The Straits Times Forum published a letter by a certain Mr Syu Ying Kwok today, 8 July. The letter was titled, “Five years? MM Lee’s estimate was optimistic.”
In his letter, Syu gave his thoughts on MM Lee Kuan Yew’s earlier remarks about how it would take only five years for Singapore to be “unscrambled” should the opposition come into power.
There is nothing unusual about Syu’s letter – until this part where he made reference to Mr Tan Lead Shake’s “tragic event in his family”:
Recently, opposition politician Tan Lead Shake made headlines after a tragic event in his family. But what chills the bones is the fact that in the past three elections, an average of more than 20 per cent of the electorate voted for him or anyone else who stood for election with little consideration of his credentials or abilities.
We fail to see how the two are linked or can be linked – a personal tragedy in the family and the electorate voting for him. It is a cheap shot at a person whose family tragedy is used here to question the number or percentage of voters who voted for him in the elections. The words used in the letter speak for themselves – “chills the bones”, it says.
It is totally appalling and vile that such a letter could be published in a national newspaper which prides itself on integrity and respectability. Did the editors of the Straits Times Forum not go through the letter? By what criteria did they pass it for publication – with the above parts intact?
Where is the responsibility and common decency? How is it that a letter such as Syu’s, making tenuous connections between what is undoubtedly a very sorrowful time for the Tan family, and particularly Tan Lead Shake, and Tan’s participation in three general elections?
What is the purpose?
While we condemn Syu for the stupidity of his letter, our anger is directed at the editors of the Forum Page.
We call on the editors of the Straits Times, especially the editors of the Straits Times Forum, to issue an apology to Tan Lead Shake, and also to all its readers and subscribers.
As for Syu himself, we would like to ask him: Please show us or tell us the link between the two issues of Tan’s personal family tragedy and his participation in elections.
We would also like to urge all our readers, fellow bloggers and Singaporeans to write in to the ST Forum’s editors and express your disgust for allowing such a letter to be published.
You can send your letters to: stforum@sph.com.sg
You can post your letters sent to the Straits Times in the comments section for this article.
————————–
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
RH: Sigh, there are >20,000 PAP members last I read. Most of them are deeply conditioned to certain tactics, strategies, modus operandi, etc, like this 1. Not surprising at all. Kicking below the belt, to hurt where it hurts most, in total disregard for fair play, ethics, morality, etc, is also typical PAP, exampled by LIE KY himself over the years, who created just such systems and tactics. I know. My family and I are still receiving such daily kicks to the balls. Age gracefully? Ha, he has never been more vicious and unrepentant — he doesnt believe in God or an afterlife — so he will never admit he has ever been wrong. So, ‘never having been wrong’, he need never reverse direction or apologise, and can egoistically continue his regal posture, with all the airs of a monarch. Till he passes over and discovers all his dead victims waiting for him on the other side. Dont just blame the Forum Editors. Blame the man who created it all.
Oh lordi lord, what a despicable act. How low can one stood to gain mileage?This is just sad and sick as well. Leave the decease and let them rest in peace please. Have a little respect for the decease and their immediate family. There is already enough hurt feelings with such tragic evernt.
I would really like to ask the contirubutor of the ST article and the Editor in Chief, what if this tragic event happens to you or your family? Are you running out of stories to boost your declining readership that you have to stood so low? Get a life please. You ought to publicly offer your unreserved sincerest apology to the decease. Shame on you! Syu and the Editor in Chief. What a dsigrace to Singapore. May I wish you sleep tight and well.
To borrow the reasoning from Star Wars, its to bring balance to the Force. After the printing the brilliant letter from Mr See Leong Kit about HDB’s market pricing yesterday, they must print a letter as stupid as Mr See’s was brillant to bring about an equilibrium.
I’ve read a few of this Syu Ying Kok’s letters, and everything I’ve read just screams “Ghost writer” to me
What is even more hilarious is the very fact that the ST editors do edit the content before publish, and this show either the editor is totally ignorance or just too partisan.
