke the law by speaking without a permit?

@ lim

Yes, I said that. Can you have an electoral democracy without one? Of course not.

Ah, it now becomes a question of what is an electoral democracy. But first, the fundamental question is, are votes important to an electoral democracy? Can you have an electoral democracy without votes?

Then all political scientists would have to call the former Soviet Union, China etc “electoral democracies”. After all, they have regular elections for the Supreme Soviet and the National People’s Congress and “patriotic” education have taught them the importance of their “people’s democracies”. Wow, well done, lim.

Hong Kong before 1985 under British colonial did not have any elections. But China since 1949 have regular elections including the recent one where Xi Jinping was elected as VP of China at the 11th NPC session. So China is a electoral democracy, in your definition? Is this notion of electoral democracy even meaningful in this sense when you compare the political landscape between Hong Kong before 1985 and the PRC? Electoral democracy is just a double-speak in order to divert meaningful debate in your case.

@lim

Anonymous said: the key here is, are elections ALONE meaningful if freedom of expression, free press, civil society is absent? We want the answer on this instead of one throwing out countless strawman arguments and red herrings.

You haven’t answer it. I don’t need lengthy explanations. Is it a YES or NO? Please grant us an answer.

@lim

You haven’t say anything about what you think of the Burma National Referendum on the new constitution. With the official tally of over 92% of votes for a yes, does it mean that Burma is a “electoral democracy”? And do you think the Burmese people know the importance of their votes? It seems that they do according to your arguments. And so that makes the whole referendum legitimate? Than Shwe must be beaming with delight upon hearing this:)

@lim

So whose responsibility is it to ensure that a vote takes place? An election has to be held but I would think it takes 2 hands to clap. At this stage, I can postulate that will be a circular argument approaching…

Answer: the hotly contested defunct single ward of Bradell Heights in 1991 but where is it in 1997? Oei, it becomes a part of Marine Parade GRC in 1997 with a walkover.

Harrison, sorry your post very long so I’ll deal with what I can and hopefully with the rest when i can…

Harrison said: “So, unjust laws that were initiated by the ruling party should be strictly followed without the right to question?”

No. The right to question is there. Sec 3(2) of the sedition act is an example of this. To follow is another issue. Who is to determine what is unjust? A murderer may find it just to kill someone. Does it mean that laws against murder does not apply to a murderer?

Harrison said: “Persistent questioning means anti-PAP, anti-govt, anti-social, divisive, psychopathic, lunatic, civil disobedient, vengeful, etc?”

No. That’s not my view but that’s personal.

Harrison said: “What’s fundamentally wrong with questioning policies and laws that are questionable or not acceptable?”

Nothing wrong. However, my question is, is mere questioning of policies and laws justified in breaking laws?

Harrison said: “A government is not a ’sheep farming’ co-operative. The right to govern is given by the majority of a population through fair and proper election. Any election won through manipulating the electoral boundaries and/or unwarranted changes of the constitution simply cannot be credible.”

That’s where I think the PAP government is very smart. The concept of free and fair is subjective. In the US, a person with more money has more influence. So in theory, a poor person can be severely disadvantaged. Yet, that is not sufficient to claim that US elections are not “free” and fair.

The PAP imposes law that may play to their strengths and disadvantages the opposition but nevertheless equally apply to them. The opposition will definitely claim that this is not fair. The PAP will claim it is. Nevertheless, in a vote, it is up to the voters to decide. Hence even the US state government has to acknowledge that Singapore’s elections at at least free, though fairness is subjective.

If the voters vote in the opposition, can the opposition enact legislation that disadvantage the PAP? Why not?

No election is truly 100% fair.

Harrison said: If the policies are really beneficial to the vast majority of the population, then why resort to all these unwarranted changes in the election system?

That you have to ask the Government.

Harrison said: A vast majority of the population would wholeheartedly be supporting the ruling party.

That you have to ask the vast majority of the population.

For the rest, I don’t really see a question that I need to answer. What I have read is your view on the laws which you regard as unjust and/or ridiculous. I respect that. The question remains, if others regard other laws as unjust/ridiculous eg some people may find NS unjust and ridiculous (as certain religious entities have), does it mean they are entitled to break it?

