Update (July 1): The Singapore Democratic Party has responded to Mdm Yeong’s letter. Click here.
Andrew Loh
“Singapore upholds free speech and the right to disagree, subject to the law”, Minister Mentor’s press secretary, Mdm Yeong Yoon Ying, said in a letter to the Wall Street Journal (WSJ).
She was responding to the WSJ’s article titled, “Democracy in Singapore”, published in the paper on June 26.
Referring to the recent court case brought against the Singapore Democratic Party, she said that “the case had nothing to do with political freedom”. Instead, “it was for defamation arising from the Chees’ false claims that Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong and Lee Kuan Yew are criminals and corrupt.”
Saying that “Singapore upholds free speech and the right to disagree”, she explained that “many opposition politicians routinely criticize government leaders, but are not sued because they have not uttered slanderous falsehoods.”
“Singapore‘s laws must be decided by Singaporeans, not by foreigners like Gopalan Nair, who is a U.S. citizen, or by the foreign media. Foreign media are entitled to report and comment on what is happening in Singapore, but they circulate here subject to Singapore law. They have no right to defame, to give a skewed account of court proceedings, or to engage in Singapore politics, for example, by campaigning for their version of Western style “democracy” for Singapore”, she said.
In the earlier article, the WSJ said that “Lee Kuan Yew’s Singapore can rightly be proud of many achievements, but full democracy is not one of them.”
Read Mdm Yeong’s letter here.
Read WSJ’s “Democracy in Singapore” here.
—————-
“Singapore upholds free speech” – MM Lee’s press secretary
Reminds me of another famous quote by Henry Ford:
“The Customer Can Have Any Color He Wants So Long As It’s Black”
RH:
1. I hope Dr CHEE finds the money to apply to the courts to sue LIE KY and his spokeswoman. This is such a clear case of defamation, outright lying and deliberate, premeditated falsification of what Dr CHEE DID NOT say, that even the most kangaroo judge in Singapore — and they are the world’s best in this — cannot but award the case and stupendous damages to Dr CHEE. With the world watching, and the court audio recordings available as evidence, Dr CHEE CANNOT lose, this time.
2. Finally, LIE KY slipped up and allowed his spokeswoman to commit the ultimate crime, that of STUPIDITY. Anyone now doubt he is SENILE and no longer in charge of his mind, moods and mental processes? The End is nigh. Dr CHEE better sue before LIE KY dies. Anyone knows if, once a lawsuit is started, and the defendant dies, can the lawsuit continue AGAINST HIS ESTATE, which I estimate to long exceed S$1 billion, every $ corruptly stolen from us and not honestly earned.
“Having lost, Dr. Chee in open court then called the Singapore leaders “murderers, robbers, child molesters” and “rapists.” ”
Look like everything has finally come to light. Look like Yeong Yoon Ying
Press Secretary to Minister Mentor Singapore , has been putting outragenous words into Dr Chee’s mouth to justify their oppressive act against Dr Chee.
http://yoursdp.org/index.php/component/content/article/1-singapore/566-attacks-by-lee-kuan-yew-getting-weirder-and-weirder
Dr Chee denies having saying those words, and ask the government for evidence. The government can produce video of James Gomez during election now let’s see if the government can produce transcript and records that shows that Dr Chee says those offensive statement otherwise this government coffer is just fabricating statement.
Madam Yeong,
You know what? Go earn your keep. Ask your boss what kind of arrangements he would like for his grave when his time comes.
My suggestions will be a company of Gurkhas , (make sure they don’t brawl on duty) fanned out in a circle to a distance of 300 meters to guard it 24/7.
You know why? Because the vandalism laws with it’s inhuman penalties is not going to deter many who would want to desecrate his memory.
I know I’m going to cry the day he passes on. After all I grew up under his shadow. I was in awe of him like many of my generation. He never failed to mesmerise me when I listen to his speeches. But he failed to live up to one rule. Leave when you are on a high. His legacy would have been on par with Lincoln if he had made that decision.
But he would not let go. He ended up looking like Suharto in some ways. Ways that he answered international reporters when asked what went wrong with Suharto’s rule. He said Suharto started out as a hero but ended up thinking he’s a king with all the assumed rights. Guofu, you should look into a mirror when you said that. But it’s too late now.
I have a comment or two on ‘full democracy’.