Native Singaporean that keep saying one should separate politics from Singapore issues ought to keep up because politics is deeply entrenched in every aspect of our life whether we like it or not by the pathetic ruling party.
It is obvious PAP tactic or LKY tactic of remaining in power is disgusting and despicable. He remains unretired simply to exercise his underbelt tactic on anyone even political juveniles, to instil FEAR in potential political babies too. His ultimate aim is to use whoever whisper a word against him as a scapegoat in order to instil FEAR in the population at large. Whatever he does is aim at all Singaporean to ensure Singaporean vote for them out of FEAR!!!!! He is worst than OSAMA. He is a psychoterrorist another word for that is – PSYCHOPATH!!!!!a psychological murderer.
See this for e.g. http://blog.simplyjean.com/2008/01/24/the-letter-that-caused-a-furore-in-the-straits-times-discussion-board/
He is at it again.
This is the most appalling letter I’ve read in the Straits Times Forum this year.
No matter what your political views are, to beat a man when he is down in the abyss of his personal tragedy reveals an utter lack of basic human decency.
Unacceptable.
Fellow TOC readers, please join me and leave a comment condemning this blatant lack of respect. Together we will send a strong signal to Mr. Syu Ying Kwok and the Straits Times Forum that this time they have gone too far.
One of the biggest reasons why I’ll never bring up my child in Singapore is I can never bear to teach him the moral values of truth and honesty. To adhere to these two values in Singapore would be to lead a life of misery, poverty, and incarceration. Truth and honesty gives way to money and power for more money and power.
Having personally gone through the education system first as a student, and later as a teacher, I’ve come to see it as a system that destroys dreams and life and that churns out mindless bots. We end up with kids who ace exams because they can cram, and we dump the rest who can’t ace and who can’t cram, and either way, we end up with kids who cannot speak, cannot write, and who cannot think. We say we’re bilingual but we aren’t fluent to be able to hold a proper conversation in either language. We say we’re an educated workforce but we can’t see beyond the As and Bs and Cs on our empty testamurs.
We say we value intelligence, yet can’t see beyond the school from where we graduated and the swanky job title on our name cards. We say we’re an entrepreneurial country but we need to teach creativity to a people whose creative impulses were snuffed out as they grew into adults. We say we’re best in this and that, but all we do is to copy the world and build it newer, bigger, flashier. We say that without the PAP in government, Singapore would perish, yet at the same time, we pride ourselves in having an astonishingly brilliant and first-rate civil service. We are obsessed with labels and categories but can’t see beyond the apparent contradictions and shades of grey. We’re a country blessed with lots of sunshine, yet life is one big monotone with days of black and white.
Singapore can be so much better a country, more intelligent, more gracious, more compassionate, more mature, and happier. Perhaps, also less of a sick joke. But the people don’t want to be so. They simply think that any otherwise, Singapore would die, and that is if they even think at all.
on the firrst read, i didn’t even know what she was writing
The ST likes to castrate people’s letters whenever they are too critical of the government / ruling party. But for an opposition member who has just experienced the horror of seeing his own wife murder his own brother, he is fair game for attack. If they could, they’d probably print the letter in bold.
They think they are being very clever with their not-so-subtle propaganda. Actually the ruling party should take note that the state press and its autopilot self-censorship is really doing them a “self-snook” . Every time the state PR company spouts this type of filth, some critical and independent minded Singaporean is just going to get pissed off with them. At best, this person is “lost” to the growing alternative voice. Most likely this person becomes totally apolitical. At worst, he’ll just pack his bags and leave the red dot, never to return.
How is this good for the company, I mean, country in the long run?
And they tell us they are worried about the long-term interest of Singapore? Succession planning? How many independently-minded top young talents do they expect to win over to their side when the PR company most closely associated to them talk like this? Is there any wonder that they have to pay some very-ordinary people millions just to be associated with them? And on the other hand, how many of the gullible, elitist or self-interested people do they want to accumulate on their ranks before they finally want to admit “we are attracting the wrong crowd”?
