Such censorship is very regrettable.. c’mon man.

Thankfully the CO has published it.

I was wondering if a PAP visit will be as such. But then again, a PAP visit might not get such interest in the first place to begin with I think.

There is no free press even at NTU. Just like what I had mentioned before – it is things like this that stifle the intellectual environment on campus and make Singapore universities not well-positioned to offer an all-rounded education and personal development to its students than its lower-ranked peers.

Why not publish here?

i’m sad that even the media in my uni is as such.

i think the Chee Soon Juan oppositiion party is the most lousy party…
always made BAD on singapore opposition party…
hai…

don appear in public any more.hahas..

but i want to see other opposition party in the public more often..
such as WP or others..

i would like to hear their policy and ideas toward singapore future.

@young generation@

This is typical of jumpy Singaporean managers trapped in a climate of fear (or rather ignorance). They must be thinking: “If I allow any publicity to Chee’s visit, the govt will cut my research funds”.

But if you ask the govt, they probably won’t even care.

To me, this is a bigger threat to healthy development of civil society and the opposition, than the PAP’s partisan tactics like disallowing cycling events by opposition.

Last few weeks, Thailand university students stop to attend class , stop to take examination and join mob gangs (NOT legal political party) to occupied 4 international airports. Airport operation, tourism, essential supply like medicine and aircraft emergency landing (if any) were disrupted.

THIS PARTICULAR PROTEST IS ANTI-HUMANISTIC. The University student nerver understand their consequences of such action. Why?
University student are covered by SMOKE OR HAZE !

Who create the HAZE?

Eh, just because they publish it doesn’t mean they are “promoting it”. This guy came by, news happened, news gets published… not.

“there was a feeling of concern over the use of student media to publicise and promote the unsolicited and uninvited visit of Dr Chee to the campus.”

This is not right ? Did someone let the cat out of the bag again ?

So how many countless times the State media use to publicise and promote the unsolicited and uninvited visit of PAP politician anywhere in Singapore and in the world ?” How about Prataman visiting charity ? How about Joker Lee cycling ? etc.

Why these intellectuals never mention anything about the state media. Don’t the NTU students read state media too ?

Look like some people are more equal than others.

Mee Siam Mai Hum, Mai Hum, Mai Hum !

i’m glad that TOC published this story to shame NTU. shame on you, NTU.

not that NUS would have run the story. The Campus Observer managed to publish it because it’s totally student run, with no say from the admin. if the admin had any say, it would have been censored too.

but come on lar, even the government owned straits times covers the opposition parties. the universities scared for no reason.

I noticed there is another Victor here, so from now on I’ll add my surname…

Sad, but not surprising. Being ex-NUS I have no doubt at all that NUS would have done the same thing. In fact, life in NUS appears to be a microcosm of S’pore society…when fee hikes or policy changes are implemented, the students are “consulted” but ultimately the administrators will just do what they want. Everyone on the ground expresses discontent but no one takes solid action.

I guess it’s their way of preparing uni students for life as a working adult in SG, might as well get used to censorship.

I think the majority thinks that the system is fair and equal.

regards
pragmatism extremist nut

the NTU journalists should stand up for their rights.

If they do not fight for their journalistic independence, then what is the point of being journalists?

they should stand up to the NTU administrators and tell them that they will not stand for such ’self-censorship’ even when there’s nothing to be censored.

Band together and if the NTU admins threaten to shut down the newspaper, then walk out.

If NTU actually shuts down the newspaper, it would be a very big loss to the undergraduate and graduate journalism programs. They can’t afford to shut it down, so there is really nothing to loose if journalist students were to stand up for independent journalism.

[...] SDP’s official request for visit to the campus, and NTU has taken one step further by censoring their student newspaper from publishing a news article & interview about the [...]

“However, Mr Sng Weiliang, a 22 year-old business student, offered another perspective: “I guess they feel that younger people tend to be more myopic, that’s why they want to prevent us from being influenced.”

The above quote sums up the entire motive of the NTU administrator.

Any wonder why our tertiary students remained just as blur even after they graduate?

By their actions the NTU authorities are doing a great disservice to their students and Singapore in the wider context. Are we any different from a communist state?

I can understand why Chee would want to garner support in the university. Afterall, these are probably one of the few bastion of people who won’t know about or fully appreciate his past mistakes….

I disagree about politicising the education system though…

Politics is everywhere in your daily lives. Depoliticisation is a pipe dream really.

Agree with Koshy.

Don’t be a tease. Print the piece!

Copyright holder (uni?) objecting?

Hi lim #19,

Charles De Gaulle, french general and first president of the 5th Republic of France, once said, “I have come to the conclusion that politics are too serious a matter to be left to the politicians.”

[...] Daily Discourse – TOC: Yip Pin Xiu, an awesome achievement! – TOC: NTU censors campus news coverage of Chee Soon Juan visit (updated) [...]

So much for independent university, now is it wonder Singaporean look down on their government, university and country ? Even western foreigner that Singapore gov so love, look down on Singaporean for having no back bone, can’t act and think independently, and we know why.

[...] 公民在线Terence Lee报道和The Campus [...]

@ DC, :-)

Definitions from the Devil’s dictionary by Ambrose Bierce….

Politics: A strife of interests masquerading as a contest of principles. The conduct of public affairs for private advantage.

Politician: An eel in the fundamental mud upon which the superstructure of organized society is reared. When we wriggles he mistakes the agitation of his tail for the trembling of the edifice. As compared with the statesman, he suffers the disadvantage of being alive.

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/972/972-h/972-h.htm

Shame on you NTU administration. Pathetic attempt at censorship has now given the issue a national audience, and your snivelling excuses are put on display for the whole country to see.

I think politics and education should not mix just like religions. If I send my children to the University – I want them to concerntrate on their studies and if they so wish to be in politics – do it when they are finished with their studies.

Knowing what politics are – is good general knowledge, broadening the mind, etc
Getting involved – is a different game altogether. I think it is not a good idea for CSJ or PAP to go around Uni to sell their ideals….

tsk tsk

Cheers

it has always been the same
different people gets different treatment
u seldom see news about opposition on media, except when they get into trouble.

but sadly to be fair, Dr Chee S J seldom have good and constructive ideas as he is probably better in attracting attention.

While on one hand the government is opening up (seen as many as tokenism), it is gaining momentum on its crackdown to show that it has not lost its bite. Besides Chee, the Tak Boleh group, Ravi, Nair and WSJA are the new additions.

Temasek wants to go to the International jourts to fight the judgements of the Indonesian courts. Then the FEER and WSJA should be allowed to go to the International courts to fight their cases. Especially the WSJA which according to the AG and impugned the courts. It is not ironic then that you are asking the same courts to decide.

Can anyone enlighten us on why WSJA cannot insist to fight the case elsewhere, like Temasek insisted.

Shocking. As a graduate of the Wee Kim Wee School which complied with the President’s veto, I am disappointed.

All they taught us about — pursuit of the truth, the flourishing of the marketplace of ideas — they’re pulling out now. If my so-called forward-thinking alma mater is afraid to do precisely what it is supposed to do, I am not proud to be its graduate.

Some complain about not mixing education with politics. Can we then do something about the PAP kindergartens?

To me, politics is like porn. Like it or not it’s everywhere,and the more you try to shield people from it and prevent them from forming their own opinion (once they are capable holding opinions), the more you either (a) breed lifelong ignorance / apathy, (b) push them to actively seek it out, or worse (c) instil serious misconceptions.

Don’t get me wrong, I personally am not fond of CSJ’s past behaviour. However, PAP ministers routinely hold dialogue / forum sessions to engage university students. Apart from CSJ not doing it in a lecture theater, what’s the difference? This is a fundamental question of liberty, though perhaps in this part of the world it is a rhetorical question.

I think I must clarify that the university’s position does not necessarily reflect that of the faculty. The ultimate decision to axe the article came from the NTU president, not WKWSCI.

If anyone is looking for some action, go enrol in an overseas uni even univ of UofToledo also can. Join students union there and u get some action. Don’t that here. But o’seas or local scholars who return here, pleasex1000 don’t wase ur time giving out flyers at MRT stations. Make urself credible. Dont just regurgitae facts or expound theories, practise “The Art of Crooked Thinking’ and give answers here as though others are damn stupid.
In addition to gery matter, one needs that X-factor to survive and be successful in life. Unless you can afford to loaf around here 24/7.

Did I hear Singapore really got free speech and media meh?

Sorry don’t meant to sound cocky.

Cheers

Even TOC must ‘moderate’ my postings here. What do you expect from NTU. NUS, SMU, ans what have you here. No offense to TOC but why the need to ‘moderate’? Is there no free speech here?

I was hoping all my life that Dr Chee could be Singapore’s saviour. Very disappointed.

No wonder NTU is persistently regarded as the inferior brother of NUS. Even SMU is held in higher esteem than NTU nowadays. I speak from experience, being a current first-year uni student who had asked many people for their opinions on the universities when deciding which one to go to.

Hey Terence, gotcha. I realise that. But the school remained quiet about the issue, choosing instead to merely repeat the university’s sentiments. Does it not have a voice of its own? Can’t it state that?

I perfectly understand the faculty’s position, and I do not expect more out of them. It’s just like if you are an employee of an organisation, it’s standard practice for you not to speak out against your employers. I will not fault them on this. It is the same at any organisation anywhere, I believe.
Students, on the other hand, are not employees of the school, and we are therefore entitled to voice our opinions.

Jeron, yes, I am ashamed. Terence, can we publish the news story here?

i’m still seeking permission from the writer of that article.

@Michael 5.04pm & 5.11pm

TOC care to answer? Who else had done more other than JBJ, SL & LTK?

(#41) Pondefecator:

1. Perhaps TOC has set certain parameters to flag out certain postings to ‘moderate’. I respect that coz they own this blog. I am old school who play by the rules. Never use vulgraities, rudeness or offensive words. I’ve seen worst things on this site. So I wonder why the need to moderate?
Some pple here think that I ‘attack’ them personally and sounded ‘cocky’ but it was never in my blood to do that. What irks me most is tht if anyone has views to say put it nicely on TOC and don’t just spew them out here like regurgitating some facts, expounding some therories plugged from somewhere and then assume that this fellow So Stupid and must teach him how to suck eggs. Basically that was it.

2. I agree that the veteran opp pple you mentioned have done much. My meaning was I looked at Dr Chee as the younger more educated one who could do even more. His past performance we all know. Period.

With regards to Dr Chee, please take some time out to download and listen to his podcast archive. He is not as bad as the mass media had portrayed him. It has always been standard practise in mass media to either put opposition politician out of the spotlight or misrepresent them on sensitive issues.

NTU administrators’ actions alone have inadvertently helped to give the students a clearer idea of what this PAP govt is about. CSJ should feel vindicated because it shows up the govt as being hypocritical and lacking integrity.
What world class education if students are discouraged from critical thinking?
If CSJ represents nonsense, than the more reason for NTU students to engage him and ask the questions. A govt that that has much to hide and answer obviously will show fear and this is reflected by the silly laws stifling political participation.
Banning of cycling events, 5 or more assembly of people can be illegal, etc, except that such laws can be circumvented by the PAP members and their supporters. Now we have NTU’s negative response to CSJ’s presense. All students in Singapore including NTU can draw their conclusions on this govt.

This govt just gets more stupid and desperate each time they come out to defend their position. The young men and women whether in school or in the work force are the future and this govt has done themselves in by losing their trust and respect. Singapore deserves better than a bunch of fruitcakes running the country !

Self-censorship so insidious that they will eventually choke themselves, even if the PAP govt won’t care about whether CSJ can influence Impressionable University Students?

A school should not be involved in politics?
make sense? i no no ler.
yibah yibah untooneh!

