Shanmugam’s words sound like a veil threat to Singaporeans that anybody challenging the integrity of the courts will be charged. Shanmugam should review what actually happened during the trial, the cross examinations, etc. before making such a sweeping statement.

If I were Shanmugam, I would review all those defamation cases brought about by LKY, LHL and GCT against the opposition. Are they truly valid, proper and fair?
Of course, it depends on whether Shanmugam is self righteous nor partisan in the first place.

If I were Shanmugam, I would review those laws which were unconstitutionally amended and reverse the changes. Only then can Shanmugam and the courts expect Singaporeans not to question their integrity and independence.

The fire follows after the smoke.

“People must have confidence that the judiciary is independent…”

Independent? Dependent I beg to differ.
I was at the second day of trial between the Mr LKY / Mr LHL and Dr CSJ / Ms CSC.
And dear Mr Law Minister, I have lost some confidence and respect to Singapore’s judiciary system.
After the arrest of Mr Gopalan Nair, another big chunk of the confidence went down the drain.

I am proud to be a Singaporean, but am ashamed of my top leaders.

I am not qualified to judge the Singapore judiciary.

But, I always tot there should at least be a semblance of common decency. People don’t go around calling anyone prostitutes. Worse, some people actually applaud such actions or attempt to turn this into another human rights/political theatre (singaporeans aren’t dumb).

For myself, I am just disappointed that common decency is not that common. Apparently, the right to common decency is not even a human right.

There is a subtle difference between the word “prostituting” and “prostitute”,
as in the case of “selling” and “salesman”. An ordinary person can be “selling”
something but his occupation may not be that of a “salesman”.

So, don’t jump to conclusion and replace words that Gopalan had not said with
words that you may intent to cast a more negative picture upon his character than
what Gopalan’s intention might have been.

Be careful, don’t play with words. Nowadays, people are not that stupid to buy the
spinners’ spinning wholesale.

Again, someone tries to justify the unjustifiable.

Are you saying a person who sells isn’t a sales man? So a person who is prostituting isn’t a prostitute? So a person who says stupid things, isn’t stupid? Talk about spin. That’s new.

Go ahead, defend and applaud his actions.

Reminds me of clinton. I smoked marijuana but I didn’t inhale. I said she was prostituting but I didn’t say she was a prostitute.

lol. That’s spin. Singaporeans aren’t stupid.

As there is no challenge to the transcripts of the courtcase since it was posted, I can assume that it reflects what happened in the courtroom. Then I’m truly disappointed with the system

Lim,

It seems either you don’t really understand or pretend not to understand what Mr Nair is driving at. If you’re into secondary school debate, then excuse yourself from TOC.

If LKY can label CSJ a psychopath, what’s wrong with Mr Nair’s creative use of the verb, “prostituting?”

Perhaps, you need a change of mindset to keep up with the times.

Did I say that common decency isn’t applicable to anyone else? There will be similar people who will applaud anything that MM says. Doesn’t make what Mr Nair says right or acceptable.

If changing of mindset means I have to abandon what I think is common decency, my apologies but I can’t.

What I do observe is Mr Nair insulting a female judge who has never, as far as I know, called anyone anything. I personally find that it breaches common decency. Apparently, I’m the only one so far so maybe common isn’t so common.

Lim, take a look at Nair’s comments in context. The following is what he wrote, exactly, from his blog (http://singaporedissident.blogspot.com/):

“The following transpired during the last 3 days in court. The judge Belinda Ang was throughout prostituting herself during the entire proceedings, by being nothing more than an employee of Mr. Lee Kuan Yew and his son and carrying out their orders. There was murder, the rule of law being the repeated victim.”

Reading the above in context, it is obvious that Nair’s usage of the word “prostituting” is figurative — and he explains it (“by being nothing more than an employee”). He was not accusing Judge Ang of being a prostitute in the literal sense.

I would even go to the extent to say that the same people who think Nair is right to insult a female judge and applaud him, are the exact same people who condemn MM for calling Chee a psychopath. A rapes B so if B rapes A, that’s ok?So much for consistency, objectivity and I dare say, justice.

To me, it’s politics and spin. Just don’t expect Singaporeans to be dumb enough not to see it.

So can someone remind me how these actions are supposed to benefit the average Singaporean again…. that we are supposed to become well versed in the art of insults?

Selena, your explanation is not complete. If Mr Nair meant Ms as a mere employee, that would not have been insulting.