Which is a fully democratic nation? Since some of us are so fond of looking to the nations of the West, namely, the US or those of Western Europe, for democracy, which of these practice full democracy?
I know what full democracy is. Full democracy is a nation running riot on itself. Iraq was fully democratic during the war. People were screaming and shouting all sorts of things on the streets and soldiers were opening fire. That, IMHO, is full democracy. Anyone can do and say anything without reservation.
(Edited)
Some remarks were also made at some forum recently about the attractiveness of the things that come with new media over the textual form, and about how people must seize on the opportunities that come with that to (in the words of the sub-editor) ‘change how politics is conducted’. I cannot disagree with that, only that you have to extremely cautious not to be interpreted as having an intention, for instance, to provoke racial and religious feeling. You have to be careful as well not to be making remarks that come across as being perverse threats to national security. Most of all, and here, a tiny step in the direction of ethics and real values, you have to be careful not to break the law when someone else does, or is believed to have had. You can’t break the law in the name of God, nation or community. Remember this by heart, even as you seize upon the opportunities that come with new media.
Glad that Chee has clarified, so lets wait for the response, if it ever comes.
All these talk about freedom of speech, accountability, transparency, honesty , intregrity etc and finally the claim that the politicians have not become rich but Singapore has, is really making me wonder, if anyone knows or has ever speculated how much the old and woman and family and friends are worth. Not disclosing Singapore’s reserve might be in the sake of national interest but for individual I cannot understand.
Another thought which has really bothered me is that, they raised the GST to help the poor and collected a few billion in surplus. Now they have helped the rich by abolishing estate duty overnight and gave up $75m in tax. I just cannot understand the rationale given that estate duty will prevent investments in Singapore. Does someone come to Singapore to die and leave all their money to the beneficiaries. I think I must be an idiot who simply cannot understand first world economics.
“Not disclosing Singapore’s reserve might be in the sake of national interest but for individual I cannot understand.”
No one can understand it because the major selfish reason is to prevent the citizen asking for government help when they know the government has kept so much money as reserve. As for reserve for what reasons, you should know better. Didn’t LKY time and time again make it clear to anyone that citizens are to their own ? I wonder what the government for, when they keep extracting money from the citizen. They must have treated the citizen as instant CashOnLine.
the coffers enjoy the currently benefit, salary, and perk while asking the citizen to eat bitter pill and delay gratification. By then when you reach retire age and find money shortage, do you think the coffers that originally implement the policies be around to explain and responsible to you ?
If your country is strong financially, they don’t have to be afraid of speculation, of course, only when the financial is fabricated by MSM and cannot stand scrutiny.
In reading the published response from CSJ to AWSJ, I am just curious why only LKY and his counsel has possession of the transcript and recording? Shouldn’t CSJ and his counsel accorded with the same rights to have the transcript and recording? Or the entire transcript and recording is kept with the court?
Can someone from the legal profession shed some lights to this? Surely we concerned common citizens who upheld and exercise our highest regard to the sacred doctrine of integrity would like to know what really went on so that we will not be misleaded. Thanks.
For curiosity I just did a Google search to look for OJ’s 97 infamous case, the full transcript can be read online. Even Jones vs Clinton’s 98 contempt hearing case is available for public viewing. So it is very natural for any commoner who had no knowledge of law to derive the conclusion that this is public information. Aren’t this parts and parcels of grooming the nation’s people to be more gracious and far-sighted in our thinking? I am very confused now.
Anyone can view transcripts at any Singapore court (subject to payment) so long as it is not restricted by the judge (and it is not in the SDP case). Restriction is applied generally to protect the victim (eg in rape cases), protect sensitive information (eg defence).
The issue is on the republication of such transcripts without approval (copyright issue).
Can you imagine if a rapist, just to spite the victim, releases the full transcript in the public domain….. That is why there are controls in place.
Also, often when it is done without approval, it is used precisely to show a subjective side of the proceedings or taken out of context just to prove a point.
Whether that applies to the SDP, I’d leave the ordinary forum readers to decide.
Dear lim,
Thanks for the information. Appreciate it very much.
“Anyone can view transcripts at any Singapore court (subject to payment) so long as it is not restricted by the judge (and it is not in the SDP case). Restriction is applied generally to protect the victim (eg in rape cases), protect sensitive information (eg defence).”
I agree the part on protection for some specific case that may otherwise inflict further pain such as rape victims…etc. However, when one can only view such information strictly in the court premise is something that can be improved.