# DP did not seek approval of NTU for its visit. Technically, SDP trespassed NTU campus.
# Student media should not be exploited as publicity for political parties, SDP in this case.
# The approval of publicising the SDP article would mean that the student media can report on any agents or company representatives that came uninvited to NTU campus and grant them free publicity as well.
# Student media should be objective in nature.
# The Nanyang Chronicles aims to provide “timely campus news and information as well as being the voice of the campus population.” Therefore, it was right of NTU to publish the visit of former President of India, Dr APJ Abdul Kalam instead. He attended a conferment ceremony in NTU, which is drew more crowd and is of more significance to the campus population than the handful of students who stayed around the SDP.

Not My Sdp (#47):

1. If what you say is true, all the NUS/SMU students who have been visiting their friends at NTU are also trespassing. They are not being invited by NTU.

2. Is reporting of politics on student media consider exploiting? What about cases of Straits Times misrepresenting / misquoting Opposition politicians? Aren’t those exploiting too?

3. An objective media reports politics too.

4. Why should be a foreigner be rated higher than a local who laid down his life for his political beliefs?

a disgrace to use Mr. Wee’s name on this school of COMMUNICATION and INFORMATION.

A university that doesn’t treat its student like a thinking adult should not call itself a university. A university that dare to criticize other countries’s politics but not own politics is a disgrace to the whole world. Who give this university to criticize other countries that it will not do to its own country ? Politics is part of a country’s history and heritage, without those, a country is nothing. It doesn’t deserve to call itself university but Factory that spawn robots that programmed to think partisan and one way. Opss.. by the way, why the student paying ten of thousands in study fees when they are treated as a kid ? They should pay kid’s fee.

NOT MY SDP, you have good points. indeed true, perhaps chee recognises that he can manipulate the campus media for his own publicity purposes. perhaps he expouses lies and only lies.

the indignance, you see, is that the students were told they are adults but treated like children. i suspect they would have been equally angry if they had written on rabbits or snakes or kangaroos, and yet been censored. it’s the fact that they were treated like kids by a paternalistic school that “knows what is best for them.” the students are thinking: “can we not think for ourselves?”

i see it as reflective of singaporean society, that is paternalistic, and views its own citizens as children. “oh we better not screen gay shows, if not they all will turn gay and have sex all the time and get HIV” “o if we show gay shows they will over-react and riot”. it’s analogous to the parent who ALWAYS treats his child like a child. Seriously, no matter how old you get, your mother always will treat you like a child.

i think things get put into perspective when you see that the relationship between the PAP and the people is like a father and his child. the child rebels, but the parent knows (or THINKS he knows) what is best for the child.

and sometimes, the parent canes the child when the child gets naughty.

Gus: 28) Gus on September 18th, 2008 2.01 pm I think politics and education should not mix just like religions. If I send my children to the University – I want them to concerntrate on their studies and if they so wish to be in politics – do it when they are finished with their studies.

Knowing what politics are – is good general knowledge, broadening the mind, etc
Getting involved – is a different game altogether. I think it is not a good idea for CSJ or PAP to go around Uni to sell their ideals….

– in response to you, may i suggest that it is hard to “know” something, yet not get personally/emotionally involved. so, it is inevitable that i will take a certain stand when i learn about politics. maybe i would support PAP, maybe i would support Chee Soon Juan. how can a person not form an opinion of his own towards knowledge? if such a person exists, then his education is useless, he is only capable of vomitting information fron a textbook.

so, i suggest, true education of politics means that someone needs to get emotionally and personally involved. maybe he need not be a politician, but the knowledge needs to touch his heart rather than fly over his head.

if what you learn doesn’t affect you and change the way you live, then you are a photocopier of textbooks.

Oh come’on Local University Students…
We all know you can’t think critically.

You guys just know how great your school is and how you are the cream of the crop…

From : A sour grape (not!) whose eyes are opened and popped out studying overseas.

[...] officials asked him to stop. SDP also visits NTU @ <a href=”SDP visits The Deck @ The Online Citizen: The SDP also made a visit to NTU, and the official documentation suffered censorship at Nanyang [...]

Bravo, Donalsdon. We need more objective thinkers like you.

Weijia, not fair to diss WKWSCI. They kena pwned by University level. I don’t think they could break rank. I hope they do, and say why publishing is good, but the implications would be highly non-beneficial. The problem lies with upper management.

It is the duty of the students now to do something themselves, make their voices heard.

NOT MY SDP,

#1) If that part of the university campus is deemed a private area where trespassing is forbidden, then why isn’t it fenced up like a secondary school or condominium as opposed to a common void deck?

#2) Unless I misunderstand, SDP did not specifically request the student media to run an article, nor did they offer any payment to do so. They did it of their own free will, I don’t think this counts as exploitation.

#3) If someone decided to jump into Singapore River naked without an invitation and it gets reported in the news, isn’t that free publicity as well? The basic idea is that the media producers/editors (and by extension the public that consumes the media) decide what is worth publishing and deserving of publicity.

#4) Isn’t disallowing the article to be published already an exercise in subjective judgement?

#5) By all means report on the Indian president, but how does this affect whether the SDP article should be published? The fact that the article was withdrawn at the last minute indicates that publishing space was not an issue, otherwise it would have been vetoed in the early stage. Two entirely unrelated matters in my opinion.

Your comments lead me to think that you are already approaching this issue with a certain bias. If this is not the case, then I’d like to hear your arguments.

Looks like the NTU top management is pro-govt as well. Totally disappointed with their so-called higher education.

Politics is about everyone and should not be determined by just the top management. Rather they should let the students decide for themselves what kind of perspective they should uphold towards different political reception. I think the student should just go attend political rallies during the next election in 2011.

” Mr Sng Weiliang, a 22 year-old business student, offered another perspective: “I guess they feel that younger people tend to be more myopic, that’s why they want to prevent us from being influenced.”

Is this guy an idiot or what? More myopic? Prevent from being influenced? Hello? Is this some 14 yr old kids who are young and impressionable? “Easily influenced”? How did he even get into a university in the first place?

This is so totally absurd. If the tertiary institutions do not want their students influenced by politicians or politics, perhaps the govt should ban students from going to Speakers Corner to listen to political speeches.

Again, a stupid policy is being defended by even more stupid rationale.

First, Ho Peng Kee. Now even our professors in a supposedly world-class education institution are behaving like morons. I can only hope the students themselves will stand up for themselves.

It would be unbelieveably sad if these students, who will become our leaders in society and even in govt, choose to be treated like nothing better than sheep.

No wonder Lee Hsien Loong has a hard time looking for the next generation of leaders. He forgets that it may be because of how the govt prevents potential leaders from being exposed to the REAL world – and not the PAP make-believe fantasy.

Yup. Terrence, students are not employees of the school. If anything, we pay school fees to keep things going.

About this:”Dr Chee Soon Juan created a whirlwind when he paid a surprise visit to NTU, but left behind only a whimper as the university censored all campus news coverage of his arrival.” Now let’s reverse that sentence for kicks.

Dr. Chee created a whimper when he came to school,but left a whirlwind when he left.

As the writer, being with the story the whole way, I would say there’s more truth in this!Many students whom I interviewed were rather apathetic, indifferent about Chee’s visit. In contrast, the censorship of the story has left behind a whirlwind of events for WKWSCI and the Chronicle.From fighting from the life of the article, to grappling with censorship and dealing with it gracefully.

The experience wasn’t pleasant at all,but our journalism teachers spent hours trying to explain a university point of view.Knowing what they stand for, Im sure it must have been a nasty task for them, their hearts and obligations pulled in two different directions.

Unlike what this TOC article reflects, the University wasnt secretive with the explanation, they tried to give us one. And Daniel yes, you are correct:”there was a feeling of concern over the use of student media to publicise and promote the unsolicited and uninvited visit of Dr Chee to the campus”, this is the official reason.Unsolicited visitor as the university puts it, is not specific to Dr Chee, but rather any insurance agent, evangelical Christian, salesman etc. trying to prey on University students to get their message through.

Having recognised all these nuances and the University’s position, I am still miffed.The Chronicle I believe should primarily be students for students and Chee’s visit is legitimately newsworthy on all counts, it’s something students are interested to read about. I believe the Chronicle is not to be treated as a school newsletter publicising the glories of NTU, and covering other issues of worthy concern.

and from the University,I hope we get the respect we deserve as a newspaper, because that’s about the only thing that motivates an effective journalist.Without that respect, it is hard to come up with a newspaper with sting,or anything that the school community would think is worth reading afterall.This wld not be to the advantage of the financier of the newspaper ie. NTU.

And Im sorry NTU Corp Comms. This is the 21st century world, there is the Internet and online spaces to express our points of view, there is no escaping from this reality.

It might be quiet in school,but it will not be quiet online. The world is changing, and so must the University.

Bravo kash. About your hope for the function of The Chronicle, let me encourage you it is more than that — full reportage is the purpose / right of a newspaper. NTU have their countless PR magazines already, to touch Chron is ridiculous. Keep fighting for journ, we’re beside you.

Facebook users: Join the ‘Stand Up for Media Freedom on Campus’ group, let’s try to hit 1000 members!

WHY should Dr.Chee Soon Chuan be in the first place given any attention than any other lecturers visiting the campus???? Is it because few find him to be the ‘leader’ or ‘voice’ for the opposition? If thats the case, such attention must be given to the Worker’s Party MP Mr.Low. who won an election and sitting in parliament.
Dr.Chee disappoints me in all angles. DOCTOR Chee perhaps best suits as an academic pro, NEVER meant for political office!
Dr.Chee wants to be an opposition for the sake of been an opposition, opposing the govt. for every frivolous issues – his wayward actions often lands him against the law, the same law which he must abide as a Singaporean…. It would take a genius or maverick to form a credible opposition here and sorry Dr.Chee does not fit that bill at all.
I just hope that his ‘acts’ so far are scripted and orchestrated by himself and not
used as a stooge by groups ‘hiding’ in foreign lands or behind smoke screens.
Dr.Chee should take a long leave and re-adddress his approach before he lands safely as a credible opposition.

63) V S RAAJ on September 19th, 2008 3.00 pm
“WHY should Dr.Chee Soon Chuan be in the first place given any attention than any other lecturers visiting the campus???? ”

Simply because he has galvanised enough & significant support for them to make noise of unfairness if it is perceived to be so.

Dr.Chee may not fit that bill at all for people like you. But for a lot of people in the sideline, a lot has yet to be seen.

“I just hope that his ‘acts’ so far are scripted and orchestrated by himself and not
used as a stooge by groups ‘hiding’ in foreign lands or behind smoke screens.”

If you are so noble & righteous, why not try identify yourself with your full name & other useful identifiable profile. Orelse, your own labelling of stooge hiding behind smoke screen also applies to people like you.

V S RAAJ #63
[I just hope that his ‘acts’ so far are scripted and orchestrated by himself and not
used as a stooge by groups ‘hiding’ in foreign lands or behind smoke screens.]

The above statement exposed naivety if not bias-ness of a brainwashed person! Treason to a country is a death sentence punishment, once proven. But then, why was it not being use on Dr Chee, if the PAP Govt have the so called proof since they always wanted us Singaporeans (V S RAAJ inclusive) to believe that Dr Chee received foreign helps? The way PAP go about attacking Dr Chee, it was as if Dr Chee is a terrorist, waiting and wanting to destroy Singapore in a violent way, with the help from foreigners.

In any case, has the PAP Govt proven the guilt of Chia Thye Poh for allegedly conducting pro-communist activities against the Government and was imprisoned for 32 years without trial or charge? Did Chia being convicted in an open court?

Stop all the unfounded allegations, PAP! If not, charge Dr Chee in an open court for treason then!

I do find that whatever Chee does is an attempt to politicise the issue even when the issue wasn’t political in the first place.

If he seriously had altruistic reasons, he could have distributed his pamphlets outside the gates of the NTU. Yet he CHOSE to make it a political issue by insisting that he be allowed to do it within NTU itself.