They should know by now there are some things in life money can’t buy – and you certainly can’t flash your mastercard either.
Absolutely dispicable! Shame on Mr. Syu and the ST.
These are the people that read the MSM and get brainwashed into following their uncalled for personal attack on the poor Mr. Tan(or was it edited to sound worst then it was?)
Dear Singaporeans;
it is time to dump ‘The Sick Times’, it carries gems, viruses, sick ideas and curses. The Makers of the ‘Sick Times’ are themselves very sick in their faculties(heads) and hearts(emotionally).
And it(The SickTimes) has been sick for some times and getting worse.
patriot.
Funny that some people want press freedom. But, some people want press freedom only if the press publishes what they want to hear.
For me personally, I think the article regarding the part about Mr Tan was really in bad taste. But I also don’t believe in shooting the messenger. I can guess why some people do it.
It is no different if someone publishes such a view on theonlinecitizen.com. I would still think it is in bad taste but wouldn’t condemn theonlinecitizen.com for it. It would be naive of me to think that some people wouldn’t condemn the website either…
It is reality today that there are those who would angelise everything the opposition does and condemn the PAP for anything under the sun. Similarly, there are those who would angelise everything PAP and demonise everything opposition.
Sigh…. there is a growing number of partisans in Singapore.
Wow everybody’s hair is on fire this morning! Be cool my dear friends. What were you expecting? Deep throaters like these move in only one direction. They sink lower and lower. What we all can do is to bring it to the attention of the rest of the world by a concerted email campaign about the shameful, despicable, repulsive,disgraceful, reprehensible,wretched, vile acts perpetrated by these immoral people. Could never have believed that in such a short period of time, things are unravelling and at such a speed. They must be desperate and at their wits’ end.
to KT,
“Having personally gone through the education system first as a student, and later as a teacher, I’ve come to see it as a system that destroys dreams and life and that churns out mindless bots.”
with all due respect to your post, while you have some valid points in your comment, I live in HK and have travelled to many countries in Asia and around the world. I have met with many Singaporeans in many, many countries – from Japan to China, to the UK and the US. They have senior positions in large companies, local and MNCs. and these are folks that are NOT highlighted in the ST. These are folks who are quietly making personal achievements.
To me, in some ways, this is a reflection of our education system and our upbringing. Its not all that negative as you point it out to be.
Bad kids have come out of good neighbourhoods, and vice versa… Good, honest kids coming out of bad and crime-filled neighbourhoods. On teaching your child good moral values of truth and honesty, i believe it is still up to your responsibility as a parent to imbue these virtues.
what matters in the end? the home the child grows up in, and the values placed by the parents. stating that your child will grow up in a life of misery, poverty and incarceration through Singapore’s education system is a little too harsh a view- on yourself, and on the government.
If you want your child to be a thinking, creative individual, i believe it is up to you to imbibe that in your child.
Lim,
Can you enlighten us here what’s the basis and purpose of writing and publishing a letter in the ST forum highlighting LKY’s self-serving opinion and drawing an unrelated and unelected opposition figure into an uncalled for article? Thanks in advance.
We don’t call it the Shitty Times for nothing, but the writer is beyond description. How the writer can come to such as conclusion based on a person’s personal tragedy is beyond my human thoughts. All I can say is that dogs can be well trained but then I would be insulting the dog species which has got much more better traits than those displayed by this particular thing. What started as amusement, then hatred , then disgust and now finally pity for the old man and his desparate attempt to retain power is overshadowed by despicable and out right morally corrupt behaviour of the running dogs. And to think some Ministers and brush off the alternate media. I wish instead of making sweeping statements they would do better to address each issue raised (if they can) instead of hiding behind the disgraceful media.
Lim, I’m sorry but you’ve obviously mis-read the gist of the comments. No one is asking for ST to swing from one end of the pendulum of bias to the other end, they’re just calling for even-handedness in deciding what to publish, and what to edit, and what not to edit.
Look around online and there are numerous examples of letters that I daresay are much more concise and intelligent than that which was published today but for some reason (we all know why) were either not published or edited (most times badly) to mangle the original thrust of the letter.
