[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.]

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.

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.

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.

“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.

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.

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 :)

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.

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 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?

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?

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.

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?

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.

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.