On that basis alone, I agree with NTU’s decision.

There are a lot of Chee sympathisers here but facts are facts. Now I would expect the usual insults will follow.

lim #66

Ain’t NTU students be considered as thinking adults if not intelligent? With minds of their own? No?

Stopping Dr Chee from promoting himself or his party WITHIN the NTU compound is the prerogative of the NTU administators, without doubt.

But stopping students writing about Dr Chee visit, though unauthorised, for their own student newsletter, is simply unbelievable at least if not draconian, would you agree, lim?

lim, you are moving away from this thread subject discussion, sorry to let you know, if you are still not aware of yourself having side tracked from the real discussion issue. Sorry…. mate!

66) lim on September 19th, 2008 4.39 pm

Facts are facts. You are right boy. Funny thing is that there are other people who feel sympathic for Chee. People do process facts differently hoh. Some people may not even have met him personally but people do have a sense to know when someone is not being treated fairly.

“Now I would expect the usual insults will follow.”

Even before it comes, you are already expecting it. It really takes forsight.

Actually, the topic was hijacked by Chee sympathisers.

The main question is whether NTU is justified in asking Chee to leave and censor the news about his visit.

It is the equivalent of whether a person has authority to decide who visits his home.

I find it quite laughable that NTU, exercising its rights, can be portrayed as the “bad guys” here rather than Chee, whose actions have only been to cast doubt on the NTU decision.

The question is not on whether NTU students are intelligent. If they aren’t, they wouldn’t be in university. Indeed, side-tracked is the right words to use.

“Even before it comes, you are already expecting it. It really takes forsight.”

Just based on previous experience on this site rather than foresight.

“but people do have a sense to know when someone is not being treated fairly.”

Y’know, that’s exactly how I feel NTU has been judged in this case. Unfairly.

71) lim on September 19th, 2008 6.47 pm
“Just based on previous experience on this site rather than foresight.”

Well, you are pretty popular here.

“Y’know, that’s exactly how I feel NTU has been judged in this case. Unfairly.”

Really ? Do not worry. The people in NTU are much stronger and ,from the whatever limited information there is from this articles, some students do indeed have their own opinions which are different from how you feel..

Let me explain why I think NTU has been judged unfairly.

Chee created an incident. Yet NTU is expected to support his incident by publishing and promoting it and encourage him further? lol. Only an idiot would do that.

Yet, there are people who would criticise NTU for it. Cos they prefer them to be idiots? lol. I think most Singaporeans are a lot smarter than that.

“Well, you are pretty popular here.”

Chee might be here for the popularity. I’m not.

Some guys online are lost just like those they support…it is sad indeed. Hatred for the sake of hatred, arguments for the sake of arguments…list goes on and on.
Its not unusual for Dr.Chee to garner sympathisers for all his efforts this far-just like a loosing fighter is aroused by ‘fainted-hearted” fans, the whole world felt sorry when Saddam was hanged – they felt he was the good guy and the US was the bad guy. The common man deception of failing to see all past records, failure to read in between lines, investigate etc is the result of a sympathy wave. Its the same here I presume.
Dr Chee’s ambitions are right but going about achieving them are wrong. One got to fight the bull like a matador OR like a clown to draw the bull away from the matador at the laughter of the crowds..Dr Chee got to choose whether he is the matador, the clown, one in the crowd or for the matter the bull!

“Repression, Sir is a habit that grows. I am told it is like making love – it is always easier the second time! The first time there may be pangs of conscience, a sense of guilt. But once embarked on this course with constant repetition you get more and more brazen in the attack. All you have to do is to dissolve organizations and societies and banish and detain the key political workers in these societies. Then miraculously everything is tranquil on the surface. Then an intimidated press and the government-controlled radio together can regularly sing your praises, and slowly and steadily the people are made to forget the evil things that have already been done, or if these things are referred to again they’re conveniently distorted and distorted with impunity, because there will be no opposition to contradict.” – Lee Kuan Yew as an opposition PAP member speaking to David Marshall, Singapore Legislative Assembly, Debates, 4 October 1956

De javu

Facts are facts, no two way about it, that I agreed wholeheartedly! But the question is whether the facts are the truths, that’s totally different ball games. So now, who was the one doing the repression role, may I ask? CSJ? LKY?

So, in the last court encounter between LKY vs CSJ, was it a FACT or LIE that IBA did send a complimentary letter about our country judiciary excellence? Ohhh….. pardon me, it was just an INACCURACY, on the part of LKY, under oath somemore, no less….. my bad….. I’m a naughty boy, I admit. But I no ignorant fool!

Btw, did I insulted the intelligence of NTU students? At least I gave credit to them being thinking students! Disagreed with me, don’t blame me, please blame NTU president Su Guaning, he believed the students still are kids!

Michael (#34):

Credibility starts from working for grassroot causes. In Singapore, working for a student or trade union would be to contribute to government-approved causes and not necessary what the union members are calling for. Using corporate accountability to measure credibility for political accountability is just misguided and out-of-place. To worsen the situation, we have people who not only entrench themselves in public office, but also insulate themselves excessively from the effect of the bad policies they make.

Lim (#66):

The issue here at hand was not NTU’s choice to stop Dr Chee from turning up at NTU again, but rather exercising the right to censor the Nanyang Chronicle. Independent student media does not come cheap and it has a price to pay – it is sponsored by the student union. In the UK, student newspaper are distributed free of charge . The monies for running the newspaper comes from advertisement revenue and a portion of the union membership revenue. NTU’s right can be waivered away as long as the student union takes over the ownership of the Nanyang Chronicle from the university. Then it would not be a case of NTU exercising its right to censor anymore.

“75) V S RAAJ on September 19th, 2008 7.12 pm

“Some guys online are lost just like those they support…it is sad indeed. Hatred for the sake of hatred, arguments for the sake of arguments…list goes on and on.”

Well, don’t you think that you are doing the same.

“Dr Chee’s ambitions are right but going about achieving them are wrong. One got to fight the bull like a matador OR like a clown to draw the bull away from the matador at the laughter of the crowds..Dr Chee got to choose whether he is the matador, the clown, one in the crowd or for the matter the bull!”

Certain people are previleged to play the more enviable part of a Matador. Certain people have to play the part of the clown. Only time will tell whether these roles will start to change side.

Whether Dr Chee has the title of a Matador or Clown is also very much decided by you, me and the populace at large.

“the whole world felt sorry when Saddam was hanged – they felt he was the good guy and the US was the bad guy.”

Well, I did not know that ? The WHOLE WORLD felt sorry when Saddam was hanged. WHOLE WORLD ? Why WHOLE WORLD. Any good reason for the WHOLE WORLD to feel this way.

“The common man deception of failing to see all past records, failure to read in between lines, investigate etc is the result of a sympathy wave. Its the same here I presume.”

Are you very well versed in the affair of the Middle East for you to make such a statement. Surely, the WHOLE WORLD will include a lot of countries like Middle East, Europe and southern Asia. Want to know their stories, speak to those people from those parts of the world and you will get to know how they perceive the US. Singapore has plenty of such people around.

If I remember correctly, few months ago WP chairperson Ms Sylvia Lim was supposed to conduct a speech at one of the lecture halls, but posters of it were removed “mysteriously”. Why PAP can do it, but not WP?

NTU administrators acted in a manner that lacked independence, similar to our judiciary which was reflected in IBA’s report. It has a lot to do with being subservient to this govt. and that in itself is a political issue. This subservient relationship is prevalent in many of our important institutions.
Remember DSP Tay and the cycling fiasco, AG Chan’s twisted logic in favour of the incumbents who were inside the voting premises during elections ?

I propose both institutions do the following.
1) NTU’s management organize a forum for CSJ, JBJ, Chia TP and the PAP. Let the students question both parties to encourage critical thinking.
2) Singapore’s judiciary and Law Ministry organize a forum with IBA and the World Court to show the citizens this govt has integrity.

As a future student of WKWSCI, I am pretty disturbed by this piece of news.

Even before this, I have been playing with the idea of withdrawing from NTU and going to the UK for my tertiary education. This situation just throws more doubts into my mind.

However, I feel it is unfair that WKWSCI and the student journalists are drawing flak from some of you. It is the upper management of NTU – Su Guaning and his cronies who should be lambasted.

I do not blame WKWSCI. As someone mentioned, SCI got thumbed down by the upper management of NTU. I’m sure that more than a few members of the faculty were supportive of the publishing of the article.

I also believe that the student journalists should not take any criticism from us. They are victims of the whole system. Similar to how many at ST are also victims of the media environment in Singapore. Asking the student journalists to stage protests etc. , I believe, is simply asking too much.

Incidentally, I believe CSJ is a clown. Too much bravado, no finesse. Cannot make it.

Hi Donaldson Tan (#77) – Very well said!

=================

I hope we can all give some credit and respect to CSJ and not post too many negative comments here about him. After all, who among us had not benefited from his FREE entertainment at his on expense over the years? How many of us can really do that or have the resources to do that? I wonder.
I don’t know if he has turned into a ‘clown’ as someone here commented, but I wonder what makes him tick?

If you’re a student journalist, your future ricebowl is at stake.

Any attempt to willynilly censor your article is an attack on that rice bowl.

The answer should be pretty clear. Go figure

“Incidentally, I believe CSJ is a clown. Too much bravado, no finesse. Cannot make it.”

You might as well say the whole opposition party community is a clown. WP Party is a clown, Jeyaretnam and Chiam See Tong are a great clowns too ! Why ?because they are fighting for the citizen’s right and Singapore’s future against the mighty elite and self-serving echelon of the ruling party. And they are up against 82 MP along with PAP machinery with many untouchable ministers.

And you forget that PAP is once a clown too since it begin its origin as opposition party with maverick attitudes. Only to demolish the value and principles they once have when they come to power. Their experience as a opposition party give them all the knowledge and skill to prevent other opp party from rising.

But the greatest clown is us because we continue to live in self-denial and think that as long as we can survive, we should be contented with whatever the government policies and rhetoric throw at us. Little do we know that we are just a disposeable manipulatable digit in the eyes of echelon. We don’t even have dignity and back bone like the Burma monks.

Daniel:

No I do not believe that JBJ, Chiam or any of the other Opposition leaders are clowns. CSJ has, IMO, not used his resources well at all. Yes, the local media isn’t doing him any favours, but the way he has gone about engaging the heartlands isn’t too smart. The average Singaporean (older generation at least…) doesn’t take well to ‘kee siao’ displays of bravado and raw energy. He sure doesn’t inspire confidence in me.

And PAP is far from being a clown. As you said, its ‘clownish’ days are over. Now it is Big Brother.

The irony is, in censoring Chee, they have given him even more publicity then a factual and objective news article published in the Nanyang Chronicle would have done. Such an article, which just basically reported what happened, would have not garnered so much attention.

By effecting censorship, this incident has spilled out of NTU, causing the institution embarrassment while giving Chee even more exposure in the public media, which I would believe was Chee’s aim all along. NTU just played into his hands and gave the man a lot of free publicity. Brilliant.

In censoring him, the government has created the impression that it is afraid of Chee as it has something to hide, that it is unable to take criticism, or both. If the government truly believed that his views were not in the best interests of Singapore, why is it afraid that university students, some of the best educated in the country, would be unable to discern likewise? Do they really believe that students are unable to tell fallacious arguments from good ones?

I believe that there is nothing wrong with letting Chee come on campus, as by interacting with Chee in real life, students can form their own opinions of him. By censoring him and keeping him away, we allow people to make him “larger than life”, as all we know of him is what we take in from the media, which I would say do not always give a fair portrayal of the man.

I do not support Chee, but I do believe that it is important that we should know more about him before we make a decision as to whether we dismiss him totally. Dismissing him out of ignorance is a even greater crime, because we are doing the censoring ourselves.