What Mr Nair as saying that the judge has sold herself to support the judgement against Mr Chee. It insinuates that Mr Lee is the pimp and Ms Ang is the prostitute that sells her body (doing the nasty deed) to pay the pimp. The word prostituting is used with the above intent because we know what prostitutes do.

A reasonable person would have said, Ms Ang being an employee is thus not capable of being independent in a case that involves her employer.

But Mr Nair, a lawyer, chose his words with care to give the exact impression that she was indeed a prostitute working for a pimp. Don’t expect an ordinary person to read such statements with filtered eyes.

The bottomline is “Just don’t expect Singaporeans to be dumb enough not to see it”, who is dumb in this case ? Read the Nair’s comments in context again.

Again, it is obvious Nair’s usage of the word “prostituting” is figurative — and he explains it (”by being nothing more than an employee”). He was not accusing Judge Ang of being a prostitute in the literal sense.

Anyone can claim black is white if enough people say it is. Sorry, that’s just the way I, as an ordinary citizen, read it.

I don’t go around saying I am prositituting myself working for my employer. You might think that is ok. But for myself, I say, I work for my employer. Thank you.

Gosh…

It’s only creative writing, can you people just chill? No wonder so lack of talent.

The judiciary needs to be independent to ensure adequate check and balance on the government, especially in our case where the executive and legislative branches (government and Parliament respectively) are to all intents and purposes synonymous due to the weak opposition.

The perception of a partisan judiciary does not augur well for any country, and whatever we have seen so far certainly do not help.

Gerald Giam,

I once asked a former Supreme Court judge why the courts always ruled in favour of PAP ministers who were suing opposition members. His reply was that most of those cases should have never been brought to court. Once they were, however, the judges had no choice but to judge according to the letter of the law, which in Singapore is very strict when it comes to defamation.

Sounds like the respond from the judge is to trying to avoid the question.

What a stupid answer. Of course judges, not only in Singapore but other jurisdiction, must rule according to the law. Since when is the role of a judge not required to rule according to the law?

Likewise, to say that the judges had no choice but to judge according to the law is like saying judges are a waste of time. I mean why not just let a computer just do the job!

No need to pay for all these expensive jobs.

Also, Gerald maybe you use ask the judge the question this way:

Lee Kuan Yew has often made what might be defamatory remarks — i.e. calling people Liars, etc. If a person sue on this basis what are their chances of wining? Or for that matter, why don’t people bring cases against Lee, when it is quite a clear-cut case?

Ladies and Gentlemen:

Why get so worked up? Individual’s POV on Nair’s comment on the judge will be construed differently. Lim, Selene, Harrison each made their point. In its full text, the content is certainly insulting, the word “prostituting” has a negative connotation and if you read it at a glance, it’s natural to link to a profession. I am by no means familiar with the judiciary system, therefore can express no views on whether that alone warrant for an arrest.

What I find disgusting is Nair’s challenging remarks and his cockiness expressed in the court room. He has relinquished his citizenship and to me he is not just challenging a person in this case Berlinda Ang or LKY. He is challenging the sovereignty of Singapore. Brush aside our differences pertaining to whoever or whichever political party, personnel we support in the court hearing, I for one will say to him that it is none of his business to interfere. If he thinks he really want to fight a cause for change, do it in the capacity of a Singaporean. Singaporeans do not need a foreign second class citizen voice.

Lim, what can I say, we’ll just have to agree to disagree on this issue. Last thing: my name is “Selene”, not “Selena”.

Sorry about wrong name use, Selene. I don’t expect anyone to agree with what I say. Thanks.

Sometimes difficult to chill in Singapore. Not everyone work in air con environment.

Observer,
I don’t really mind Nair fighting for a Singapore cause as a foreigner. If it works, then so it works.

War used to have men lined up against each other on a field and shooting it out. It was supposedly the ‘honourable’ thing to do. Any other tactics were deemed cowardly. Yet these ‘honourable’ tactics only favour the ones who were already strong. If this is what it takes to level the playing field, then why not?

Observer

“If he thinks he really want to fight a cause for change, do it in the capacity of a Singaporean. Singaporeans do not need a foreign second class citizen voice.”

Well, the Chees have done that and look at the results. Any difference ?

