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“.
—————
HELP keep the voice of TOC alive!
If you like this article, please consider a small donation to help theonlinecitizen.com stay alive. Please note that we can only accept donations from Singaporeans. Thank you for your assistance.Do you have a flair for writing? Volunteer with us. Email us your full name and contact details to theonlinecitizen@gmail.com
“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 ?
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.