I am a student of WKWSCI, and I would like to say that it is unfair to accuse us of not being objective about this issue. We did our job in covering the incident, but whether it is allowed to go into print is ultimately not our decision. Accusing us of not standing up for our rights is worse, because we did do as such, or there would not be widespread anger over this issue in the student population. If you do not know what happened, please do not be so quick to accuse us.

And finally, for those asking us to shut down the paper, I believe such a reaction would be a knee-jerk one. The Chronicle serves the student community, and shutting it down over such an issue would be out of proportion to the impact of the incident, not to mention a very selfish decision on our part in depriving the student community of a source of information about the happenings in NTU.

Objectivity should be taught to students to aid development in their analytical skills

Mere sliencing of the media would not only stop that development but would in fact make them MORE myopic and ignorant of what is going on around them…

“Yes, the local media isn’t doing him any favours, but the way he has gone about engaging the heartlands isn’t too smart.”

That is why I respect Dr Chee a lot for being a maverick. Been a smart intelligent person, he could have possibly just follow what the rest of opp party do, that is kept low profile, and play by the rules of PAP, and do what the citizens want every opp party to do.
Now is that really smart ? Yes, if one really want to get public approval and likings, one just need to follow the system, but if one really want to advocate changes, one must be daring to voice out happiness and be vocal and act on it. Did Dr Chee ask for riot and violence in protest ? Nope, he just raise pertinent issues and policies that you and I are affected.

The question I ask of other opp parties, what did they really really achieve in their lifetime to liberalise Singapore against self-interest government all this while. The answer is pretty pathetic. Quite sad, the answer is NOTHING. The opp party just voice opinion, comment, debate and then leave the rest to the government and move on. Case closed. Worse, periodically the PAP government downplay the credit of opp party so much, and even use opp party to embarass Dr Chee. We see this time and time, don’t we ? The amount of nonsensical lame excuses of gahmen are getting from bad to worse, and it is insult to hear those words spoken from mouth of ministers. If the ministers and government can’t set a good example, just ask them to take the money and STFU.

You can’t win if you keep succumb to the rule of ruling party because the rules are created just for the purpose of getting advantage. Notice the world has changed but yet the government constantly keep retaining the same old rules when it comes to citizen’s need but keep inventing new rules when it comes to their advantage and squeezing every bit out of citizen.

Now Dr Chee breaks the rule of the game by spread politics awareness in education premise first and that is the strategy, and this is exactly what opp party must do to advocate change. This in turn pressurise the government against complaceny and status quo. Ask police, ask university president for what rule is been broken, and I’m surprise none of them can give keep proper intelligent answer, and the only answer is to follow rule blindly. What kind of education we have here ? Our society has breeded highly educated mindless droid ?

Do you think the Hong Lim Park will be opened up for protest if lesser and nonsensical conditions if Dr Chee and his accomplices did not sacrifice their freedom in the court case against the Lees ? Will you think the IBA will have written the report and create international awareness to pressurise change in accountability and transparency of Singapore government has the Dr Chee and accomplices not engage the Lees ?
Give credit when it is due, other party might have done more work than Dr Chee, but what Dr Chee done so far is far more effective than decades of subservient work done by other party. The result from the sacrifice of Dr Chee and his accomplices speak for itself.

We seem to have forgotten that PAP of today is no longer the PAP that once ruled by competent and patriotic old guards that can inspire the nation. What we have now is just gahmen that just go through the motion, entice by wealth and power. Is that the kind of Singapore you want your children to grow up in ?

“He sure doesn’t inspire confidence in me.”
So which opp party then inspire confidence in you in advocating change for the better ?

Notice how quiet the mainstream media is on this incident.

How come no mainstream media reporter dares to report on this? It’s so easy to do – just go down to NTU and talk to the students.

Has there been an order from “up there” not to report on this incident?

Daniel:

Sadly, there are no Opposition leaders atm who are truly ‘awe-inspiring’. I like Chiam See Tong, but he is getting old.

Maybe this is just my personality. I feel that empty vessels make the most noise and I really do not like seeing all this conflict going on. I’d like to think that we can advocate change without all this big hoo hah and whatnot…as I said, maybe I am still young and am idealistically ignorant. I don’t know.

To me what the opp. needs to do first is to garner the support of the people. By being so ‘garang’ and ’siao on’, coupled with the local media’s unfair portrayal of him, a large majority of the heartlands will be turned off by him. Anecdotal evidence is generally not accepted as a reliable form of evidence, but I can tell you guys that in the case of my parents, they would like nothing better than to see change for the better, from the current state of PAP reign, but even they would rather see continued PAP control instead of having CSJ come into power.

That said, I do recognise those efforts CSJ has made that you mentioned in your post. Same way as I recognise that not everything related to the PAP simply equals ‘bad’, ‘wrong’, ‘unfair’ and ’screwed up’. Just that I don’t think that he is a suitable candidate to lead our country with his over-the-top style.

dmyst:

You said

“I do not support Chee, but I do believe that it is important that we should know more about him before we make a decision as to whether we dismiss him totally. Dismissing him out of ignorance is a even greater crime, because we are doing the censoring ourselves.

I am a student of WKWSCI, and I would like to say that it is unfair to accuse us of not being objective about this issue. We did our job in covering the incident, but whether it is allowed to go into print is ultimately not our decision. Accusing us of not standing up for our rights is worse, because we did do as such, or there would not be widespread anger over this issue in the student population. If you do not know what happened, please do not be so quick to accuse us.

And finally, for those asking us to shut down the paper, I believe such a reaction would be a knee-jerk one. The Chronicle serves the student community, and shutting it down over such an issue would be out of proportion to the impact of the incident, not to mention a very selfish decision on our part in depriving the student community of a source of information about the happenings in NTU.”

I concur wholeheartedly.

At the risk of drawing more flak, I feel that the local blogging scene is slightly over-the-top and too quick to anger. Don’t get me wrong. I am both happy and grateful for the blogging scene as it has allowed me, as a 20 yr old young adult to gain more insights and viewpoints into the local politics scene than I would have otherwise. I also applaud its rolen in advocating change in our country. Still, I can’t help feeling that amidst all the passion and genuine desire to see our country change for the better, sometimes emotions get the better of us and we lose some objectivity and even common sense in our posts. I have commented a few times on this site about how I felt overly strong words and even insults were mostly uncalled for. Maybe I am idealistic but I feel that we can go about expressing our views without overly vitriolic spiel and senseless accusations.

Back to the core issue at hand. Once again, I agree with dmyst. It is very unfair to the NTU student journos if one is to condemn them for being ’subservient’ or ‘ignorant’ or ‘too scared’ etc. I believe most of us are not students of WKWSCI nor are we involved in the Nanyang Chronicle.

chorus,
well, remember what the late Deng Xiaoping once says. He says that it doesn’t matter if the cat is black or white, it is a good cat as long as it catch a rat.
A cat can be nasty, can be ugly, can be hairy, but it doesn’t matter if all we want is a cat to reduce number of rats. Yes, we can idealistically wait for the perfect pretty, intelligent cat that only exists in our mind, and we can wait all we want even if the rat population increases because Singaporean will just complain and adapt to it and move on. Didn’t we see this time to time again ?

It is the same for opp party, it doesn’t matter which way the opp party takes as long as it pressurise to govennment to effect change for the better of country. A good opp party doesn’t have to succumb to get popular votes from the people, all he need to do is to perform and achieve the aim of changing for the nation for the better. So how I rate Dr Chee and his accomplices ? 10/10 because they think out of the box, and they self-sacrifice for betterment of the nation (landing in jail) and their sacrifice show the results. Singapore government are forced by international pressure to open up and be more transparent and accountable, and this is what they have done right. If we can’t do it ourselves because we are chicken about it, foreigners have to do it then. Isn’t this the same government who preach such mandate ? If you can’t do your job, foreigner can do the job.

I doesn’t even want a opp party to replace the government overnight because it is impractical but what I will like to see is strong opposition party that question, perform check and balance, and ensure no hanky panky. It might not be perfect but it is this kind of check and balance system that at least give hope that our system is fair and not partisan.

Majority of Singaporeans might not like Dr chee and his party but ask yourself whether you are looking for substance or image. We can keeping looking for image but yet at the end we lament that they lack substance, and once we get substance, we complain that they lack image. How much did the citizen lose out when they get the perfect party that has both image and substance (only to have image destroyed by the ruling party through MSM ) ? Who is the one laughing all the way to the bank while we looking for the perfect opp party ?

Dr Chee make noise but at least the noise is heard and gov force to change. Other party don’t make much noise, and change they suggest been downplay by gov and move on. So is making noise more effective than keeping low profile ?

Most opp parties are just using the same formula over and over again even though it is more popular but less effective. But the gov is happy to quote these opp party as a example because it is less effective and less threatening than Dr Chee’s method. Ironic, isn’t it ?

It is ironic that Singaporean always think that opp party want to replace a government. I think they read too much of Anwar’s news.

Let’s be realistic and not be naive, do you ever think that you can created a government just by voting ? My answer is 100% impossible. No ruthless dictator in history will ever concede power without violence and riot. Isn’t LKY confirm it himself ? So the best is to have more opp members within parliament to address issue and act as check and balance in the system.

Do you think ministers & MPs can utter nonsense if the opp party member is strong and vocal in the parliament ?

“But we either believe in democracy or we not. If we do, then, we must say categorically, without qualification, that no restraint from the any democratic processes, other than by the ordinary law of the land, should be allowed… If you believe in democracy, you must believe in it unconditionally. If you believe that men should be free, then, they should have the right of free association, of free speech, of free publication. Then, no law should permit those democratic processes to be set at nought, and no excuse, whether of security, should allow a government to be deterred from doing what it knows to be right, and what it must know to be right… ” – Lee Kuan Yew, Legislative Assembly Debates, April 27, 1955

“If it is not totalitarian to arrest a man and detain him, when you cannot charge him with any offence against any written law – if that is not what we have always cried out against in Fascist states – then what is it?… If we are to survive as a free democracy, then we must be prepared, in principle, to concede to our enemies – even those who do not subscribe to our views – as much constitutional rights as you concede yourself.” – Opposition leader Lee Kuan Yew, Legislative Assembly Debates, Sept 21, 1955

==============================================================

Since this forum have some young citizens reading in, thought must as well provide some history lesson on LKY in his early political days as the opposition leader.

If the youngs today prepared to say that they are rational and objective people, would very much like to hear their comment or opinion on LKY, from the day he was an opposition leader till today Minister Mentor for the ruling party, PAP.

See any difference between his speech (as Opposition) as against today his action (as Government)?

Seen the irony? Or what I called hypocritical behaviour!

Looking back in times, what I seen in behaviour of today Dr Chee was of no difference with yesteryear LKY, when he was an opposition leader.

“Looking back in times, what I seen in behaviour of today Dr Chee was of no difference with yesteryear LKY, when he was an opposition leader.”

LKY is LKY. CSJ is CSJ.

Why quick to judge Dr Chee ? Why associate someone ruthless with another person ? Is it fair ? Just because a former opposition party rose to absolute power and be morally corrupted doesn’t means other opp parties will eventually happen likewise. Didn’t we know from history that PAP is such is because they have discredited other opp parties and given themselves absolute power, and we know absolute power corrupts.

I do not support Chee, but I do believe that it is important that we should know more about him before we make a decision as to whether we dismiss him totally. Dismissing him out of ignorance is a even greater crime, because we are doing the censoring ourselves. – dmyst (#86)

Chorus (#92): I don’t think this line actually refer to student journalists choosing to censor the CSJ article. I think he meant that there are some people who made a conscious decision to not even read about CSJ and choose to ignore him. I believe this sentiment is best summed up by Alex Au from Yawning Bread: “In Singapore, we’re more panicked by politics than near homicide”. It is this panic that just prevents people from even being mildly curious about political development in Singapore. This is disturbing because only by taking ownership of Singapore’s political development that we can truly say we are Singaporeans and be proud of this nation.