Dear Mr. Lim

For your information and plucked from some authoritative site : -

prostitute (USE BADLY) Show phonetics
verb [T] FORMAL DISAPPROVING
to use yourself or your abilities or beliefs in a way which does not deserve respect, especially in order to get money:
Some critics say he prostituted his musical skills by going into pop rather than staying with classical music.
[R] He went to work in Hollywood and was accused of prostituting himself.

lim,
G.N never use the word “Prostitute” but prostituting. Is alright to me to use prostituting in a different meaning. Check the dict. The second point is more relevant to what he really means and in overseas this word is commonly used to described politicians and officials.
verb [ trans. ]
1) offer (someone, typically a woman) for sexual activity in exchange for payment : although she was paid $15 to join a man at his table, she never prostituted herself.
2) • figurative put (oneself or one’s talents) to an unworthy or corrupt use or purpose for the sake of personal or financial gain : his willingness to prostitute himself to the worst instincts of the electorate.
MT

Why not use the more commonly used web dictionaries?

For your 1, I can find 3.

Dictionary.com

pros·ti·tute – ing.
–noun
a woman who engages in sexual intercourse for money; whore; harlot.
a man who engages in sexual acts for money.

verb
to sell or offer (oneself) as a prostitute.

Encarta

prostituting
- somebody paid for sexual intercourse: somebody who is paid to provide sexual intercourse or other sex acts

Merriam Webster dictionary – m-w.com

prostituting
to offer indiscriminately for sexual intercourse especially for money

Just because the chees did it and fail, doesn’t mean they are the only way. Has anyone ever considered if maybe a certain way of doing things isn’t working, maybe sometimes all it needs is to find another way of doing things.

I wondered how Singapore once got 4 MPs (could have been 5 if JBJ contested)? Why did that work? By luck? Didn’t the collapse coincide with a certain entry of a opposition politician.

I hardly think insults, by foreigner or otherwise, would change anything. Supporting foreigner insult to Singaporean the answer? Sigh….

Wah liao, I posted 3 dictionary meanings of the prostituting from dictionary.com, encarta and merriam webster.

Guess what, even just repeating the dictionary results in a “awaiting for moderation”. lol. Even this site automatically got filter. Impressive.

As usual, it Stinks to High Heaven…
However they try to ‘ice’ over issues, the smell still leaks out under all that icing.

The ‘government’ must realize (and RESPECT) that people in Singapore are NO LONGER, illiterate, naive, or gullible.

Singapore is sick. It will either bleed to death, or suffer a servere stroke one day.

“Unfortunately, what they don’t seem to realise is that every frivolous lawsuit they launch only serves to chip away at ordinary Singaporeans’ confidence in the judiciary.

At the end of the day, it is the court of public opinion that they have tried, but failed to convince.”

seems like ‘they’ know about this… and what are they doin’ on e ground now…

> 4 million people
>1 million Aliens
~3 million Locals

Soon…

> 6 million people
> 3 million Aliens
~ 3 million Locals

Do they care about the ‘ordinary Singaporeans’ confidence in the judiciary.’? Guess it might not matter eventually… and ‘they’ somehow know it… judging by recent ridiculous comments and opinions said and illustrated.

I hope to witness a change of good leaders in Sillypore in my lifetime. I’ve 50 years more to live… hope I can outlive all the Lees.

Mercier

Lim,

There’s really nothing wrong with the use of the word “prostituting” in Gopalan’s blog. If you choose to equate “prostituting” with “prostitutes” and say that it’s insulting then it’s because your mind is already prejudiced with the view that “prostitutes” are immoral people.

I think the word “prostituting” when used in the above-mentioned context means some sort of trading off for something in return, whether lawfully or otherwise. Hence it should not be regarded as insulting.

If some leaders are paranoid because they had been challenged, it only goes to show that they are unable to put up with a good fight without making use of the courts to rule in their favour. There was absolutely no necessity to lock people up. But when such leaders, frequently referred as political cowards, who make use of the govt machinery to take revenge on political opponents, then the use of such a word would be most appropriate to describe the situation.

Quote:I wondered how Singapore once got 4 MPs (could have been 5 if JBJ contested)? Why did that work? By luck? Didn’t the collapse coincide with a certain entry of a opposition politician.
Unquote

It is so clear cut that this suits Lee Kuan Yew’s scheme of things. To show to the world that there is a semblance of democracy when there is non. How do you explain the crazy inbalance between the % of opposition votes and the number of opposition mps. Something is seriously not right, don’t you think ?
As fare as JBJ is concerned, please do him the justice of checking up what he said about Lee Kuan Yew telling Devan Nair, after the 1982 Anson election in which JBJ won, that he will make JBJ crawled to him and beg for mercy.