Yes, I agree that we shouldn’t shoot the messenger, but in this case, I think the ST has overstepped the boundary, and it is no longer just the messenger when it has given up all pretense of being a neutral messenger to openly take sides.
Do you dare say, the ST is a neutral party, relaying all sides of the argument with anything resembling even-handedness?
If Mr. Syu do meet with a tragic event in his family, I’m sure he will then realised that such tragic events are not within his control.
So likewise, may I ask him whether he would like to meet with such a tragic event in his family and then faced the possibility of some outsider making unnecessary remarks linking him directly to it.
If he doesn’t mind, then good luck to him. Otherwise don’t be so unkind as to take advantage of the situation and try to benefit from it with his ulterior motive, whatever he may have.
I find it absolutely disgusting when I read today’s newspaper. But I really cannot help to wonder how many fellow Singaporeans would feel the same way.
Unfortunately, most of our brothers and sisters will see this subtle character assasination and accept it as the truth and the whole truth, without critically thinking about it.
The author of the forum article, made so many claims that she did not substantiate at all. Where are the supporting arguments?
She claims that, “With modern telecommunications and banking infrastructure, trillions of dollars can be transferred out of Singapore in an instant if the current leaders and their policies change overnight.”
Where’s the proof?
Dear aygee,
I appreciate your take; I’m not sure if you’d misread my first sentence, for our opinions do not seem to differ, broadly-speaking.
My portrayal of the ‘Singaporean’ is deliberately general and abstract, because it is sometimes in caricature that we see ourselves in a more lucid light.
In Singaopre, there are few boys (or girls) who in a crowd would cry out, “but the Emperor has no clothes!” because from a tender age, they have been “taught” -again, broadly-termed – that if they so did, they would be stripped as naked as the naked emperor.
now those who hv been defending the ST in
http://theonlinecitizen.com/2008/07/singapore-press-rushing-to-infernal-self-condemnation/
can u now see the ploy of yr beloved SG press to tarnish an innocent man in mourning? Still hv the guts to defend the indefensible? Do u want the SG press to politicize news?
i say shame on the SG reporters, journalists, n editors. Shame on Tony Tan !!
I remember well when I was a boy, out of the many scoldings my mum dished out one goes like this, “normal beings (humans) eat rice and pass out one’s shit, but dont be or dont behave like one that eat shit and pass out rice”.
I wonder whether my mum’s scolding described such can be directed at Mr Syu or not.
Actually that guy have a vested interest in a certain Garden by the Bay project.
To understand his mindset we must explore his propagation(no could not get his photo IS D eleted?)
On SWF Jan 24,2008 No, it is our pioneer leaders(his personal god LEE) who had the foresight and determination to build wealth for the nation and make it stronger.
And the response by the park authority Nov 21, 2007
Development Money!!!!!
Actually to a casual onlooker like myself , He is trying too hard to get into someone good book and his comment always come after an official propaganda is release.
Perhaps he thought that will help with his bidding of government project?
You’ve highlighted an important journalistic misdemeanour of the ST Forum editor: Its tendency to publish one-sided, prejudiced letters to the Forum. I’ve long been disillusioned with the pro-PAP The Straits Times Forum’s editorial policy and practice. That’s why I no longer bother to write to the biased paper.
This is my letter which I just sent to the Straits Times:
Dear editors,
I am totally disgusted that the Straits Times would find it responsible or even necessary to publish a letter which basically takes cheap pot shots at a fellow Singaporean who is going through a sorrowful time in his life. I am referring to the letter titled, “Five years? MM Lee’s estimate was optimistic”, written by Syu Ying Kwok.
The letter is so vile that it chills me to the bones that we have Singaporeans – both the letter writer and you, the editors – who would think that such words and sentiments should be written and published for a general audience.
This makes a complete mockery of the Straits Times’ role in ‘nation building’ and in helping build a “compassionate society”. To allow stupidity in the form of Mr Syu’s letter to be published speaks of a newspaper which no longer has any sense of decency and common basic humanity. This coming on the back of the recent demonisation of Dr Chee Soon Juan as “psychotic’ and a ‘psychopath’ as well!