93) Daniel on September 21st, 2008 1.12 am chorus,
well, remember what the late Deng Xiaoping once says. He says that it doesn’t matter if the cat is black or white, it is a good cat as long as it catch a rat.
A cat can be nasty, can be ugly, can be hairy, but it doesn’t matter if all we want is a cat to reduce number of rats. Yes, we can idealistically wait for the perfect pretty, intelligent cat that only exists in our mind, and we can wait all we want even if the rat population increases because Singaporean will just complain and adapt to it and move on. Didn’t we see this time to time again ?

I totally agree with you Dan. I smell rats, big ones these days.

Guess NTU does not realise that the coverage and publicity that Chee is getting now is much more greater the attention he would have got from the actual publication. By its action of not allowing the publication, NTU has indirectly stirred the people and students to explore the deeper implications of such an action. It not only exposed the basic issue of freedom of speech but also the paranoia , unfairness of the ruling party . It is another case of missing the forest for the trees.
More and more people are learning about the government not from the opposition but by its own action to curb any activity which its deems a treat to its hegemony on power. People are seeing through the facade and lame excuses.

Daniel (#95):

Relax on betray’s (#94) comment. It is actually not associating CSJ to LKY. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. The point of having opposition parties in parliament is to ensure adequate representation of the people’s concerns on the parliament as different political parties tend to have vested interested to echo certain positions. The current parliamentary system, compounded by gerrymandering, is just so skewed.

Can’t help but see some comments here which are beautifully written in language and logic. At times, wonder if most of the criticisms here (or differing views if you like) are ” Full of sound and fury, Signifying nothing ( Macbeth Act 5, scene 5).
There are some questions below which hopefully someone might like to enlighten or provide some views, please (put it in a subtle way if you like):

1. How many of you here who are able to emigrate will jump at the first opportunity because the gov here is terribly hopeless (and stay in that foreign c’try for good)?

2.How many of you here will take up arms and defend Singapore if SG were to be invaded by a foreign power in conventional warfare?

3. How many of you here share the view that by making louder and louder ‘noise’ at TOC will can really change the political landscape of SG?

4. How many are farting here for the sake of farting?

Isn’t it very convenient to be an Armchair politician? Please spare me all those high-sounding, smug words, arguments, views or logic. I ain’t a smart guy but am just trying to make some sense of all the comments here. Believe most postings here are true concerns but are any the regular contributors here ready to stand up, be counted and make a change for the better? Any views please?

Ministry of Noise (#100):

Your comment reminds me of SM Goh’s reply to Catherine Lim’s criticism on the ST Forum that one should join politics to criticise politics. It is this flawed mindset that I must address here.

I am sure you have heard of NGOs such as Oxfam and Greenpeace. They are not political parties but they exert significant political influence in Europe. Their extensive human network and financial capacity allow them to meet politicians who make key decisions.

Politicians are human too and they made policy decisions based on whatever data, information and analysis made available to them. I don’t think the PAP functions too differently from any other European political parties in that aspect. What the internet has presented us here is an unbiased platform to provide ideas and analysis.

However, this is not sufficient. The next stage after would be to lobby these independent ideas and analysis to the parliamentarians. TOC’s poll for Jurong By-election was cited in parliament recently. This is already an indication of progress that independent ideas here are being lobbied into parliament. The challenge faced by blogosphere is not how we become armchair politicians but how to become offline lobbyists to champion good ideas to our MPs. You can do all this without being a politician.

Am now more enlightened by comment No. 101 (Donaldson Tan).
Let’s hope Sg can clone Oxfam or Greenpeace to achieve objectives.
Thank you & Brgds

100) Ministry of Noise on September 22nd, 2008 8.02 am

I feel that you do enjoy coming into this site and waste a little of your precious time to listen to “all those high-sounding, smug words, arguments, views or logic”.

You are quite right to say it yourself that you “ain’t a smart guy” – as it clearly reveals out in your own smug article.

Of course, it is easy to be a “Armchair politician” or you may say that you and me are exercising our rights as citizens to voice our opinions (or high-sounding, smug words, arguments, views or logic).

By the way, there are so many elected politicians that a country can take at any one time.

“How many are farting here for the sake of farting?”
“Please spare me all those high-sounding, smug words, arguments, views or logic.”

By the way, this definitely applies to you also.

“100) Ministry of Noise on September 22nd, 2008 8.02 am
” Full of sound and fury, Signifying nothing ( Macbeth Act 5, scene 5).”

If it is so, why so much concern, my friend.

” Full of sound and fury, Signifying nothing ( Macbeth Act 5, scene 5).”
How I hope Macbeth has internet during his time. Due to Macbeth’s ignorance and arrogancy, we know the fate of his regime, dont’ we ? Sound and fury are good as it built up the momentun for action. Everyone has his way of action.
If sound and fury are bad, do you think you will be coming here commenting if this is ghost site devoid of any engagement. Will you ever come here to join in and “fart” ? |^}

#1 and #2. How is it relevant to the discussion ?
Why don’t raise this question to the ministers and high-ranking gahmen and ask them, will they in the first place ? I hardly think the people here are interested to listen whether citizen want to migrate, they are more interested in whether the gahmen will do likewise, bringing themselves and their wealth to overseas in time of critical trouble. The people are generally just as pragmatic and practical as the gahmen. No free lunch, the gahmen says.

#3. Noise raises the level of unhappiness and that is good. Why do you think the MSM and other newspaper start to acknowledge online citizen if there isn’t much noise here ? There are a lot of social poltiical-related sites but only the one that generate much noise create awareness and engagement, and that attract more people to join in, and that including you. Where do you think the government get the impression that citizen is generally not happy over issues and policies ? Through pathetic and skewed survey ? The answer is obvious. They get the answer from this site. How does the case LBW blow up ? Through internet noise, fury and sound.

Having some noise than no noise is effective, just ask Dr Chee. His noise and actions helps create international awareness, pressure and criticism (Blog and site are universal for all to read, don’t they) that create change in Singapore, did we not see it ? How many people can be like Dr Chee sacrificing his future ?

You see to forget that the gahmen will be glad to quote that if citizen did not complain and raise noise, it is not a issue at all. The gov will just be happy to use citizen’s silence to augment their argument. Did I need to quote for you who are the elites that actually says that (I definitely not the elite, I am just a nobody) ?

#4. Does it matter that people come here to fart ? At least the smell of the fart attract people to come here to join in and “fart”. On the whole, the fart is effective, didn’t we observe it ? It raise awareness and profile, and where there is traffic and engagement, there will be knowledge sharing and healthy discussion. Those who can act, act on it, and those who can fart, fart on it, so let’s demean the impact of “fart”
If “farting” not effective, why do you think the government want to join in and fart ? Recall P65 blog ? Recall government’s concern over blogosphere.

“Isn’t it very convenient to be an Armchair politician? Please spare me all those high-sounding, smug words, arguments, views or logic.”
It always convenient to be a armchair personal. It doesn’t matter. Our gahmen are armchair commoner too, creating policies and argument as though they are the one really impact by it.

“any the regular contributors here ready to stand up, be counted and make a change for the better?”
So, to each his way and his course. Those who can standup, standup, and who can make noise, make noise, and those who are apathetic, let them be. You can’t force the people into action without their own conviction and motivation. So why despair over such thing ?

So let’s not discount any noise or inaction by the commenters here. Every cent counts. Just did your part within your ability will just be good enough.

Now, if those same questions you asked can be applied to you as well, what will your answer be ?

“Ministry of Noise on September 22nd, 2008 8.02 am”

“I ain’t a smart guy but am just trying to make some sense of all the comments here.”

If you ain’t a smart guy, you will never be able to make sense with a lot of comments, let alone all the comments.

“The issue here at hand was not NTU’s choice to stop Dr Chee from turning up at NTU again, but rather exercising the right to censor the Nanyang Chronicle.” – Donaldson

That they chose to is ironically within their rights. Yet judging by the criticism, we are to presume that this is a right which they are not entitled to use. Therein lies the rub.

And again, why is the issue here not NTU’s choice to stop Dr Chee from turning up at NTU? Isn’t it sort of a red herring to avoid the issue by citing the right to censor when the 2 issues are obviously linked.

As mentioned, the reason for censoring is not to give publicity which Dr Chee sought at the expense of the NTU/union etc. I fail to see any argument that cogently argues why this is wrong.

If they can insult the intelligence of undergraduates at our ‘prestigous’ universities, whose intelligence would they not insult in Sinkapore?

“As mentioned, the reason for censoring is not to give publicity which Dr Chee sought at the expense of the NTU/union etc. I fail to see any argument that cogently argues why this is wrong.”

There is really nothing wrong. It just that people and student could not stand the hypocrisy of higher institution which suppose to breed independent and critical mind, endup creating a mockery of the student’s intelligence by saying that it will create a unwanted Influence just because another political party visit them. Are university really so stupid and unable to discern what is right or wrong ? If that is the case, there must be something with the education system all along that unable to breed world-class independent thinking. Are they been spoon-feed with propaganda that PAP is good and the rest of the parties are bad ?

With any ministers, members of PAP party, they are welcome with open-arm, with another party it is the oppositie. So what morality and education these institutions are implanting the students ? That some people are more equal than others or “You can’t handle the truth ?”. That PAP is the only legiminate party in Singapore, all other parties are trouble-maker ?
Dr Chee did prove one thing: The whole Singapore is deeply in fear of PAP in one way or another, and that is entrenched in every aspect of our life.

I am for the current govt. – for better or worst BUT that does not mean I agree to all issues pertaining to the political climate here – for one, is the Jurong GRC! I think the govt. should call for a bye-election, win it restoundingly – no doubt!!

A member of Parliament dies, GRC or not, there must be a bye-elecion. In this case, the GRC should be dissolved and an by-election held soonest. If the govt. has drawn up boundaries within the GRC where each MPs represent, then a bye-election must be held in this sub-boundaried GRC – there MUST be a bye-election however one look into it. If there was a flaw in the election act that says no bye-election is required, then re-write them!

BYE-ELECTION must held for sake of democracy! Govt.’s victory is assured, no doubts on that!

“BY-ELECTION must held for sake of democracy! Govt.’s victory is assured, no doubts on that!”
At what price ? Remember LKY and his son are assured victory in court hearing against Dr Chee. They won but at what price ?
Do you think the government will have a much easy way to win election ? I doubt they can win it this time if there is by election.

lim (#107):

Having rights only means in the process of exercising the right, should one meets an obstacle, there are means to remedy the obstacle. This, however, does not invalidate social repercussions (such as the ones here) to exercising the right. Nobody here is questioning if NTU was rightful in exercising censorship. People here discussing whether NTU’s action is commendable.

VS RAAJ (#110):

Perhaps PAP’s decision to reject Jurong GRC By-election was that they realise they no longer necessary hold the people’s mandate. After all, holding by-election would require the resignation of 3 ministers and one senior NTUC representative from parliament. Does the loss of 4 talented individuals outweigh the people’s mandate? Yes, it is so in this case no doubt.

“After all, holding by-election would require the resignation of 3 ministers and one senior NTUC representative from parliament.”

That is something new to me. Can you please elaborate on that ?

Does the loss of 4 talented individuals outweigh the people’s mandate? Yes, it is so in this case no doubt. – Donaldson (#112)

The rejection of Jurong GRC By-election clearly shows that in PAP’s eyes, the loss of 4 talented individuals outweighs the people’s mandate. However, in my opinion, the people’s mandate cannot be outweighed by any cause. The right to rule is fundamentally derived from the people’s mandate. Singapore is not a dictator’s regime.