@lim

Can you have an electoral democracy without votes?

My answer to that will be: Can we have an authoritarian regime with elections and votes. YES. Communist China, Taiwan under the Chiangs, Zimbabwe, Belarus etc. Votes is not your sure ticket for democracy if you discount the political landscape.

@ anonymous

I said: “An electoral democracy may not mean just votes (that I agree)”

You even repeated that for me. Since you need a yes or no answer, the answer is no.

Anonymous said: You haven’t say anything about what you think of the Burma National Referendum on the new constitution. With the official tally of over 92% of votes for a yes, does it mean that Burma is a “electoral democracy”? And do you think the Burmese people know the importance of their votes? It seems that they do according to your arguments. And so that makes the whole referendum legitimate? Than Shwe must be beaming with delight upon hearing this:)

No, that is not what I said nor implied. Thanks.

Anonymous said: My answer to that will be: Can we have an authoritarian regime with elections and votes. YES. Communist China, Taiwan under the Chiangs, Zimbabwe, Belarus etc. Votes is not your sure ticket for democracy if you discount the political landscape.

You demanded earlier a yes or no answer, yet you won’t even give a simple yes or no answer to my question. I know you can have an authoritarian regime with elections.

I repeat, can you have an electoral democracy without votes? Are you saying YES?

@lim

No, that is not what I said nor implied. Thanks.

But didn’t 92% of the Burmese people voted for a yes? So they do understand the importance of their votes after all?

Anonymous: But didn’t 92% of the Burmese people voted for a yes? So they do understand the importance of their votes after all?

Hello. Were the Burmese voting to elect a government? Just because I vote to buy chocolate ice cream doesn’t mean I am choosing to vote in a new government.

I’m not even sure you know what you’re talking about or driving at now.

@lim

I repeat, can you have an electoral democracy without votes? Are you saying YES?

I wouldn’t even coin a term “electoral democracy” because to me the pertinent question is: is there genuine democracy? Having elections does not mean having democracy. You agreed on that too. Without other elements, democracy is meaningless. That’s why i am puzzled as to why you are so insistent on “electoral democracy” where elections is just one of the essential elements of democracy.

If you expect me to answer your fatuous question, try answering this question first: Can you have a free speech democracy without free speech? That’s the type of question you are asking me.

@lim

Hello. Were the Burmese voting to elect a government? Just because I vote to buy chocolate ice cream doesn’t mean I am choosing to vote in a new government.

So voting for a constitution is not important compare to voting for a government? More strawmans being thrown out….. Don’t you pick up a ballot paper to go to the polling booth to vote in a referendum too?

@lim

Having said the above, I do note with dripping irony, the very same people who criticise the use of statistics, will not hesitate to quote or support statistics or rankings from organisations like reporters without borders as if a holy gospel to support their contentions. Such contradictions are indeed part of life :-)

Didn’t it occur to you that you were the one who use statistics to rebut The Law in the first place. That’s what i call true irony and it is amusing to see how one can “self-rebutt” himself/herself.

@lim

Hello. Were the Burmese voting to elect a government? Just because I vote to buy chocolate ice cream doesn’t mean I am choosing to vote in a new government.

And if you aren’t satisfied, lets look at Iraq under Saddam Hussein. He got 99.9% of the vote in every elections held. So does Saddam Hussein practise electoral democracy?

@lim

I know you can have an authoritarian regime with elections.

Then why your immense undying interest for “electoral democracy”? Germany and Zimbabwe can both qualify for your notion of “electoral democracy”. So what use does the term “electoral democracy” serve?

Anonymous,

I understand from your post that you have absolutely no desire for an electoral democracy as you regard that as fatuous. My interest wrt an electoral democracy is plainly that, an interest. You can continue to condemn that interest and that’s your choice. You can regard that as unimportant and I respect that choice.

Thanks & Have a nice day…

@ ah keng, yes i agree and respect your view. I certainly do not think my views are better or more important than any on this forum and I have made any statements as such.

@lim

I understand from your post that you have absolutely no desire for an electoral democracy as you regard that as fatuous. My interest wrt an electoral democracy is plainly that, an interest. You can continue to condemn that interest and that’s your choice. You can regard that as unimportant and I respect that choice.