Certainly, prior to the advent of internet, I believe this may be the only source of information dissemination and is reasonably understandable (no agreement on the payment though as I believe tax payer funding are used for court proceedings?) Singapore being one of the top advocates in Advance Technology in the world surely will not find any difficulty in converting the transcripts into electronically available medium for interested public, agree?
As to the jurisdiction of what is to be considered approved public information, that is the thin grey line synonymous to the proclamation of the now questionable response to ASWJ queries on the CSJ case where the defendant had acknowledged that it was, allowed me a fabrication..
Being curious as ever since the advent of internet, I ploughed through the information available on net and came across this http://travel.state.gov/law/info/judicial/judicial_663.html and had me pondering whether it has anything to do with it. Of course, I have absolutely no knowledge of the law therefore I cannot make a conclusion as to whether there is any such relation. I certainly would hope our kind gracious fellow mates from the legal professional will help to educate us ignorant lot.
There is a certain relation on this issue to governmental preaching years ago to the general public to be more gracious and instigate the promoting of harmonious living amongst its multi-racial citizenry. An otherwise ignorant citizen that may not have access or understand the implication of such rules may impede a person’s growth path and may result in accidentally infringed on the otherwise thought as common knowledge by the intellect that landed this person in the custody of the government. Agree?
Singaporeans are not politically ignorance. Surely, if such information is conveyed to the layman where we can be made aware of, I think the political landscape in Singapore would be a more interesting arena where common citizenry participation will be more helpful to the growth of the nation.
A truly matured first world country is where your citizenry participation is keyed in fostering a better livable society that cares about the issues that had an impact not only to their daily lives but also to the betterment of its government. Ignorance of citizenry genuine voices will only lead to the down fall of any country in a matter of time. No country will survive perpetually without the support of its voting citizenry.
Wah, I thought singaporean all very quiet and don’t talk much about government and their policies. Like everyone all agree and support them. With this internet thing, all of them vomitted so much of unhappiness that has being bottled up and contained. Lucky you people have internet to voice up, if not all have heart attack and die. Any link with many recent cases of sudden death in singapore? Thanks to all the elite uncaring face leaders & their families for all the support.
The MM press secretary should resign over her gross unfounded remarks on “murderers and rapists”. The police and public prosecutors should investigate her for such seditious remarks and for bringing disrepute to the country.
Dear Lim,
“As to the jurisdiction of what is to be considered approved public information, that is the thin grey line synonymous to the proclamation of the now questionable response to ASWJ queries on the CSJ case where the defendant had acknowledged that it was, allowed me a fabrication.”
Should read…
“As to the jurisdiction of what is to be considered approved public information, that is the thin grey line synonymous to the proclamation of the now questionable response to AWSJ queries on the CSJ case where the accused had counter-responded that it was, allowed me a fabrication..”
My sincere apology.
.
64) Observer (SG-HK) on July 3rd, 2008 11.33 am
“A truly matured first world country is where your citizenry participation is keyed in fostering a better livable society that cares about the issues that had an impact not only to their daily lives but also to the betterment of its government. Ignorance of citizenry genuine voices will only lead to the down fall of any country in a matter of time. No country will survive perpetually without the support of its voting citizenry.”
Very well said. Political awareness should not be the exclusive domain of only politicians but also in each and every citizen.
Many many years ago, similar remark such as this was made by one of the talented ones that if we want to comment on politics we should join some political party.
Hi Observer
Thanks. Understood you the first time.
Best Regards
Dear love Singapore,
Thank you. I have been curled up in my personal world for too long. Like many others before me in the early days, we kind of understand there is a certain sacrifice you had to make in the name of progress. Also, in those days, there were no such impacting medium such as internet to allow us to openly express our views that may or may not had made any difference. It is only through published information, radios, television, and word of mouth. Sometime there are conflicting version of the hear se stories.
I am one of the many who quietly agreed fully in the older days where a majority of our citizenry are less literate and not wide read therefore we may not have see the bigger picture and leave the top leaders to decide the best policies in terms of the country economic progress. That is without a question a reasonable assumption to make. But I too hold believes that there was never short of suggestions by few in between intellects.
The sad fact that has been played out time and again that even many of these voices, previously expressed whether in written form or through other available medium were either cast aside or deemed as a challenge to the superior thinking of the top leaders.