Daniel (#113):

Don’t you know who seats in the Jurong GRC? Jurong is a 6-membered GRC. The MPs are:
1. Lim Boon Heng (Minister, Prime Minister’s Office)
2. Tharman Shanmugaratnam (Minister of Finance)
3. Grace Fu Hai Yien (Minister of State for National Development)
4. Halimah Bte Yacob (Asst Secretary-General of the NTUC)
5. Ong Chit Chung (the MP who passed away)
A by-election would mean the entire GRC would have be contested again. Given it is only an election for a single GRC, the Opposition would easily have the manpower for GRC candidacy. It does make me think whether PAP today has a no appetite for risk.

I made a typo: Jurong is a 6-membered GRC.

Jurong is a 5-membered GRC

““After all, holding by-election would require the resignation of 3 ministers and one senior NTUC representative from parliament.””

I know that there are ministers in the GRC but I think the “resignation” is too strong a word. I don’t think resign is a inappropiate word consider that even if there is even a by-election, these members will still be in GRC til they officially lose the seat. From the statement, my first thought is the IMMEDIATE resignation of the existing members of the GRC to contest the by-election, something I hardly agreeable.
But anyway, just a matter of word used.
Thank for clarification.

Daniel (#116):

No. Since PAP invented the GRC system, they should not only enjoy the benefits but also consequences. This is called fair play. How could you tolerate unfair play in Singapore politics when all our strategic future is at stake here?

In the event of by-election, all the MPs have to vacate their GRC seats and in doing so also loose the ministerial positions. You cannot be a minister without being a MP first. Then, the PAP’s GRC team and the Opposition’s GRC team would have to contest to win the GRC. If the PAP’s GRC team includes the original GRC members and they won the by-election, their ministerial position may be restored. Resignation is the b>appropriate word.

The Jurong GRC by-election would have been the contest to verify if PAP actually still holds the people’s mandate. Anyway, since the current Jurong GRC MPs are so capable, even if they loose their ministerial position, they should have no problem finding jobs in the private sector.

Politicised, yes?? In what way does publishing something ‘extol’ it; illogic at work.

Nevertheless, CSJ seems to me somewhat of a feckless martyr, good at speaking but not doing (even if he had a chance).

I respect the opposition for their efforts, but JBJ, Chiam and the other WP/SDA parties are of a different league.

Hypocrisy would be for me to say everything that Chee does is right.

Again I repeat, in this case, he trespassed uninvited an educational institute to promote political aims (mostly for himself and his party).

That the NTU chose not to give free publicity to it or choose not to invite Chee is another issue.

But to claim that the NTU only welcomes the PAP with open arms is a lie if the pictures below of Ms Sylvia Lim giving a guest lecture at the NTU are true.

http://www3.ntu.edu.sg/hss/GLSL.pdf

“118) elysian- on September 23rd, 2008 8.26 am

Nevertheless, CSJ seems to me somewhat of a feckless martyr, good at speaking but not doing (even if he had a chance).

I respect the opposition for their efforts, but JBJ, Chiam and the other WP/SDA parties are of a different league.”

I really salute people like you who will definitely make Machiavelli proud – putting “divide-and-rule” into good use.

Paint those who do not pose a threat as good while at the same time wallop those who pose a threat and paint them like a leper, someone to be avoided.

“good at speaking but not doing (even if he had a chance).”

Doing ? Perhaps he is doing too much by pushing the envelope to the extreme (at great personal costs) while we are merely tiptoeing on whatever path that has been cleared.

[...] Soon Juan showed up in NTU out of the blue and the Chronicle scrambled to piece together a story – which was unfortunately killed by the Suits: After much negotiation between the paper’s teacher-advisors and the university, NTU president Su [...]

Is there something CSJ has to say that people in tertiary institutions cannot decide for themselves whether or not to believe him?

The university’s self censorship reflects extremely badly on itself and the Singapore education system where even university graduates cannot be trusted to read something for themselves and exercise independent thinking. It also bodes ill for our nation which is seeking the next generation of leaders, where in addition to integrity and honesty, the ability to think through difficult issues critically and independently must surely rank one of the highest.

Are they still in the core business of yesteryear, manufacturing human robot assets that are fully compatible to plug and play into the great factories and offices of Singapore INC while conditioned not ask too many difficult questions?

In that case this should end the debate about the validity of their “world class” rankings. We should also make sure our future leaders are not “indoctrinated” there because the graduates there cannot be trusted to think independently.

“Paint those who do not pose a threat as good while at the same time wallop those who pose a threat and paint them like a leper, someone to be avoided.”

That is true. It is the tactic to tame the unconformist into submission. To kill others on borrowed knife is a widely used tactic in ancient war time.

Lim,
So how many opposition party other than Sylvia Lim allow into NTU or NUS ? Is she and some “special” fews a exception other than the norm ?

Did gov just use a carrot to augment a case that university is non-partisan ?

What distinctive thing Sylvia Lim did that the government take into consideration ? It seems that either the government downplay her effort and simply brush her off. I been watching her debates from Youtube, and my surprise that despite her good effort, almost none of her debates impact the government’s policy and decision. Is that a effective opp party ?
At the end of the day, it is the result that speak for itself, it is not the mouth.

Play by the rule, lost by the rule. I am appalled that opp party just simply debate, case closed and move on without follow up. They seem to follow the way the gov works, don’t they ? Gov seems to be happy to have such opp party because the latter play by the rule, and hence lack effectiveness and pose no serious threat.

At the end, wonder how many people really care about opp party that raise question and move on to other “issue of the day”. Is that surprise many people start to associate opp party with wayangness ?

opp party has to do whatever effective way and start doing thing out of box rather than simply follow and play by rule which doesn’t effect anything.

So how many opposition party other than Sylvia Lim allow into NTU or NUS ? Is she and some “special” fews a exception other than the norm ? – Daniel

Its more than a few. Chiam has made opening speeches at NUS (on their invite) as well. So have Steve Chia (if you look at NSP’s website).

And should it be surprising that PAP which has a few hundred different MPs, ministers and PMs across the time spectrum would have more people who are able to give speeches at these universities. The best part is, its not that often. Students got more things to do than listen to politicians talking every other day.

But I do note the standard tactics. First say no. If kena disproved, then say only 1 what. If then disproved then say show me all (which is impossible) or in the last instance, keep quiet. lol. Credibility is again lacking if one doesn’t even bother to check facts.

Sadly, there will be people who will be fooled by Chee’s “I’m the victim” tactics when the NTU is really the victim of a cunningly created incident here.

lim (#124):

This is definitely not the case of Dr Cheeś ¨Im the victim¨ tactics, but purely a social repercussion of NTUś choice to censor Dr Chee. PAP unknowingly had set up the stage for this repercussion by throwing legal charges at him repeatedly, and then stress itself is above the rules it set for everyone to play. Last but not least, NTUś role in discounting the intelligence of its own students dealed the final blow in this saga.

Really? If Chee’s not the victim here, why are there so many posts about it not being fair? If it is unfair, then who’s the victim? lol.

That’s really trying to squirm out of the issue. The whole crux of this is to display NTU in the bad light and Chee as the victim of NTU (specifically Su Guaning)’s actions. Let’s call a spade, a spade.

to 120) To elysian on September 23rd, 2008 10.29 am ;
“I really salute people like you who will definitely make Machiavelli proud – putting “divide-and-rule” into good use.

Paint those who do not pose a threat as good while at the same time wallop those who pose a threat and paint them like a leper, someone to be avoided.”

I agree CSJ poses a ‘threat’, in terms of how people think. That is in itself remarkably important. But how effective will he be in governance? Many people do feel alienated from him. If I met CSJ on the street I’d want to go up and talk to him, find him interesting, but not vote for him.

“Doing ? Perhaps he is doing too much by pushing the envelope to the extreme (at great personal costs) while we are merely tiptoeing on whatever path that has been cleared.”

Doing as in governing. Doing as in not preaching to the choir. Doing as in doing things that can directly benefit the people. Doing as in showing that he knows how to take care of himself AND at the same time voice the people’s concerns.

Just because he’s a vocal opposition politician doesn’t mean he’s good. Learn discretion, please.

Calling a spade, a spade.
NTU’s management is subservient to this govt., so is the SPF, recall DSP Tay’s action in favour of the ruling party ? and most blatant of all , the judiciary, according to IBA. Anyone here care to say if he or she thinks IBA is making up stories in their report ?

We can argue about the pros and cons of CSJ’s actions but I am willing to bet that Chee is a lot more eloquent compared to CST or LTK .
I believe he is also a more effective speaker and debater. This comes to my point that CSJ is likely to reach out to many NTU students and the ruling party will not be comfortable with their kiasu and kiasi mentality. If CSJ represents nonsense, then the ruling party has all to gain. But I am certain there is much to hide. lol

I did propose in my earlier comments that if NTU is serious about encouraging critical thinking in their students, then organize a joint forum for CSJ, JBJ, LTK, SL, CST and PAP. NTU should also invite students from other UNIs to participate.
Let the students question all parties so that the politicians cannot squirm out of any issue. About time our politicians have an open debate.

“127) elysian- on September 24th, 2008 4.51 pm”
“But how effective will he be in governance? ”
“Doing as in governing.”

Your guess is as good as mine.

Let me ask you a question. If you have 80+ members from Team A, 2 members from Team B. What is the possible downside if you have another one or two members from Team C.

Every round, we have new members from the Team A. So what is your take on their governing skills.

Are we Singaporeans so risk-adverse to the extent that we cannot even manage 2 extremely troublesome members from Team C if they happen to be troublesome after being elected. Assuming they are proven to be non-performing (absolutely zero mark which is unlikely), are we so immobilized that we cannot vote (or somehow have forgetten how to vote) them out in the next round or the next or the next.

If you can’t manage 2 troublesome elected persons in peacetime, then how are we going to manage crisis if it really happens in a very chaotic manner where people may act irrationally not following what you may want them to do.

Don’t you think we have much worst criminals out there in the open where our Home Team is able to manage and is proud to emphasize if given the opportunity.

Well, forget MAS who has given everyone a run for their money.

I’ve highlighted this before. Chee advocates civil disobedience. If Chee was governing, doesn’t that mean everyone in opposition are entitled to practice civil disobedience? or are we expected to be hypocritical and be kuai kuai citizen? lol.

It doesn’t take a genius to know how effective Chee would be when taking into account the above. Sorry, no thanks pls.

Are you trying to imply that if Chee was governing, the then opposition are not entitled to practice civil disobedience?

Well if that happens, there will be another Lee that might be called a near-psychopath.

Well, if Chee was governing and the then opposition are entitled to practice civil disobedience, wouldn’t that make Chee a lame duck? lol. Given a choice between a lame duck or a near-psychopath, I’d prefer neither.

Sorry, no thanks pls.

Oh gosh,

I guess the rest of the world are lameducks.

@ lim ,

IBA report reflects there is an integrity problem with this govt and the judiciary.
Can you give us your views on what you think of the IBA and their report, and whether you still prefer this govt to rule in this manner ?

lim(#132):

Do you not think the current circumstances in Singaporeś parliamentary system require civil disobedience to challenge it? The extensive gerrymandering in the electorate distribution, the excessive insulation of PAP ministers against their bad policies, mismanagement of our CPF monies, tyrant-like display of defamation/libel suits and the corrupt practices, and last but not least, the lack of empathy for the people..

It is times like this that make me question that whether Singaporeans even deserve to enjoy the benefits of Cheeś activism? Truth is as long as ordinary Singaporeans are denied ownership of their own country, they will leave, especially the mobile talented ones. And to paraphrase LKY, it is the loss of these top local talents that will have substantial impact on Singapore. Do you find feel more pride in saying ¨this is my house¨ or ¨welcome to my country¨? I believe the answer is the former.

Thanks for all the queries. Imho, civil obedience is applicable only in very restricted circumstances and generally in the last resort. Whilst some may disagree as they are entitled to, I disagree civil disobedience applies to laws like PEMA, even if unjust cos there’s still other alternatives/options. But even then, unjust is not an application to be determine by a small group of individuals. A murderer sentenced to death will not be expected to think the law sentencing him to death is just nor can that be used as justification to ignore the law.