I call on the editors to issue a personal apology to Mr Tan Lead Shake and to refrain from further trying to character-assassinate an honest man whose only ‘fault’ is to stand in an election.
Your actions, together with Mr Syu’s, is disgusting. Totally and completely.
It’s utterly sad that the Straits Times has lost its soul.
Yours sincerely – disgusted,
Andrew Loh.
you guys should give the editors of ST a break. They are at 143, to 150p lus and now they are trying their best to scale the pinnacle.
Give them more rope….
You’ve highlighted a significant trademark of the pro-PAP Straits Times Forum’s editorial policy and practice: Its tendency to publish biased, one-sided letters which put the opposition politicians and critics of the PAP Government in a bad, unflattering light. I’ve long been disillusioned with the PAP-propaganda mouthpiece, The Straits Times. That’s why I no longer bother to write to them.
tks andrew on behalf of us writing to shitty , keep us update if they dare to reply .tks again
We Human Beings should embrace our kind and respect each other’s perceived views and draw the compromise and make our independent decision. However, overly critical and suppressive will always result in further conflict and miss-thrust. It cuts both ways. In the end, the biggest looser is the country itself. Some may quip and say, this is philosophical thinking. Yes, it may be, but, we need to ask a question and give it a deep thought. Are we all not working for the betterment of the country whether as common citizens or governing authorities or opposition parties?
The chosen article and in particular comments posted in this blog has got nothing to do with ambiguous stands on freedom of speech and freedom of expression. All views expressed should not be prejudice. However, personally and I do think most people who has a conscience and respect for human beings would agreed that the ethical conduct has got everything to do with the writer and its publisher who condone such writing.
As for my view again on this ST article per se. There are smarter and better analogies to draw from to make a point. It is too the responsibility of every Editor in Chief of any media (Papers or News Media) to ensure that certain ethics and journalism code of practice is upheld. Let alone a publication that claims it has the highest readership in Singapore. Sad.
Frankly I do not mind ST (or any newspaper) publishing one-sided biased letters IF they are willing to publish the OTHER SIDE as well.
Hi Harrison
I have stated that my opinion of the offending part of the article is in bad taste. If there is any misconception that I think it is in good taste, pls dispel this thought. If you still think that I think it in good taste, that is your right.
@ Overseas Singaporean
Hi
In much the same way, if anyone publishes a comment even remotely hinting on how good the govt is, whether true or false, on this forum, it will certainly be blasted to smithereens, the author condemned to high heaven or 18th level of hell (take your pick) etc. The online citizen’s admin would just stand by and let it happen. Does this make theonlinecitizen.com a pro-opposition forum? I don’t think so but some would.
There are those that see certain organisations as monolithic monsters but in reality, most are run by men. The very same men that have their own prejudices and sometimes this comes out in policies, articles etc.
I think just like any media, I take every article (straits times included) with a pinch of salt and make my own conclusions.
There are of course those that believe a person that spews anti-govt propaganda all the time = ally, anyone else = govt lackey, dog etc. To be fair, there are also those who spew pro-govt propaganda all the time and believe anyone else deserves to be locked up via ISA or bankrupted.
For me, I am just an ordinary citizen expressing my opinions and who doesn’t normally take sides (but I do admit I have my own prejudices which is inevitable for human beings).
Do note, that I haven’t begrudge anyone who wants to think ST is bad, evil, etc. I think people have their own opinion which is fine by me but I find it strange how I don’t seem to be allowed to have mine. If anyone is offended by this, too bad. :-p
Lim says:
“In much the same way, if anyone publishes a comment even remotely hinting on how good the govt is, whether true or false, on this forum, it will certainly be blasted to smithereens, the author condemned to high heaven or 18th level of hell (take your pick) etc. The online citizen’s admin would just stand by and let it happen. Does this make theonlinecitizen.com a pro-opposition forum? I don’t think so but some would….