Indeed time have changed and when more and more people are educated and well read, particularly with the advent of internet, it makes it easier to convey ideas second to the speed of light. The top leaders may have underestimated the sharing of information by these educated citizenry with their parents, spouse, friends, colleagues and even fellow citizenry what they have acquired to make better informed decision.
I hope the top leaders realized that the voices are not a coup d’etat to their supremacy; merely it is the citizenry genuine concerns for the betterment of our society and the country as a whole. Why would anybody care to comment if they are not even concern on an issue, let alone these are Singaporeans?
I too hope the younger ones too put aside some time to engage yourselves in understanding more of the happenings that is surrounding you and actively sort to provide your ideas to help better the lives of the needing ones and for the betterment of this country. Exercise a little more respects and care to your fellowmen and all living kind. Action speaks louder than words. Perseverance will withstand the test of time.
The lesser regulating rules and laws that can be otherwise removed in this 21st century that globalization is at the driver seat, the better freedom is allowed for its citizenry to share their concerns that may help shape an even better future of this country which virtually had zero resources other than its citizenry.
In my naïve thinking, when you are totally free to express without fear, one can never underestimate what wonderful ideas may come out of it even if initially it may seemed to be confrontational and deviates from the preconceived social norm. Obviously, there are always tow sides to a coin, but again, this is the very essence of anything human nature.
RH:
1. This is how Dr CHEE can sue the pants off and wipe the evil grin off LIE KY’s face, once and for all, and permanently. I believe God’s hand is writ large all over these series of absolutely unbelievable events.
2. First, Dr CHEE must sue. I know most Singaporeans are fearful of LIE KY, having had Fear deliberately written into their minds from the cradle, and Dr CHEE is no different. So, he must find the courage first, then the money for the court deposit to begin his lawsuit.
3. The first thing to do is to announce asap THAT HE WILL SUE LIE KY. The longer Dr CHEE delays calling a press conference to announce this intention, the weaker his case becomes. If he takes a long time to announce he will sue, it will seem that he has no case or a weak case, or just making things up opportunistically. Worse, LIE KY may die. So, immediately begin the lawsuit process to ESTABLISH that there was criminal wrongdoing on the part of LIE KY. So, even if LIE KY dies, his estate may have to continue his defence [get legal advice on this].
4. The public announcement and a proper legal submission of the suing intention to the courts will be enough. THEN Dr CHEE MUST SUE THE WALL STREET JOURNAL FIRST, IN AMERICA, WHERE THE WSJ IS BASED.
5. This will be a ‘friendly’ lawsuit, to establish the case legally IN AMERICA first, so that its legal findings and quantum of damages will then establish legal and monetary benchmarks for the Singapore courts when Dr CHEE sues in Singapore.
6. Dr CHEE will only accept enough damages from the WSJ to pay off all his costs, and nothing else, except maybe US$1 as a token. However, the WSJ must not be allowed to settle out of court quietly, as the main intention of suing the WSJ is to publicise the entire case worldwide, to give LIE KY the publicity he so craves. So the hearings and lawyers submissions must proceed until judgements and verdicts.
7. With the WSJ sued successfully, Dr CHEE can then sue LIE KY in Singapore, using the entire court proceedings in America against the WSJ as precedent both legally and financially as benchmarks and guidelines. This will make it almost impossible for any Singapore kangaroo judge to rig the case like LIE KY rigged the 1963 GE, the 1997 Cheng San GRC election and most probably also the OTC Presidential election.
8. And please, Dr CHEE, when you face LIE KY in court again, please don’t let him get away with similar remarks like “See, even the SDP doesn’t believe I rig elections.” [Note he never said, "I don't rig elections."]. You CHEEkened out that time but now God has given you a second chance. Don’t blow it. You don’t win against the strongest opponent in the world with feeble, half-measures. Go the whole hog. Live up to the brave words and quotations in your Blog.
For the record, as reported by the Straits Times, here is what transpired leading to the allegations that Dr Chee called the Lees “rapists”, “child molesters”, and so on.
Straits Times
May 29
Home 4
During the last few minutes of Senior Counsel Davinder Singh’s closing submission:
Mr Singh: “And to conclude on Dr Chee’s submissions, he says that he doesn’t wish Mr Lee Kuan yew and Mr Lee Hsien Loong ill. In that same breath, he says he stands by The New Democrat article, which alleged that they are ‘criminals, corrupt, and covered up matters in the NKF’. And under his breath, he’s now just said ‘murderers and robbers’.”