As much as messrs Chee and Chee would like to think as he and she is entitled to, I doubt if Singaporeans, in the main, share his views on civil disobedience in the application to Singapore.

To argue that civil disobedience applies in the rest of the world is a display of ignorance. In most countries that the rule of law applies, there is no justification for breaking the law. Without that, there is chaos. There is no country in this world that sanctions the right to break the law. The capability of enforcing is another issue.

Where civil obedience has worked, it has been in cases where populations (and not politician’s) have not had their rights enshrined in law and actually disadvantaged/denied by it nor are they capable of changing it as that option is in the hands of a few. Whilst Martin Luther King or Gandhi has been held up as icons, most don’t realise that they are merely representatives of the populations they represent. Without that backing, they would not have succeeded.

For a politician to try and create a situation where it would work would indeed be a precedent. I think Chee and the SDP are barking up the wrong tree at the wrong time with this one. Does PEMA strike a chord with ordinary Singaporeans or do they want to see demos all over Singapore? I sincerely doubt so. In fact, the only people who would benefit are messrs Chee and the SDP. Self benefit certainly would encourage other Singaporeans to sign up? Again I doubt so.

What benefits of Chee activism has been displayed except to find Singaporeans embarassed by his actions. Even my foreign friends find his antics funny (though they do empathise with his plight, brave is another polite word used) rather than useful. As far as “successes” goes, I think its another display of self ego which I have gradually associated with Chee which is a little short on specifics.

Regarding the so-called IBA report, that’s another disingenious twist that SDP advocates has displayed consistently. The relevance of which has been lost in the consistent miscued use of the incident. IBA did praise the Singapore judiciary which was in a speech. MM tot it was in a report and got the form wrong but it is undeniable that it was mentioned. That’s a fact.

Yet, the focus is sneakily on the form rather than the substance. Why that is the case, I think most forum readers would understand. Its really clutching at straws (just my personal opinion). Most Singaporeans are too polite to highlight this. It doesn’t take a genius to see it and SDP supporters continually harping upon a twisted fact just makes it more embarrassing for them (not that it matters for their image or credibility). But I suppose, that’s the lack of substance most people have come to expect. Sigh….

“Full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.” – Macbeth

The rest of the world follows the rule by law system and not the rule of law.

Can I ask you for your opinion? What would you do if one day the government creates a law saying that no one is allowed to buy food outside and you being extremely sick, need food to survive. Your mom goes out and desperately tries to find food be it in the black market.

She buys it, but got cuaght by the police.

According to that law, the punishment is death.

So by your logic, you’ll still agree with the government? After all, its rule of law and the law is law.

No law is unjust according to your reasoning.

Yes the examples are a little bit extreme, but the point is still the same.

“136) lim on September 25th, 2008 9.56 am

“But even then, unjust is not an application to be determine by a small group of individuals”

Small group of inviduals are usually the noisy visible ones. Most are just happy to tag along when the time is right. No leader can lead if they are not visible in a certain manner as we are very visual & audio creatures (noise and sight).

We either enjoy or dislike it (e.g certain sight & noise).

“A murderer sentenced to death will not be expected to think the law sentencing him to death is just nor can that be used as justification to ignore the law.”

There are some laws which can withstand the test of time and there are laws that cannot withstand the test of time. This is why some law changes – sometimes people’s views are so much ahead of the law.

You are very sticky with law – a good follower.

Certain people will test the laws and this may lead to changes if more people that the former group influences see that it is positive at a certain point of time – they are the change driving agent.

DC said:
“What would you do if one day the government creates a law saying that no one is allowed to buy food outside and you being extremely sick, need food to survive. Your mom goes out and desperately tries to find food be it in the black market. She buys it, but got cuaght by the police. According to that law, the punishment is death.”
————————————————————————–
But that’s not the case in Singapore, is it?

In Singapore, isn’t it more a question of the SDP deciding unilaterally that it doesn’t want to follow the laws that it thinks doesn’t benefit it?

I understand ideals but there’s a difference between ideals and the SDP actions in the name of these ideals.

If this govt decides to impose the law described above, do you seriously think they’d be re-elected? Singaporeans aren’t stupid but it seems a lot of SDP advocates disagree with this view.

@ lim,

You are right about the part that IBA did praise the judiciary in a speech.
but they specifically mentioned only the commercial cases. IBA were the guests and if you look at it from their point of view, they were being diplomatic to their hosts. IBA made special reference to the political law suits and expressed concern about the lack of independence in the judiciary. We all know the reaction of Lee snr. Subsequently one IBA official did respond to this govt’s dissapointment by stating that IBA acted as a friend to this govt.
The point is, this govt has a serious problem handling the truth.

I believe that if one can influence the judiciary, that person is almost capable of anything dishonest.

And lim, you commented a lot on SDP advocates and mentioned about twisted fact, image, credibility, substance.
Let us see where you stand , do you support this govt and the manner in which they rule ?

In Singapore, isn’t it more a question of the SDP deciding unilaterally that it doesn’t want to follow the laws that it thinks doesn’t benefit it?

In Singapore, isn’t it more a question of lim deciding unilaterally that he doesn’t want to follow the laws that he thinks doesn’t benefit him [saving his mother]

Funny how logic works at times though.

If africian-americans didn’t partake in civil disobedience, they’d still have to sit at the back of the buses.

So by your justification, these african americans shouldn’t do what they do as they are going against the law. They should just accept their short-end of the stick eh.

lol. That’s trying to twist the argument again. My stance on the right of blacks has been stated in the earlier post if you had bothered to read it. Or is your mind already so fixed that alternative arguments are not worth reading?

Are Singaporeans in the same plight as African-americans? Do we have jobs that are denied on the basis of skin colour? That we can’t use toilets on the basis of skin colour? Are Singaporeans facing aparthied? You need a history lesson in the black civil rights movement.

Let’s not exaggerate what Singaporeans are facing today. It shouldn’t take 142 posts to get to specifics of what kind of apartheid do Singaporeans face that forces us to break the law (which laws) in civil disobedience.

as a rather belated reply; thinking that csj wouldn’t be a good governor in no way means that the current home team is necessarily Good.

in fact we need chee – to speak, to let us believe in something again, to let us question, etc.

whether he should be in a position of active power is another matter.

interesting that this should garner 143 posts, though it’s a lot of posts from the same few people?

Lim (#136):

Civil disobedience is not the last resort. A violent uprising is the last resort, and it is applicable in very restricted circumstances. Do not put civil disobedience and violent uprising in the same league, or use your favourite coincidence justification to reason what you can´t account for. Your notion of deciding if Dr Chee speaks for the masses is not applicable in the context of civil disobedience because the issue does not lie with the number of people suffering from social injustice but the issue that there are people who are suffering from social injustice.

Lim(#139):

You quoted Macbeth in #136: “Full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.” This is only true when the actor is only full of noise.

So while you think Dr Chee is full of sound and fury, you discount his actions of civil disobedience to mere nothing. Yet the fact remains that he has done what is humanely possible within his means through advocating and carrying out civil disobedience. He doesn´t signify nothing because his actions back his words.

Elysian (#143):

Kudos to you. This happens to be the 146th comment on this thread, which reminds all of us here that press freedom in Singapore remains at 146th out of 167 countries. We need to support the Opposition to let it grow, so that we can always keep the ruling party on its toes and serving the public.

“Civil disobedience is not the last resort. A violent uprising is the last resort, and it is applicable in very restricted circumstances. Do not put civil disobedience and violent uprising in the same league, or use your favourite coincidence justification to reason what you can´t account for. Your notion of deciding if Dr Chee speaks for the masses is not applicable in the context of civil disobedience because the issue does not lie with the number of people suffering from social injustice but the issue that there are people who are suffering from social injustice.”

Again you twist the argument. The black civil rights movement was NOT a violent uprising. Its been 146 posts and counting and yet the comparisons to the movement is still maintained without any specifics given.

I’m still waiting to hear how life is soooo bad in Singapore that it compares to the black civil rights movement. lol. Wait long long….

It is not my notion that matters but the SDP’s actions and misconceptions over what civil disobedience means in Singapore that matters. The focus due to the lack of substance on the part of the SDP is to shift the focus to others not itself. That has been the sole strategy here.

Civil disobedience to SDP is to reject any laws that is not beneficial to the SDP. In other words, selective application of laws. In this case, the right to trespass private property is upheld as a correct action? lol.

Let’s be frank. I haven’t heard anything that remotely suggest anything other than civil disobedience being merely used as words to “justify” law-breaking by the SDP.

“So while you think Dr Chee is full of sound and fury, you discount his actions of civil disobedience to mere nothing. Yet the fact remains that he has done what is humanely possible within his means through advocating and carrying out civil disobedience. He doesn´t signify nothing because his actions back his words.” – Mr Tan

So tell us what he has done. I can list some. Hunger strikes, defamation on baseless information, kicking out legally elected MP from the party, trespass, etc. Very impressive indeed.

I stand corrected. Perhaps I shouldn’t have quoted Macbeth. Instead I should have quoted Edison. I can thank Mr Chee and the SDP for showing Singaporeans the myriad ways of how NOT to do things.

If I accept your argument, I would have to accept that breaking the law on the mere justification that it impedes his/his party’s personal political gains is correct. lol. Sorry, pls find some guillible fellow to accept that pls.

So you want to play by the system, adjust yourself to achieve what you want within the system?

The system will promise you untold happy optimistic prospects if you play it on its terms. And then you tone yourself down, make yourself amenable to them, familiarise yourself with the way they do things, do things their way, etc….

… and end up becoming a shrivelled deluded soul thinking you’re still pushing an independent thought when in reality you’re shackled by theirs. Whyfore?

Remember, when it boiled down to play-by-the-British-rules Labour Front and the more idealistic PAP, back then, the latter won.

[...] dictatorship – TOC: Beyong managing homelessness – TOC: Yip Pin Xiu, an awesome achievement! – TOC: NTU censors campus news coverage of Chee Soon Juan visit (updated) – Feed Me To The Fish: Legal? Factual? Faulty? Who knows? – TOC: Does globalisation encourage [...]

Lim (#146):

I am not going to fall into your trap of discussing the black civil rights movement. Your notion that Singaporeans should only start to protest in similar manner when they experience decades of discrimination or hardship is not applicable because if you look around the world, you will find that there are active protesters living in developed countries as well who have genuine issues to campaign for. In 2006, when Transport for London (TfL) refuses to upgrade protection and safety equipment for employees, the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers (RMT) responded with strikes until the employer give in. There was no violence and no public transport.

to lim, @148)

Do you support the idea that the management of NTU, NUS and SMU should organize a joint forum for all political parties ? I am certain you agree with me that young Singaporeans should play a more active role in politics because many of these young talents will be in positions to shape the country’s future and direction.
It is clear to many of us that you hold pro govt views, fine with me. That is what freedom of speech is all about.
Don’t you think that instead of arguing about CSJ’s trespassing , we should be encouraging NTU’s management and the students to organize an open debate for CSJ and other politicians? The priority if one is serious about promoting free speech is to focus on organizing such an event. Don’t you think it will encourage critical thinking if students can question all parties? Any political party that represents nonsense will do themselves in with the students.

I cannot help having the impression you have certain degree of negative bias towards CSJ. Of course you are free to express your views about him, but I think someone from another posting made a suggestion that I think is really fair, which is for you to have an open debate with CSJ .

Hong Lim Park is an approved venue by the authorities and I agree that you should show some conviction to accept the offer of debating with CSJ. By doing so, both of you would have done a great service to promote free speech.
Go for it man !

Lim,

Without CSJ and his party’s selfless conviction, would PAP allow demonstration to be legally held at Speaker’s Corner? So, is civil disobedience necessary?