… Do note, that I haven’t begrudge anyone who wants to think ST is bad, evil, etc. I think people have their own opinion which is fine by me but I find it strange how I don’t seem to be allowed to have mine. If anyone is offended by this, too bad. :-p
”
The very fact that the TOC publishes your comment intact, including your insinuation that it is a “pro-opposition” forum, without any pre-screening, editing or censoring already refutes your own stand.
KT ,
you write extremely well. And as a teacher, you articulate very well in your own style. Why not write post for TOC ? People could learn from your observation.
Let us protest and boycott ST for its insensitivity to Mr Tan. He has the courage to stand up to confront the devil. I will vote for him again no doubt, I will vote for anyone who dare to speak up against the evil. Tew nia seng !!! make ppl angry !!!! nia mah !!!
Despite me saying “I don’t think so.” to the idea that theonlinecitizen is pro-opposition, yet I can be said to “insinuate” that theonlinecitizen.com is pro-opposition.
Just another example of how people assume what they want to assume and how deeply entrenched some views really are. Sigh…
Well, just google the writer’s name, and you will see he’s a prolific PLP writer…
Lim says:
“Despite me saying “I don’t think so.” to the idea that theonlinecitizen is pro-opposition, yet I can be said to “insinuate” that theonlinecitizen.com is pro-opposition.
Just another example of how people assume what they want to assume and how deeply entrenched some views really are. Sigh…”
No no no…my friend, I value your comment and your opinion very much.
That’s why I must read what you say carefully and in context.
The context is: “The online citizen’s admin would just stand by and let it happen. Does this make theonlinecitizen.com a pro-opposition forum? I don’t think so but some would.”
See the phrase “… would JUST STAND BY and LET IT HAPPEN”?
Followed by “I don’t think so BUT SOME WOULD”?
Now let’s examine the definition of the word “insinuate”:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/insinuate
1. to suggest or hint slyly: He insinuated that they were lying.
2. to instill or infuse subtly or artfully, as into the mind: to insinuate doubts through propaganda.
3. to bring or introduce into a position or relation by indirect or artful methods: to insinuate oneself into favor.
–verb (used without object)
4. to make insinuations.
I didn’t assume what I wanted to assume, I just read what you wrote carefully so as to accurately understand what you mean, that’s all.
When I read the letter this morning a bitter taste ran thru my mouth and wanted to throw up. What a distasteful write up and runs the ST down the gutter of bad journalistic and news reporting.
Anyway the writer is free to write or to express his opinion but be prepared to accept the flak and Mr. Tan should demands an apology from the ST and their editors.
Why not the ST do an article on the late Ronald Regan, he was an actor!
As to whether if TOC is pro-opposition, it everyone’s prerogative to think so ( or otherwise) and to write so. It is a good platform to express our hearts feelings and contents. Keep up your good work and articles.
By the way Ghandi wore sandles too and sometimes barefooted.
.
Hi Lim, you said:
“In much the same way, if anyone publishes a comment even remotely hinting on how good the govt is, whether true or false, on this forum, it will certainly be blasted to smithereens, the author condemned to high heaven or 18th level of hell (take your pick) etc. The online citizen’s admin would just stand by and let it happen.”
I believe the TOC’s editorial stance is that they do not censor comments unless they are extreme be it pro- or anti-PAP. I think its quite different from what I have observed from ST. The anti-government slant you see is due to the demographics. Seeing how theres a lack of outlets for opinions contrary to the government’s in the mainstream media, its not surprising.
“There are those that see certain organisations as monolithic monsters but in reality, most are run by men. The very same men that have their own prejudices and sometimes this comes out in policies, articles etc.”
That is true, but looking at the way SPH, ST and the Newpapers and Printing Act is set up, and the slant of the articles, and the selective way letters are edited and/or not printed, it has gone beyond individual bias.
“Do note, that I haven’t begrudge anyone who wants to think ST is bad, evil, etc. I think people have their own opinion which is fine by me but I find it strange how I don’t seem to be allowed to have mine.”