Dr Chee: “And rapists, too, you might as well throw it in, you know, right? Child molesters.”
Mr Singh: “And this is the man who says: ‘I don’t wish them ill’.”
———–
Dear Andrew,
Thanks.
OMG, Within the context of ST report, technically speaking that can be alleged that CSJ utter those words in open court. Really twisted! (sighx10)
70) Observer (SG-HK) on July 3rd, 2008 2.54 pm
Superb and well explained article.
Well, maybe age has indeed mellowed a lot of us in the ways we see things around us. Good that we have become more discerning but equally sad that we have somehow found out a little about the truth – the way we define it of course.
They must be ready to empower the citizens and have confidence in them and not assume that higher-than-thou attitude which has the belittling effect on the citizenry.
Singaporeans are a sensible lot. This power just has to be expended in a healthy manner in terms of political engagement. Those people up there must not believe they are the only ones holding exclusivity on talents & sensible minds and without them, everything will in ruins. The country must be strong (everyone in general) and not only some selected or previleged group.
Your contribution is invaluable and hope you would continue doing so here.
Dear I love Singapore,
Thank you for your compliments. There are citizenry like patriot has better wisdom and could easily be a model for most of us to learn from him. I am just trying hard to follow his foot steps.
Yes indeed as we aged, supposedly our fire in the belly should somehow subsided, unfortunately for some, we thought he would have mellowed down after all these years of fighting. I just wonder in his personal capacity how he defines wealth? It certainly would be interesting to see it in a different perspective.
I am appalled…Shouldn’t our ministers spend more time closing the wealth divide between the rich and the poor instead of sueing here and there????!????
Oh man, our country is growing sick…everything they talk about now is money, money and MORE MONEY!!!! What is their REAL motive for increasing ERPs, GST, etc etc…GOD knows man!!!!
And Oh! What about our freedom of speech? Setting up the speakers corner but everything we say must get their approval….Sounds like some “puppet” show…Wat about the opposition parties? Everything they do might incur the wrath of THE SINGAPORE PARTY anytime and get sued again…N the court cases continues…
mkta posted :”I know what full democracy is. Full democracy is a nation running riot on itself. ”
Did you get this information from the discredited Singapore Mass Media ? Well with the Leegime so afraid of Singaporeans knowing what the real goodness of true democracy, freedom and human rights, it is not surprising that many ignorant and ill informed Singaporeans have such screwed up idea of genuine democracy.
Let me just try to educate you if you are prepared to learn what genuine democracy is all about.
Democracy is a system where the government is by the people and for the people. It is a system where the government is elected by the citizens to manage the nation for the benefits of all the citizens. People are not free to commit crime. Anyone, irregardless of status, position or wealth, who committed a crime in democratic society are charged and if found guilty, punished.
The problem in Iraq is not due to the democratic system of government. It is the result of the USA mishandling of the country after removing Saddam Hussein. The total break down of law and order was the result of the American disbanding Saddam’s Security agencies without a proper replacement. So there was no police or security to enforce the law. The situation is a difficult and complicated one, just like any situation after a war. However the Americans are learning and improving.
There is now a democratic government. It may be weak but it is functioning and slowly gaining strength. For many years after Lee Kuan Yew took over as PM in 1959, Singapore was not a stable and secure place. Situations were not so secure up to as late as the 70′s. From 1959 to 1963, there were strikes, riots, gangsterism and high crime rates. 1963 to 1970′s there were Indonesia confrontation. Indonesian special forces blew up McDonald House killing a few Singaporeans. There were also the a number of cases of bombs being planted in various places.
When Singapore seperated from Malaysia, we only had a few hundred part time PDF to rely on to defend Singapore. So in the early days, Singapore is not as stable and secure as it is now. My point is, government whether, democratic or dictatorship takes time to stabilise a country after a major crisis.
(Edited)
No, I’m sorry if I gave you the impression that my ideas about full democracy were by, in your own words, ‘the discredited Singapore Mass Media’. Those were only a personal opinion of what “full democracy” is and, in any case, is that a new concoction in the specialist language of political scientists? I am however greatly interested in your claim that you are able to educate the rest of us about ‘genuine democracy’. The last anyone made the claim was some millennia back, namely between Socrates and Plato, whose conversations are well-chronicled in (Plato’s) Republic. We do note your factual, albeit brief, understanding of events over in Iraq and in Singapore’s history and we, like Plato, are all ears now. Can you add anything to what Socrates said? Be honest hence. There might just be an Aristophanes lurking around to recreate that incident with a vial of hemlock.