I don’t see what’s the point of debating the meaning of “prostituting”. I think it’s fair to say that Nair intended to insult the judge.

The issue should be whether it is appropriate for the mighty government to press charges against an individual who makes such an inane comment which no one really cares about. If they had never pressed charges, Nair’s comment would have drowned out amidst the rest of all the web chatter. Now the whole singapore knows what he said, and I suspect many agree with him, if at least in part.

So are we suddenly supposed to think more highly of the judiciary just because Nair was charged?

continue yr blog, Mr Nair. u voice my frustration abt this garmen. imagine what will happen to a local who blog like u do. jail & what happen to our families then. can’t do any & also can’t speak against them. the best way is to get out of singapore and voice out like u do. to me ,u not chicken out , just play smart rather than wait for them to catch u. but u still have the guts to come back & F them. well done. since they are smart , u also not stupid. god bless u.

In our Constitution, there is supposed to be a check n balance and true independence between the 3 arms: The Executive Branch, the Judiciary, and (I think) the Legislature. Over 30 yrs, the Exec branch has grown very powerful arising from one man’s talents to be so persuasive as to carry electoral victories since independence. His control of the state’s apparachik is so enormous that altho I believe that there is no outright corruption and concrete proof, (I sense) there is a certain pervasive fear across and up and down the civil and legal service. And JBJ was sued for saying that there was a disquiet becuz of a certain beholdenness….I dare not repeat it in case, you know?

Anyway, let’s say we argue by way of hypothetical or analogous examples:

A is a judge but his salary and career is dependent on B. Suppose now that there’s a court trial involving the interests of B in which A is the judge. Normally, there is already a conflict of interest and wherever possible (tho in SIN it’s not), A can request to be recused from being the trial judge. As that is no longer possible, the system must be changed in such a way that A’s career and employment future is not dependent (or beholden, used by JBJ), on B. Or B’s controlling influence over A has not only to be seen to be but is actually broken.

Now that I have pointed out this, does it mean that I should face a defamation or libel suit from B or a contempt of court charge from A?

One can correct me and say in SIN’ case, that the PM recommends and the President approves. But that’s just being pedantic. Even the Prez is….oops!

Quote:I wondered how Singapore once got 4 MPs (could have been 5 if JBJ contested)? Why did that work? By luck? Didn’t the collapse coincide with a certain entry of a opposition politician.
Unquote
Unfortunately those days are no longer possible because of
1. the introduction of GRC representation since then, and
2. the incessant redrawing of the constituency boundaries which is released only a day or two before nomination day.
Thus the collapse has nothing to do with any particular opposition.

lim, I agree what you are driving at but somehow the word prostituting wasn’t meant that way in this context. Also calling someone a psychopath is as bad. Goes to show no one politics is nice. Singaporeans have to be discerning enough to know what’s going on before it is too late. Oh wait, it is too late.

By what measure do we call a branch of government independent or not independent? It seems that is the crucial question that needs to be answered. It is moot that there needs to be independence between the branches of government… but what exactly qualifies it as such?

I taught English before and it is obvious that the different interpretation is due to the different level of mastery of the English Language. Mr. Lim appears to be more suited to the engineering field where it is either black or white, 1 or 0 and is left brain dominant. Whereas those who are more into the creative arts and language loves the English language for its multi-level depth of meanings, where words can be uttered in a literal, figurative and metaphorical way. Since Mr Nair is a lawyer, it is reasonable to deduce that his is a piece of creative writing and hence his choice of words would be similar to Dr Catherine LIm’s choice of the word “Little People” as not meant to be taken literally. Such choices of words in creative writing is meant to add colour and heighten the sense of freshness and flavour of a writing, though it tastes “distasteful” to people without the acquired taste.

[...] The PAP leaders who have been bringing lawsuits against their political opponents all these years never cease to boast about the independence of our judiciary. Unfortunately, what they don’t seem to realise is that every frivolous lawsuit they launch only serves to chip away at ordinary Singaporeans’ confidence in the judiciary. At the end of the day, it is the court of public opinion that they have tried, but failed to convince. [Read Judging the Judiciary] [...]

Haha… I’m totally amused by this discussion.

“What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires — desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way.”
– Bertrand Russell

To live in sheep city, you need to understand and comply with a few rules. Rule number 1 : The Emperor’s needs always come first. Rule number 2 : When you have difficulties or doubts carrying out certain tasks , refer to Rule number 1. It all becomes very clear if you just view the judiciary in sheep city as “little people”.

