Updated: This is the updated version of the earlier report.
Terence Lee / Youth Editor
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.
The latest issue of NTU’s campus newspaper, The Nanyang Chronicle , was published on Monday (15th September), and was slated to feature an article about Dr Chee’s visit. In the end, it featured only a visit of a different sort – that of the former President of India, Dr APJ Abdul Kalam, who is a stranger among Singaporean students.
On 26th August, the controversial opposition figure, together with several other Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) leaders, visited NTU to distribute flyers and interact with the students. The NTU visit was part of a tour by the SDP to “raise political awareness,” and it included NIE, SMU and NUS as well. The NUS visit, which happened on 11th September, was covered by the university’s student-run online newspaper, The Campus Observer .
Student journalists from the Chronicle and NTU’s student-run news magazine programme, Nanyang Spectrum , were quick to converge on Dr Chee and the SDP members to conduct interviews.
Mr Philip Lim, 23, head of Nanyang Spectrum, was in-charge of producing the news clip for Dr Chee’s visit. Equipped with a video camera, he was on-site to document his visit, but he had trouble finding students to interview.
“This has never occurred to me before, even after many months on Spectrum. I suspect it’s due to the sensitivity of the topic,” he said.
He also recalled how some students whom he spoke to did not know who Dr Chee was. “Someone even asked me if he was the national table tennis coach who just got sacked!” he added. The question, in fact, is a misnomer; the coach in question, Mr Liu Guodong, is in talks to renew his contract with the Singapore Table Tennis Association to help prepare the national team for the 2012 London Olympics.
However, any excitement that their news items would appear on print or screen died down quickly. Mr Lim recalled how he had to remove two out of the three soundbites he planned to use, after some advice from his professors. Further edits were made thereafter, until he felt it was “neutral enough already.”
Despite these measures, the episode was shown for less than three days before the university’s corporate communications department ordered the episode to be taken off-the-air for good.
The article slated for the Nanyang Chronicle was also axed. (Picture, left: The in-house advertisement that was created to replace the Chee Soon Juan story.) After much negotiation between the paper’s teacher-advisors and the university, NTU president Su Guaning gave the article the go-ahead. However, he changed his mind at the last minute, and the article was removed just one day before the newspaper’s publication on Monday (15th September). Many of the student editors at the Chronicle were clearly indignant when they learnt about this.
One of them, 3rd year communications studies student Cheryl Ong, 21 — who is also the Chronicle’s news editor — wrote on her blog: “The reason given for the censorship left a bad taste in my mouth. I can’t really talk about what my teacher told us, because it was mostly his conjecture—’They’ have yet to tell us the official reason.”
She also wrote how “a number of journalism students were rather disgruntled” when the incident transpired.
Chief editor Lin Junjie, 23, said that while they “do not necessarily agree with all executive decisions made by the owner or the publisher”, their journalists have “done their best” to cover every story, including the one that was censored.
“The situation wasn’t within our control as we’re funded by them,” he said.
According to Associate Professor Benjamin Detenber, Chair of NTU’s Wee Kim Wee School of Communication and Information (WKWSCI), which runs both campus media, the university’s position is that the story was killed because “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.”
But 22-year-old NTU student Naresh Ethan Subhash, who is currently studying film, remained highly critical. He said: “I’m really frustrated. Being university students, we are people who can think for ourselves. If they want to create an institution of higher education, censoring the campus media is totally unacceptable.”
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.”
Literature student Elaine Lee, 20, felt that the censorship questions the student’s analytical ability.
“If we aren’t exposed to anything, how can we be expected to gauge one political view from another?” she added.
Headline picture from Campus Observer.
———–
HELP keep the voice of TOC alive!
If you like this article, please consider a small donation to help theonlinecitizen.com stay alive. Please note that we can only accept donations from Singaporeans. Thank you for your assistance.Do you have a flair for writing? Volunteer with us. Email us your full name and contact details to theonlinecitizen@gmail.com
” 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.
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.
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?
“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…