RH:
1. Thanks Andrew for the excerpt of the transcript in 72.
2. This transcript in no way justifies what LIE KY and his spokeswoman wrote, to WSJ. Their statements were so totally exaggerated to be lies altogether. Totally unreflective as to the content as to be lying allegations without substance.
3. Anyway, let us hope Dr CHEE finds the courage and money to sue the WSJ in an American court to establish the truths and legal principles of the case.
4. Not that American or British courts are very much better than our kangaroos. I dont read local or intl news due to unpleasantness, except for an occasional flip, but in the last few years, I remember 1 news that ‘an American judge smuggled a penis pump into court under his judicial robes and masturbated while the lawyers were arguing the case’. In the British court when our Medical Association [SMA] sued Prof Shorvon for his proved offences in Singapore, namely giving and changing patients medicines without telling their doctors, effectively guinea-pigging them for his own research, for which he was sacked, the judge acknowledged all the facts produced by SMA but still acquitted Shorvon! So American and British courts — and there are probably hundreds more news I didnt read — are as hypocritical as ours, though less corrupt.
5. Another possible development for this case is for the WSJ to consult its lawyers and if they advise that indeed, the WSJ had published false statements from LIE KY and YYY, for WSJ to apologise in as public a manner as the very damaging lies were made, that is, in WSJ, plus pay damages, maybe just token, to Dr CHEE. This would throw much light, instead of “heat” on the issue and be fair to Dr CHEE, since he has now been defamed in a worldwide media, by total and farfetched lies from MM, YYY.
Hi Observer;
may I say I am very consoled and encouraged reading your comments lately.
There was a question you posed which I will try my best to answer. The Definition of Wealth is a very subjective, simply defined, it means having more money(can be used to get everything except health and happiness) than one needs for a comfortable living. In complex definition, it means having huge surplus of money after one has all the extravagance in life and has lot more than he/she ever needs for his/her whole life and that of his family(remember that all the extravagances are acquired). Here, it is very difficult to determine and quantify the Amount that can be defined as Wealth. To a greedy being, no amount is sufficient, to an ascetic, wealth is not what he possesses, wealth is what he can do without to live a meaninful life. Quite a earful, kindly bear with me.
Defining wealth is subjective and difficult, defining a regime is not any easier. Is a regime benevolent, benign or corrupt. Ultimately, the truth will reveal itself come the day when the citizens will reach a common(a clear majority of the whole population of the old, young and all in between) feeling and impression.
When the character of a regime is determined and arrived at by common opinions, reactions and responses of the people will also meet a common point, this then concludes the Character of a regime. I am sorry that I am unable to provide a clearer and better explanation.
‘Kuo jia an wei, pi fu you ze’; everyone has a duty to the wellbeing of the nation, yes from the Ruler to the Pauper, all has a role, including the imperfect and unenlightened me.
patriot.
Please allow me to attempt to mediate the expressed views between ‘mkta’ and ‘Harry’ recent comments. No intend of innuendoes whatsoever, merely to share an alternative perspective. Anyone can agree or disagree. It is not an attempt to influence any of your preconceived believes or perspective.
We are dealing with very complex issues here; HUMANS to be technically accurate. Each and every one us will have its perspective on any issues tabled for exchange of views for the fact that our perceptions are driven based on; how we are brought up, under what kind of environment, educational teachings, where we live, where we gain our exposures and experiences from the time we understand and speaks the human language. These are the fundamental building blocks that shape our lives and values. Agree?
If the issues raise here get drags into the global perspective, no HUMAN being living or dead will be able to offer a perspective that will satisfy the populace. Whether you are Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, or Confucius whom we HUMANS generally looked up to as model for any philosophical debate. (For the benefit of those who are not familiar of the names, they are Greek and Chinese Philosophers and the relationships between the three Greeks are Students and Teachers in the medieval period).
Simply put, can an ideologist and pragmatist co-exist?
Can the western philosophy and eastern philosophy co-exist?
The issues presented before us is in the Singapore context. Logically speaking, any possible solution that may derive from worthy suggestions and comments should focus on its place of origin. Agree?