I believe you’ve confused not being allowed to have your opinion, with giving others the right of reply/rebuttal
Hi
Apparently you don’t understand the meaning of “I don’t think so”.
In English, it means I don’t think theonlinecitizen.com is a pro-opposition forum.
The “but some would” means, there would be people who would regard theonlinecitizen.com as a pro-opposition forum. It is merely to say that out of the 4 billion on this planet, I make an assumption that there would be some people who would think so. If there aren’t I am happy to stand corrected but I’m not that naive.
The “BUT” clearly correlates to mean “I don’t think so”.
Apparently, you seem to know more about what I think than myself :-)
Again, you are reading “I don’t think so” = “I think so”.
Let’s make this simple. I’ll state again in more simple terms for your benefit:
I don’t think theonlinecitizen.com is a pro-opposition forum.
If you want to read it as I think theonlinecitizen.com is a pro-opposition forum, that’s your choice.
Best Regards
btw, just from the above, I can’t even have the right to say “I don’t think theonlinecitizen.com is a pro-opposition forum” without someone treating it as “I think theonlinecitizen.com is a pro-opposition forum”
I fail to see imho how that constitutes a rebuttal or a right of reply. Rather, as mentioned, just another example of how I can’t hold an opinion without it being twisted. I rest my case.
Dear lim,
You have my empathy. Please keep an open mind of views. I think it is important as an individual to maintain its principle of believes and at the same time try to embrace the unintended assort or that you might occasionally received.
For the matter that you have participated in commenting on an issue that you felt worth your time in itself is already a sign of a concerned and caring person and citizen regardless of the views expressed or political party association if there is any at all. Two wrongs does not make one right and similarly, two rights does not prove one wrong.
Yes, indeed, we Human are perplexed beings. No other living beings on planet earth are as complex a subject to understand. Nonetheless, that’s the wonder and pain of being one. What’s more important is that, we hope that our views whether in this blog or elsewhere are given a fair chance to be seen and read without prejudice as long as we have upheld the basic human ethical code of conduct in our submission. Human Ethic; loosely defined and presumably understood by majority thinking and caring humans as; “we do not score points during discourse or making statements by inflicting further pain or sufferings in the expense of another human kind tragedy”.
Don’t take it to heart. Together as a nation people, we need to gather our strength to ensure our survival and place in a society that no man should be put to suffer. Here’s a famous quote from the 34th United States President Dwight David Eisenhower.
“Politics ought to be the part-time profession of every citizen who would protect the rights and privileges of free people and who would preserve what is good and fruitful in our national heritage.”
Cheer up my fellow mate.
Folks,
The discussion is getting off the point. The article is about Mr Syu’s letter and the ST publication of it. How come now it’s about whether TOC is pro-opposition or not? Huh? Why like dat???
Please get back to the issue. On another day, we can talk and accuse TOC of all kinds of things. But for now, please stick to the issue. Ok? Can or not? :)
Thanks!
Lim says:
“Let’s make this simple. I’ll state again in more simple terms for your benefit:
I don’t think theonlinecitizen.com is a pro-opposition forum.”
Thanks for clarifying that. You have expressed that the forum letter regarding the part about Mr Tan is in bad taste. You have also expressed that you don’t think that TOC is a pro-opposition forum.
I agree.
Mistakes all over. Damn, its no fun getting old. The first sentence hould read like this:
You have my empathy. Please keep an open mind of views. I think it is important as an individual to maintain its principle of believes and at the same time try to embrace the unintended assault that you might occasionally received.
My apology again!
After reading the forum article for a third time, I realised that the author, Mr Syu could have been trying to support his initial argument that ” it was naive to believe that all human beings could be trusted to do the right thing” by using the the example of how 20 percent of the electorate voted for opposition politician, Mr Tan Lead Shake or for that matter, any other opposition politician whom he deemed as having questionable credentials. He was trying to back his claim that people could not be trusted to do the right thing by voting for such characters he deemed as unworthy of standing for election.
However, his argument merely opened a can of worms and raised more questionable points about his beliefs.