Thanks & Have a nice day…

I have absolutely FULL desire for a fledged democarcy that entails free and fair elections, an adequate system of checks and balances, the rule of law, freedom of expression, free press and a vibrant civil society. How about you?

By failing to define what you meant by “electoral democracy”, you have completely demolished your own argument. Do you include the US, Australia, Japan, Germany as “electoral democracies”? How about Russia, Zimbabwe, Belarus and Egypt? Are they your so-called “electoral democracies” as well? You expounded heavily and insistently on “electoral democracy” but you simply, for some reasons, refuse to define what you mean by that. How bizzare can it be when you refused to even define your sacred cow of “electoral democracy”?

And you have not answered on my reply to you about the so-called redistribution of votes @ on June 13th, 2008 1.13 pm

lim wrote“I know you can have an authoritarian regime with elections.” and“An electoral democracy may not mean just votes (that I agree)”
And then lim wrote “My interest wrt an electoral democracy is plainly that, an interest.”

I won’t condemn this weird, self-contradicting interest of yours. Feel free to indulge in your own cognitive dissonance

Of course i have a nice day being entertained with all the strawmen you have thrown at me so far:) No woories about that.

@lim

What is your opinion on the fact that the Burmese generals forcibly break Aung San Suu Kyi’s rallies on the grounds that she broke the law by speaking without a permit?

There is akward silence from you on this too. Have a nice day :)

Anonymous said: I have absolutely FULL desire for a fledged democarcy that entails free and fair elections, an adequate system of checks and balances, the rule of law, freedom of expression, free press and a vibrant civil society. How about you?

I too have an absolutely full desire for a democracy (not necessary fledged) that entails free and fair elections, an adequate system of checks and balances, the rule of law, freedom of expression, (I don’t need a free press or a Singapore press at all.), and a vibrant civil society.

I think my definition of civil society is a society where people don’t go around calling other people names or spew insults like strawmen, prostituting, weird, fatuous, sheep etc…. Apparently we have different views of what exactly does each word mean.

Anonymous: And you have not answered on my reply to you about the so-called redistribution of votes @ on June 13th, 2008 1.13 pm

Other than your insult claiming that I have not put on a thinking cap, I don’t see how my point that there are no increase in votes doesn’t apply. You cite US but the US uses an electoral system which is different from Singapore’s. It doesn’t change the number of Singapore votes so I don’t see what is the point you are making or a question that is asked.

I am tired of your very personal abuse so I am going to sign off. I have no doubt you will continue that abuse. I am glad that you have derive some entertainment from this. Some people do find it relaxing or entertaining to abuse others. I don’t share that need. Hope you understand.

@lim

“I think my definition of civil society is a society where people don’t go around calling other people names or spew insults like strawmen, prostituting, weird, fatuous, sheep etc…. Apparently we have different views of what exactly does each word mean.”

When did i use “prostituting”? That is a very SERIOUS allegation. “Strawman” an insult? Maybe a simple dictionary meaning can comfort you a bit:

A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent’s position.[1] To “set up a straw man” or “set up a straw man argument” is to describe a position that superficially resembles an opponent’s actual view but is easier to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent (for example, deliberately overstating the opponent’s position)

Other than your insult claiming that I have not put on a thinking cap, I don’t see how my point that there are no increase in votes doesn’t apply. You cite US but the US uses an electoral system which is different from Singapore’s. It doesn’t change the number of Singapore votes so I don’t see what is the point you are making or a question that is asked.

Other than US, if you do read, i use Singapore to further illustrate my point. The million-dollar QUESTION is: if redrawing electoral boundaries is just a mere redistribution of votes, why does PAP, winning only 66.6% of total votes, have 97.61% of the parliamnetary seats? (82/84) Of course, redrawing boundaries does not change the number of voters, even a three year old kid can tell. What is important is, electoral boundaries AFFECT THE FINAL TALLY OF SEATS WON. in a first-pat-the-post system like Singapore. That’s why i dismissed your point that electoral boundaries does not change the total number of voters as a mere strawman argument, trying to divert attention from the real debate.

@lim

I think my definition of civil society is a society where people don’t go around calling other people names or spew insults like strawmen, prostituting, weird, fatuous, sheep etc…. Apparently we have different views of what exactly does each word mean.