Most Singapore citizenry are aware of the past and current situation. No denial on the claim that the society that our leaders (with the contributions and sacrifices made by its citizenry) had carefully crafted is working ONLY for the top 20 percentile of its populace. Let’s not forget that the remaining percentile who indeed had their fair share of contribution regardless of it significance.
Someone here had correctly pointed out; it is indeed not too much for the suffering percentile left behind to ask the government or even the top 20 percentile of its fellow citizenry to do a little more to lessen the pain.
On the notion of “Full Democracy”; the lesser regulating rules and laws in the Singapore context that can be otherwise removed in this 21st century that globalization is at the driver seat, the better freedom is allowed for its citizenry to share their concerns that may help shape an even better future of this country which virtually had zero resources other than its citizenry.
When you are totally free to express without fear, one can never underestimate what wonderful ideas may come out of it even if initially it may seemed to be confrontational and deviates from the preconceived social norm. Obviously, there are always two sides to a coin, but again, this is the very essence of anything human nature. It makes no definitive difference whether you are a person that believes in and practices the doctrine of the Socrate’s Theory, Plato’s Pedagogy or Confucius Philosophy or a modern ideologist, pragmatist or in between.
Again, anyone can agree or disagree.
Dear Patriot,
Thank you for the very well definition of ‘Wealth”. Appreciate it very much.
Yes, indeed, there is such a varying definitions for a simple word and is largely of an individual’s perspective.
I would definitely like to hear the Top Leader’s definition to the remaining 80 percentile of its citizenry.
Never thought that our government are so pathetic and deceitful to twist or even remove critical word that can alter the meaning of sentence, even with strong evidence like transcript and audio abound. With evidence, they can even act so ya-ya. Look like no one gonna tell the emperor has no cloth !
Everyone should take a read at the following blog
http://kaffein-nated.blogspot.com/
Dr Chee: “And rapists, too, you might as throw it in, you know, right? Child molesters”.
against what was actually said in the audio clip and in the written transcripts:
Dr Chee: “And rapists, too, you might as well throw it in, you know, right? Child molesters”.
sar·casm
–noun
1. harsh or bitter derision or irony.
2. a sharply ironical taunt; sneering or cutting remark.
Don’t get me wrong. I am in agreement that persons be able to ‘express without fear’. I would like, however, for persons to act and speak with restraint; to speak knowing it would be regarded as speech in the speaker’s favour. Because with that, there can be no fanaticism developed from an excess of fervor, the kind you sometimes see on socio-political forums on the Net.
will be interesting to find out who will clarify the errors first – WSJ or Today.
Anyway, yeah – if we continue to speak long enough, everyone will realise – Emperor has no clothes….
mkta wrote :Iraq was fully democratic during the war.
How can Iraq be fully democratic during the war when there was not even a proper Iraqi government at all, let alone an elected one ?
mkta wrote :The last anyone made the claim was some millennia back, namely between Socrates and Plato, whose conversations are well-chronicled in (Plato’s) Republic.
Thousands have written on what democarcy over the years. The latest and most famous is George W Bush.
mkta wrote : Be honest hence.
Just tell me which part of my posting on Singapore past is wrong.
Go checked out McDonald House along Orchard Rd. Two office workers
were killed when two Indonesian commandos exploded bombs in the building. They were caught, found guilty, sentence to death and hung despite President Suharto’s direct appeal. As late as the late 70′s Lee Kuan Yew while speaking in public when a blackout occured, commented that at least Singapore then did not panic. These were reported in the Straits Times.
There is not need to hide behind a veil of sarcasm and big names, if you are genuine in wanting to engage in a discussion. If I am wrong in logic or fact point me out and if proven to my satisfaction, I will willingly accept your point of view.
What I did meant was that the element of full democracy, is found in a climate of war and chaos. Did I go wrong with that? In a climate of war and chaos anyone, unless in hiding from enemy troops, can act and say as they please. That, in my honest opinion, is real freedom of association, assembley and speech. Various philosophers in history are well known, and I dare say even a schoolboy would be acquainted with the likes of Plato and Socrates. So no, I don’t hide behind big names, nor do I quote the names of those politicians you just did.