TheOwl:
Ah.. but you overlooked one more rule made not by man, which can be refered to when one ecnounters hardship from the creator of Rules 1 & 2…

- Rule Alpha 1> EVERYONE, MUST DIE.

Unlike the writer, I have aboslutely no confidence in the impartiality of the Singapore Courts especially when it comes to political cases involving the leaders of the Singapore. History and past cases has evidently shown, to the contrary that the judiciary has bend over backwards. Ex- solicitor General Francis Seow, international law and human rights organisations such as Amnesty International have all made independent judgements on how the courts have been abused in such processes.

I have written in one of my recent blog posting on how the Singapore’s judiciary has totally failed in this aspect. Let us be really critical of what is going on instead of assuming that the problem lies with the nature of defamation laws…

Chee,
“Well, the Chees have done that and look at the results. Any difference ?”

I have made my comments in Farquhar’s “The Courtroom as theatre”. I hope that may shed light to your aforesaid concern.

Mun Kit,
I respect your POV. Likewise, I reserved the rights on mine as a SIngaporean. Yes, as much as I do not support the current governing party’s many other policies imposed, or whether I have reservations on the opposition parties or Singapore’s Judiciary System, it is nonetheless Singapore’s internal issues. With due respect and by no mean an antagonistic comment, I assume you would not like others to meddle with your internal family issues. Do you?

Observer,

If your neighbour is beating his child half to death, will you stand by your words of non-interference?

If there is a capability gap, shouldn’t there be reason for external assistance to solve that gap so that internal capabilities can be strengthened in the long term for the good of all parties concern

CelluloidReality,

If this is my fellow “Singaporean” conducting such inhumane act within “SIngapore”, you bet I will interfer without a finch. I am sure you or Mun Kit or any caring fellowman will not hestitate to do so. As to how I interfer, it will depend on the severity and the facts behind the cause. It could be reasoning, it could be getting the appropriate authority to handle the situation. Afterall, it is still a fellow citizen’s dispute and the best I can do is to try to prevent further damage caused to the poor kid “in context”.

The difference of the matter cited is the Sovereign right of a country (that is my POV and you have every right to differ). So you are telling me that it is okay for an outsider (outsider means non-Singaporean) to interfer in Singapore Sovereign Issue? If this is advocated by the majority of Singaprean or for that matter reader of this blog, then I think we will be very busy voicing our concerns on a mountain of human rights or judiciary issues happening in the world.

As I have clearly stated that there will be difference in POV in any issues, that is part and parcel of life. There are obviously many national issues in our mind that we hope to get resolve, however, these should remain issues to be resolve by no one except Singaporean. Do I see any immediate change even after so many concerned citizens had voiced their opinions (some constructive, some just vend their anger and what not)? The answer is “No”, but do I loose faith and will I not continue to live my life without these changes that we hope for? Life goes on. Given time and enough of constructive input, be it through blogging or in other avenues, if it is warranted for, it will find its way. You cannot deny the fact that Singapore has changed from decades ago. Its progressive but may be not as fast as many impatient citizens would like to see.

I said it before in my other comment on other blog topic and I will repeat it here with an extended view. A country will never survive without the support of its citizens. A political party will never survive without its constituencies. If the government voted in is constantly defying the citizens who had voted them in and if they persist in deploying policies that are hurting its voting citizens, and if the citizens somehow found worthy alternative (meaning contesting political party with issues that are of substance, contestant that are upright, genuinely public minded), I believe the ballot is the best answer.

Well, we are not saints when it comes to commenting on other nations’ internal affairs as well.

In any case, the notion of sovereignty is fluid and changing with times, as we speak.

You have a good point about the process of the ballot box, but the electoral process is but the procedural portion of democracy, and it does not do more than uphold procedural norms.

I fully concur with you CelluloidReality. No one is saint and I personally do not condone people poking their nose into other country’s sovereign issues unless they are requested for to comment.

Yes, the world is getting ever smaller with the internet and it is exactly the point that for a small city state like Singapore, we have got to exercise our civic duty with due diligence and in a civic manner. Brawl actions will only make matters worse. Whether the majority of us agree or not, with no sizeable natural resources to back us up and only human resources, economic stability takes priority above other matters. However, does that mean we have lost our sensibility? I speak for myself and the answer is a resounding “NO”.