I do not see the purpose in mentioning Tan Lead Shake’s family tragedy. The case does not shed any light on the credibility or credentials of Tan Lead Shake as a politician. From the reports, Tan Lead Shake was a victim rather than a protagonist to a sad chain of events in his family. Putting it succinctly, I absolutely do not see how Tan Lead Shake’s credentials or abilities are put in doubt by happenings in his family.
Furthermore, elections are meant to vote for someone who could represent your interest. It makes more sense to vote for somebody who could fight for benefits for his represented constituency than someone with a long list of qualifications who is more interested in lining his own pocket. For that matter, it is up to the electorate to decide on which candidate has the right balance of ability, credentials and desire to fight for the rights of the people in parliament. Whether or not 20 percent of the electorate chose to vote for the opposition politicians or not, we are in no position to deem them as “not doing the right thing” because it was their choice.
I originally intended to write a well-thought out reply or state a personal opinion on the state of things. But mid-post, I decided to delete the whole chunk. Here’s why-
In this country- THOUGHT IS FUTILE. Just live your life. Save $$. GET THE F OUT OF HERE.
Sure, we served National Service. Sure, we took it up the asses as brave men when our leaders continually served us doses of bitter medication good for us.
Sure, they’re enjoying the wealth that our little red dot economic powerhouse has reaped.
But you know what? Our fellow Singaporeans are too dimwitted to see that elitism is a zero-sum equation that creates a new underclass that will doom us all-this is in essence the result of OUR COMPLACENCY.
You might be think- WHAT OUR COMPLACENCY? Yes you heard me. It’s our fault, while we sit here pondering and pontificating, we haven’t made it our duty to convert more singaporeans to the school of thought that “maybe Father doesn’t always know best” especially when “father” committed incest by raping the middle class and has now cast his eye on the “foreign talent” maid. It’s our fault that we have not spoken enough to our neighbours and friends to stop voting these people into power.
Sure- The Opposition are clueless. But I bet you my last dollar, that by opening up and having some real discourse, we might see previously quiet intelligent leaders emerge and create some real progress for the nation. The govt DOES understand that intelligent people want to reap rewards for talent and skill BUT they failed to take into account that sometimes, the intelligent people are actually ethical enough to NOT WANT to be counted with them.
We won’t have great leaders with the opposition- that’s a given. BUT WE WILL HAVE ARMIES of people who will feel more motivated and more passionate to driving the country forward when we finally feel that the country is ours and it can be truly home. And I’m damned sure that among the us, there will be the few great minds and thinkers who will eventually find solutions to the long term problems that plague. We might find a few good men. Men who are not above putting nation before self and resigning on the eve of a major screw men. These are the kind of men that will resign in disgrace if they fail, but because we love them, we’ll offer them a second chance and beg them not to resign. Men we will be proud to follow to our deaths. Men who will make this country a nation to die for in defense of it’s people and our sovereign soil.
Not this shadow of a “nation”.
But i digress- What the idiots up there and those in the middle don’t realise is that by creating a ruling elite of super wealthy and super poor is that when shit hits the fan. Super wealthy CAN LEAVE. Leaving the super poor clueless on how to rescue the nation or create enough innovation or work productivity to save the nation.
This is the primary reason the PAP were smart enough to lock the majority of us into 10-20 year HDB loans. By locking our wealth here, they can continually rape us cos we can’t move. Financial bondage 101.
But what they forgot to consider is that when the “elite” leave for greener pastures. The wealth they inject into the economy via new businesses, ideas or just plain consumerism just disappears into thin air. Leaving our precious PAP with a rapidly dying dollar and the “assets” of locked singaporeans which will become worthless as the country degenerates into a snot of a fishing village.
Majulah!
SOMEONE PLEASE SEND OUR LEADERS TO ECONS CLASS.
To: percevale
Total agree with what you said! Singaporean is partly responsible for the sad state of affair in Singapore.
you mean you people still read Shit Times ? No wonder you all still under the spell of it’s master, all get SHIT BRAIN already.