Anthony Yeo, Consultant Therapist at the Counselling and Care Centre, wrote the following letter to the Straits Times political editor, Chua Lee Hoong.
TOC thanks Anthony for allowing us to publish it here.
Morning Chua Lee Hoong,
I cannot deny how appalled I was reading your article on Chee Soon Juan (ST June 7).
It appears to be an unwarranted scathing attempt at character assassination of the most uncharitable kind.
This attack culminated in your amateurish attempt at offering a diagnosis of his personality that is flawed in all ways as a diagnosis of personality disorder requires a fuller expose of that which constitutes a disorder.
MM Lee Kuan Yew decided to engage in such denigration of Chee Soon Juan on more than one occasion. His name calling of him as being a psychopath reflects his ignorance as to what a psychopath is.
In any case, such labelling with psychological nomenclature merely exposes his truncated understanding of what a psychopath is, of which Chee does not in any way qualify.
This goes for you as well in your rather denigrating, demeaning and dismissive description of Chee..
You have chosen to highlight whatever you consider to be flaws in his approach and even worse, his character.
And yet, those of us who know him and have worked in some ways with him know otherwise.
I do wonder if you would do yourself, and the public for whom you wrote that article, a favour by embarking on a careful research of everything else he stands for and all that he has been doing without fanfare and publicity. And having done that, would you then have the integrity to offer another perspective of him, another “truth”, that you have so carefully sought to present in your article.
I would have thought there could be a little more charity in commenting on Chee rather than indulge in augmenting the already prejudicial opinions of this man.
One would have thought that any person regardless of what he does deserves respect and regard for human worth and dignity.
In any case, if you do wish to be better acquainted with what would present as an anti-social disorder, I would gladly assist on the basis of my more than 36 years of psychological work with disturbed people.
Anthony Yeo
Consultant Therapist
Counselling and Care Centre
—————
A copy of Chua Lee Hoong’s article can be found here: “The squandered potential of Chee Soon Juan“.
—————
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?
@ 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.
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?
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.]
Interesting blog:) I look forward to further information.