But your notion of civil society involves making false allegations against others. When did i ever use the word “prostituting” on you? Evidence? Proof?

Comments edited by moderator: This is getting personal. Pls avoid such comments. Tks.

@moderator

The problem is, lim made a false accusation saying that i abuse him/her with words like “prostituting”. I think lim owed a apology on that.

“Character assassination of the most uncharitable kind “.

Any fair minded person will not accept what Chua Lee Hoong wrote. The MM’s insulting remarks directed at Chee reflected a lack of decorum, and to me, is just disgraceful.

Those who question Chee and his activities are free to do so. However on the other hand, show some sense of fair play and let our readers have a clear idea where you stand with regards to our government’s relentless persecution of political opponents, detention of Chia Thye Poh for 32 years, economic policies impacting the people. Include your comments on the handling of the NKF scandal. What you think of Ho Ching, Mrs. Goh defending TT Durai but have yet to retract their statements even after he was exposed ? What about the MSK fiasco ? COI report ? Did WKS and the PM handled the situation to public’s expectation ? How about comments on whether there was conflict of interest regarding the triangular relationship that involved Ho Ching, Danabalan and the PM. I am sure many of the netizens who are more resourceful will have plenty to add.

The point is , we should not conveniently close our eyes to the regime’s way of doing things and look for faults in Chee or any other opposition member. They are risking so much and doing their best to make a difference. It is very easy to pick on Chee and run him down from a comfortable position. But it says a lot about person who dares to question the “emperor” and it also says a lot about a person who agrees with everything about the “emperor”.

The Straits Times is without doubt, the propaganda tool of the ruling party and the people have been putting up with this source of information for several decades.

Technology is helping to level the playing field in terms of information and communication and The Online Citizen is what the doctor ordered.

Lim,

[This part of your comments have been removed by TOC's moderator. Please do not make personal comments against fellow commentators. Stick to the issues raised in the article, please. Thanks.]

Here’s my reply to your reply “lim on June 13th, 2008 1.41 pm”:
1. Any sane commoner can easily judge what is just and unjust. It is only those who are partisan or with vested interest that interpretes according to their flavour.

2. Calling people names is not your view but that’s personal. Well said! ST journalists dutifully echo what some of our less credible leaders labelled on others, especially the opposition. Do you see the problem with ST journalists or do you agree with the way they are doing their duties? Their only mitigating factor is that they are doing what is expected of them from their management.

By the way, I thought you agreed with our leaders’ labelling of CSJ and his actions too?

3. Is mere questioning justified AS breaking laws then?

4. Calling PAP govt smart is too courteous and demeaning. PAP is not as credible as they make themselves to be. Scheming, cunning and immoral are words that are becoming more representative of the party, especailly their leaders.

That’s why we need a strong opposition in parliament to stop the rotting morals. You don’t have to be corrupt if you’re in a position to take what you want.

5. Others’ opinion of Singapore matters very little. The fact is they do not have an in-depth knowledge of how the PAP manipulates the elections. The most important and accurate opinion is that of Singaporeans’.

6. No election is 100% fair. Therefore, it’s important that election rules and the constitution cannot be amended without a referendum by Singaporeans.

7. To ask the govt for reasons is as good as asking a robber why he resorts to robbery.

8. Ask the majority of the population and the answer is “I did not have a chance to vote. I don’t even know which GRC I belong to.”

9. You don’t have to answer the other questions because they’re facts that can stand up to scrutiny.

There is no credibility in using absurb and totally inappropriate examples to counter arguments.

[This part of your comments have been removed by TOC's moderator. Please do not make personal comments against fellow commentators. Stick to the issues raised in the article, please. Thanks.]

[...] was the lawyer for the late Shanmugam Murugesu, who was hanged in 2007. He also spoke up for the SDP secretary-general when Mr Lee Kuan Yew called him a “near- [...]

[...] Even though he was known as the “father of counselling”, I got to know about him mostly through such forums and letters he wrote in defense of M. Ravi and Chee Soon Juan, here and here. [...]

[...] Letter to Chua Lee Hoong, criticising her mischaracterisation of Chee Soon Juan. [...]

[...] Here is an old letter from him. [...]