Human nature has a pain avoidance mechanism: they don’t like to admit or be proven they are wrong when they think they are right. The other thing is that all human nature has ego or pride. So it is all very natural and normal. But obviously this is not going to help matters.
mkta : Have you ever lived throught a war or have you heard from your parents as to how they lived in a war ? The only people who have the absolute freedom to do anything in a war are the military commanders. The troops may be able to abuse some of their powers flowing from the barrel of their guns but as you can see in Iraq, they too are subjected to punishment if caught. To the average person, there is hardly any freedom at all. I am absolutely amazed that you chose to equate a war zone to full democracy and freedom. Not only is it ridiculous but it is downright evil to try to gain mileage to your anti-democratic, anti-freedom attitudes.
Names like Plato and Socrates are great exactly because even school boys and girls are aware of their places in History. Again I find your clumsy efforts to deny your attempts to confuse others and gain mileage in your argument by abusing the names of Plato and Socrates, most ridiculous.
You sound to me more like the way the pap ministers tried to justify their harsh policies like raising GST is to help the poor,higher ERP charges is good for business. Absolute rubbish. How low can they sink ?
So tell us more about your experience of war and how you came to know that only military commanders have absolute freedom to do anything. You have totally misunderstood what I’ve said. I don’t think troops anywhere should ‘abuse their powers’ with the barrel end of a gun but I do think that full democracy is achieved in a situation of chaos. War is the prime example of chaos, if the latter needs association. That’s right, call me evil. And all along I thought I was a keeper of the peace. That’s right, I’m clumsy and ridiculous. I’m wrong in thinking that I thought Plato and Socrates were well-known philosophers. I didn’t know they were ‘great’. I’m sorry I abused their names. That’s right, I’m ridiculous. No, I’m not like ministers in at all, even if I’m full of absolute rubbish, O High One.
So tell us more about your experience of war and how you came to know that only military commanders have absolute freedom to do anything. You have totally misunderstood what I said. I don’t think troops anywhere should ‘abuse their powers’ with the barrel end of a gun but I do think that full democracy is achieved in a situation of chaos. War is the prime example of chaos, if the latter needs association.
Comments edited by moderator.
1.During the Japanese occupation of Singapore, Singaporeans lived in fear with insufficient food. They were subjected to harassments and tortures by the Japanese military occupiers. Movements were restricted with checkpoints all over the places. Tens and thousands of Singaporeans were killed or disappeared without a trace. Mass graves were discovered after the war. The few Singaporeans who lead a reasonable life were those who worked for the Japanese Occupiers. Lee Kuan Yew and Nathan are two of the few. They worked for the Japanese Intelligence and secret police. Lee Kuan Yew was a translator for Japanese. He also misused his position to profit from the black market.
2.By right troops on the group should not abuse their power but in a war situation who are there to check them ?
3.When there is fear and oppression, how can there be democracy ?
4. Confusion, uncertainty and chao are due to the lack of democracy and rule of the law.
I don’t understand where this is heading, but I’ll try to answer to your remarks. The fact is that there was a proportion of civilians in Singapore who worked for the Japanese during the time of the Occupation, from doing simple clerical jobs to actually working for the Kempeitai. The majority of these civilians go unnamed, and I can provide no exact figure to the number– this you might have to ask the Japanese themselves– but I dare say some are still around in Singapore. They did as they had to under Japanese rule. There were also those who risked personal safety to join or even lead resistance groups, and they are hailed as national martyrs today. I’ve lost you on your other points, but I’d like to say that I’m a peace-loving person and that I would like to see rule of law enforced against persons who are intent on disrupting peace and order. In parting (I won’t make remarks here again) I’d like to add that things like riots can lead to worse, you know, going from various examples in Singapore and other countries. A riot itself is like a mini civil war.
mkta, do you still hold onto your view “that the element of full democracy, is found in a climate of war and chaos.” ?????
If so please justify you stand.
mkta wrote: A riot itself is like a mini civil war.
Please justify this statement.
Everyone WEAR BLACK on National DAY. Those going to watch the grand million dollar celebration at marina also please WEAR BLACK…anything. Best is black T-shirt. To show our displeasure with the current state of affairs.
They think throwing a few million on the fireworks and displays and free tickets are anything to calm our anger? FAT HOPE.
FG
“Singapore upholds free speech and the right to disagree, subject to the law”
I think she needs to take our history books and social studies,and learn a little.
“Western style of democracy”- you mean actual democracy? It’s a sad self-fulfilling cycle of ignorance: the government enforces ignorance on it’s citizens and when it’s laws are questioned they say they’re a reflection of their citizen’s views. Blergh this country is ridiculous.