As to my point on balloting, it is up to indivdual voting Singaporean to decide. Again, regardless of how things are now, will it stay “as is” 5, 10, 20 years down the line? It very much depend on the quality of contesting candidates and their proposed election issues. Change that we all expressed, hope and wish for may or may not happen in one or two elections from now, but I have no doubt that it will change (I am still positive on this) and time will attest to it.

When the integrity of our judiciary is being judged by Singaporeans and foreign observers alike, it is even more important to handle the case in an impartial and neutral stance – so that observers can note the lack of prejudice or bias.

I felt that the conduct of the case, and the subsequent follow up actions failed to clear the doubts on the independence of our courts; and this failure is the loss of our judiciary, and the loss of Singapore.

Chee was never a real threat to begin with – the baggage of various mistakes has shattered any mainstream credibility he possessed when he first started. With Chee’s temperament, give him enough rope and he would have hung himself on the court of public opinion, and the judiciary would have come out smelling like roses.

Instead, we have senior government leaders stooping to exchange insults; and we have to kick a person when he’s down and on the floor – applying heavy fines to an already bankrupt to help him rouse public sympathy.

Let’s rope in the mass media too to vilify Chee too since we are at it – does anyone really think that Chua Lee Hoong’s article will persuade converts to condemn Chee? Or will her article provoke an adverse and opposite effect similar to the backlash to the establishment by the overkill on the James Gomez during the election form incident?

My impression is that our leaders are sorely lacking from lessons in subtlety. A nudge, some careful restrain and a step back at appropriate times will often reap more returns than blind headlong charges capitalizing solely on force superiority.

Hi Observer,

With regards to your stand on G.N., are the pink IC and red passport the only things that make us Singaporean? I’ll definitely remain Singaporean at heart even if i were to move somewhere else. What about you?

Regards.

Curious,
Even your questioning a personal, nevertheless I am glad to response.

The identity Card and Passport fundamentally defines which Sovereign Country you belong to unless you have other description.

When you say: “I will definitely remain Singaporean at heart even if I were to move somewhere else”, may I calrify you are referring to a PR status or? I believe you know there is aa obvious difference in surrendering your citizenship for another and obtaining a PR status in any country.

I cannot concur on your point if you have trade your citizenship for another. By this action, you have given up all your given rights (albeit not many of us “Singaporean” knew our basic rights including me, and some may argue it is not worth a thing). Do you call yourself American or Singaporean or whatever country that you have obtained your citizen through naturalization?

As far as I am concerned, I have lived and worked in the United States for over 5 years and could have continued to do so and become a PR or being naturalize, I too have lived and worked in Thailand and Hong Kong over a period of 10 years and could have continued to do so and become a PR or being naturalize but I still possess my pink IC and red passport even I do not fully endorse some of the many rules and policies. Why if you might ask? My humble answer to you is; I am not a quitter. You just don’t run away from problems. Do you? Is Singapore really that hopeless is my question to you.

Observer,

I was referring to giving up singapore citizenship. With regards to your statement that when one gives up his citizenship, he has given up all his rights, I agree that he has given up his legal rights, right to vote etc. But my point was actually referring to his right to care and his right to voice out his opinions.

With the above point, i was trying to say that family, friends, experiences and even singlish make us more singaporean than our NRIC, birth cert or passport can. Yes, i know this isn’t the case legally – but i’m sure you get what i’m driving at.

Now, i disagree with how you seem to have equated migrating somewhere with being a quitter and running away from problems. (Do correct me if i’ve misunderstood you) Many of the folks that i know and who migrated were very successful here. In fact, it is because of their success that they were able to move. Pastures could just have been greener overseas. Lets not judge them.

To answer your question at the end, Singapore is defintely not hopeless. But many in Singapore need a renewed sense of hope.

Regards.

Many oversea businesemen and oridinary foreigners had the views that the Legal System in Sinkapore is fair only if they did not invovle any PAP’s interest/members. Not an inaccurate statement. Many of the past libel cases if they were conducted in USA or London will not produce the same results. Genearlly, in the West, politician will challenge the accuser to an open debates. We had adopted the British paliamentary system but sadly we are creating a unique form of silencing the opposition, bringing with it a damage judiciary in some quarters. Democracy strength is the open debate, hoping to drawi in the oridinary voters to take an interest. Is that why Sinkaporean had shown apathy toward all thing political? A few Singaporean had taken up politic in the opposite camp and the result so far had convinced many Singaporean they were right to stay away from it. Is this the intension of the gahment?