Civil disobedience, not violence, is necessary, if we are to bring the authorities to task, transparency and accountability. By just expressing our views and comments, we can dream about PAP changing their all white outfits to black. Anyway, their white outfits are smeared with prominent polka dots and greying rapidly.

The crux of the problem is that they expect Singaporeans to accept them as they are without liability nor accountability. PAP’s motto is “Lets move on.” Yes, we will move on but not necessary with them.

“Let’s move on” — also very comfortable, because it encourages the people to gloss over the disturbingly un-PAP thoughts as an anomaly, and proceed to comfortably continue with their own lives.

After all, the less people think about it, the safer the status quo will be :)

Politics is about everybody, not just rich or poor people, men or women, old or young. EVERYONE must know politics because ultimately it will determine your future in this country, especially during elections when you are voting for your next 5 yrs of future.

Some people do not vote against govt for fear of being arrested. Then I want to ask: Since that’s the case, why you vote for them in the first place? Do you actually vote for someone who cast fears upon you afterwards?

[...] NTU censors campus news coverage of Chee Soon Juan visit. Retrieved September 22, 2008, from http://theonlinecitizen.com/2008/09/ntu-censors-campus-news-coverage-of-chee-soon-juan-visit/#commen... Posted by xin Filed in [...]

“there was a feeling of concern over the use of student media to publicise and promote the unsolicited views of an uninvited person to the campus.”

What a strong comment this is…

[...] Link [...]

To the posters who attribute the changes that have taken place as a result of the Chee’s “civil disobedience”- that’s the dumbest thing i’ve heard all year.

Lee Kuan Yew and the PAP did all the hard work only for their contributions to be continually undermined by western propaganda.

angkukueh ,
sure, then all the opp parties must be the dumbest as
“Lee Kuan Yew and the PAP did all the hard work only for their contributions to be continually undermined by western propaganda.”

because whichever opp parties propose, suggest and even fight for policies are nothing but PAP’s effort because PAP as a government will be the ultimate one approve of policy change and make the change.

Which to say “Lee Kuan Yew and the PAP did all the hard work only for their contributions to be continually undermined by western propaganda.” must be the most intelligent and wise statement I ever heard.

Thank angkukueh for reminding us and show us how dumb one can be.

angkukueh (#159)

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=EAi7rCotiAg&feature=related

This is evidence on how CSJ & SDP effect international pressure to coerce PAP to open up free political debate in Singapore. CSJ suffered from countless bad press over the years. For opposition politics to work in Singapore, the Opposition must be able to threaten the strategic interest of the ruling party. Open up your eyes.

Daniel,

I’m referring to the Chees here. I didn’t discredit the opposition’s contributions- you did. But it’s partly my fault cause i used word “all”.

I didn’t remind or show you that you’re dumb. I said to attributing the changes to the Chees is dumb.

Donaldson Tan,

What constitutes “international pressure”? International pressure more often than not refers to western pressure? What do the foreigners in the video know about Singapore? Lets assume they know Singapore like you and I and then i’ll ask, do they have a stake in Singapore? Whose interests are they advancing? Theirs and their country.

And threaten the strategic interest of the ruling party? What for? 1) Because we need some form of check and balance? 2)Because that’s what all proper countries should have ie liberal democracy?

The PAP will be out by the next GE if they are corrupt and useless. They can make it a ten person GRC and they still wouldn’t be able to hold on to the constituency.

Western soft power in the forms of liberal democracy, religion, media and human rights is means for them to attempt to maintain their position of eminence when the time has come for them to share it with the rest of the world. They are not entirely benign ideologies/beliefs like they want others to believe.

angkukueh (#163):

By putting up human rights as one of the required conditions for the EU-Singapore Free Trade Agreement, PAP has no choice but to open up. Your line of reasoning suggests nobody should threaten the strategic interest of the ruling party, but for protests and pressures to work, the bottom-line and the strategic interest must be threatened. Failure to see why such strategies should be used is as good as embracing asian “authoratarian” values. Your rejection of foreign interference only goes to show that you are aware of the inconvinient truths in Singapore. In my opinion, the Lee’s thesis (aka Asian democracy and Asian values) has to be abandoned because it does not reward free market of ideas which is essential for Singapore to build a knowledge-based economy. Essentially, the PAP has become a dinosaur that is hindering the progress of Singapore.

“International pressure more often than not refers to western pressure?”
Does it really matter ?

“What do the foreigners in the video know about Singapore?”
What do majority of Singaporeans know about Singapore then ? You will be surprised to know majority don’t even know the history and politics of Singapore and very ignorant about it (Just ask your Singapore friends). These foreigners, Asian and western alike are hold jobs pertaining to human right and democracy, as such they consolidate experience in handling similar “undemocratic” country include Asian country, so let’s not belittle them (please don’t it is me who belittle them again).

“do they have a stake in Singapore? Whose interests are they advancing? Theirs and their country.”
Why ? Can’t we discern this ourselves ? Why do we always held this view that others help us always have agenda ? Are we been lead by propaganda to share the same pragmatic and realistic expectation as our government’s “No free lunch” ? I’m not surprised that Singaporeans are breed to think this way after all LKY once remarked there’s a conspiracy to do us in.

“And threaten the strategic interest of the ruling party?”
What strategic interest does our ruling party has anyway ?

“The PAP will be out by the next GE if they are corrupt and useless. They can make it a ten person GRC and they still wouldn’t be able to hold on to the constituency.”

Really ? Do you know the GRC is designed to game the election ? What do you think they hire scholars for ? Take a read at YawningBread’s enlightening post
http://www.yawningbread.org/arch_2008/yax-861.htm
It will be naive to think that we can easily vote them out. It won’t be easy. Last election the gov underestimated the opp party. Next election they will devise a better game with more advantageous rules.

“Western soft power in the forms of liberal democracy, religion, media and human rights is means for them to attempt to maintain their position of eminence when the time has come for them to share it with the rest of the world. They are not entirely benign ideologies/beliefs like they want others to believe.”

Are we thinking of Conspiracy theory or are we are just as guilty of it ? Uniquely Singapore indeed that we believe that western power is no good but yet we endorse much of it. Our legal system following british, capitalism follow western idea etc. yeah this system not perfect but we still use and influence by the western ideas , so exactly what is the problem ?

Donaldson Tan,

“Human rights” is a result of the past abuses carried out by the West. Singapore was never ruled by dictators and slave owners so why on earth do i want to allow some dude from the EU to step all over me in the name of his forebears’ past trangressions?

Just because western media constantly describes LKY as authoritarian/dictatorial doesn’t mean he is. I will describe him as paternal.

My question to you was question the strategic interests of the PAP for what? At what cost? So that i can go down to Orchard Rd tomorrow and shout so and so is a crony and is corrupt without any proof? What are you dying to say so badly that you cannot say? Is the environment in Singapore really stifling or is it because the economist and the bbc suggest to you so?

I don’t know what you are referring to by saying “you are aware of the incovenient truths” therefore i reject foriegn interference- inconvenient truths exists in all countries.

In my opinion, essentially, PAP is what keeps Singapore on its path to be a knowledge driven country.

Essentially, the PAP has become a dinosaur that is hindering the progress of Singapore – Donaldson Tan (#164)

All dinosaurs should have died 65 million years ago. Can you handle the evidence that PAP is crony and corrupt objectively? Have you ever experienced taking up the case to CPIB, only to be rejected by authorities while being harrassed for next 10 years by PAP thugs. No policemen will stand up to protect you against the PAP thugs. In the end, my family and I emigrated.

166) angkukueh on October 7th, 2008 5.03 pm

“Singapore was never ruled by dictators and slave owners so why on earth do i want to allow some dude from the EU to step all over me in the name of his forebears’ past trangressions? ”

Forebears’ past trangressions ? Does it really have to be the same kind of past trangressions that the need for human rights is to be invoked.

Maybe you have eaten too much angkukueh that you whole head is too blocked up by the red gluey stuff with that yellowish bean paste.

So why are we using english language to communicate. In fact, the ang moh language is the only written language that I communicate better. So why should we Asians adopt it – it serves a practical purpose right ?

Human rights are not only the purview for EU or US but for any country and their people simply because it protects the sanctity of a human life better, if one ever needs to call for it one fine day.

EU or US just happen to have a culture to be noisy and nosy about this human right stuff more than we do and some of us Asians just want to have it because it is just right to have it, period.

Certain people feel that they are being stepped more by their own kind rather than some foreigners. Hey, we are living in this part of the world and you just look at the way the governing treat the governed over certain matters.

One last thing, do not eat too much angkukueh. Not only it will give you some lousy blocked head, it may also give you some lousy constipation which will make you spew out rubbish from the wrong opening.

#167

No i have not had a bad experience with the CPIB. I’m interested to read about the details of your experience if you’re willing to share online.

#168

I get constipation and a blocked head by eating too much ang ku kueh. You on the other hand get constipated and a blocked head by eating too much cheezburgerz! and oily chips.

As part of the NTU faculty, I am now deeply ashamed of my so called “university”.

what exactly about the university are you ashamed of?

A university is supposed to be a bastion of free thought. Even in dictatorships academics try to uphold this tradition. When a president of a university applies political censorship to a student publication, he is going against the most fundamental idea of what a university is. So, what makes me ashamed is partly the actions of my university’s president, partly that it’s faculty doesn’t seem to react on them.

So many debate here yet few grasp the logic. To the gov, CSJ spells trouble, fullstop. Its nothing to do with freedom of news in NTU or whatsoever

Adain;
Maybe so, but what the govt. considers trouble shouldn’t stop the debate at a university, which per definition is an institution of free thought. If it does, then NTU is simply not a university.

-Anders, lecturer at NTU.

Indeed we do not bleed local university here but we nurture SINiversity in SINgapore, one that speak not freely of mind and of injustice but one of convenience and safety.

“To the gov, CSJ spells trouble, fullstop. Its nothing to do with freedom of news in NTU or whatsoever.”

That most of us know. Spelling trouble for them does not mean spelling trouble for us. And that is why there is so much noise. Are you also able to grasp the logic at this end.

[...] available online. Students respond to the censorship with a protest at Speakers’ Corner. See here and [...]

[...] The Online Citizen – NTU censors campus news coverage of Chee Soon Juan visit [...]

[...] The Online Citizen – NTU censors campus news coverage of Chee Soon Juan visit [...]

[...] continue engaging youths this time at NTU SDP: Democrats write to student body at NTU TOC: NTU censors news coverage of Chee Soon Juan’s visit SDP: NTU students come alive TOC: NTU students protest at Speaker’s Corner SDP: SDP turns [...]

[...] continue engaging youths this time at NTU SDP: Democrats write to student body at NTU TOC: NTU censors news coverage of Chee Soon Juan’s visit SDP: NTU students come alive TOC: NTU students protest at Speaker’s Corner SDP: SDP turns [...]

[...] NTU censors news coverage of Chee Soon Juan [...]

I think SDP and CSJ really did nothing wrong.

The NTU’s admin should not be so taken back by the visit. I think the WP, RP and NSP should pay a visit to the 2 UNIs also.

The opp parties are just trying to work the ground. Or else some ignorant Singaporean will say that opp parties and their Youth Wing are only active during GE and no more action after that.

I don’t think the opp parties are only active during GEs. It is only that they(opp parties) have been sidelined by the mainstream media. Therefore not much Singaporean will know about their activities from day to day.

I personally came across a NSP guy who was selling the North Star on 2 separate Sunday at 2 different places. I asked him, “Uncle, do you all go about to sell your publications every Sundays.” . He replied me, ” Yes, we go to different places in Singapore every Sunday to sell the North Star, it is only that we do not get so much media coverage like the PAP. Haha”

So, it is not really true that opp parties are only active during GEs. It is only that many Singaporean does not know what they are doing.

Unlike, the LHL or LKY visit the UNIs, there will be news coverage showing them giving speeches to the students.