anybody out there has any idea how much the pap has collected in defamation suits over the years? care to share?

Pearson. “Singapore has nothing to fear from a vocal opposition and its people have everything to gain.”

Using defamation suits to sue till bankruptcy is not only an underhand method, it is also admitting that SDP is a THREAT to the political landscape of singapore.

If pay and pay is truly woRld class, they should not be afrAid to accept any competition from the opposition.

Isn’t it an irOny when they call us to accept competition from foreign talents and they themselves can’t even compete gracefully with the opposition.
Why resort to such an unscrupulous method? If you don’t feel ashame, i feel ashame for you.

They don’t have to go bankrupt. If there are wealthy Singaporeans supporting the Chee’s cause, someone would have stepped forward with financial assistance. Got to wonder why the Opposition Parties get no support from the masses.

The point is nobody dare to be on Chee’s side.
Would the rich & wealthy risk their status by supporting the opposition.
Not to mention some are actually in collaboration with the incumbent.

problem is finding ‘wealthy Singaporeans supporting the Chee’s cause”.
most of them would have already being bought by the pap.

maybe we can start a fund-raising campaign over here at TOC. Small contributions are welcomed and if we succeed, it would be the biggest statement we can make to the aggressors.

ask warren buffet interest in investing SDP.

PAP are never a gracious political party. if what Dr chee claim is false, why not prove it to everyone. instead PAP always use the non-engagement policy with the public, everthing that come from their mouth has to be pre-arrange,script wriitten.

once again, singaporeans only has themselves to blame for our political climate.
i sometime also blame my father/mother for being too obedient that now, our generation found it hard to break their stranglehold.

adolf hitler, don’t blame your parents. the promises made by the Great Deceiver sounded so good and true in those days.

history has to change now . . . right now! . . . and since our foreparents are already so worn out by the deceptions, it is only right that the children now have to take up the sword to slay the Great Deceiver and his army.

2) don on October 17th, 2008 9.36 am I seriously think otherwise. It all depends on what is said by Chee is the truth or not. If it is the truth, I believe if that Chee had said the truth there won’t be a situation where “Six other defendants, all SDP central executive committee members, had previously issued an apology”. And also if someone were to say something bad about you which is not the truth. Will you be angry and want sue the other party till bankruptcy?

All I can say is that current oppostion parties and people like Chee are not as good as the Pay And Pay. Which is why singaporeans are complaining about Pay and Pay and yet unable to do anything about it. And for people like don, if you are really that good, you should not be complaining here about what underhand method or what sort. Come out with some truth to rebut Pay and Pay. Then you earn my respect.

To Z:

It doesn’t mean you are right if you can shut someone mouth using the court. And people that apologise doesn’t mean they are wrong.
If your memory is not too bad, TT Durai sue people and those people apologise. And we know now who’s the wronged party.

Is there anyone on the surface of this Planet called Earth investigating on the mentality of Singaporeans? Its Unique to say the least.

Hey Z,
if someone were to say something bad about me which is not the truth,
I guess i will demand a public apology.

sorry i do not need to earn your respect, and if you want me to still come out with some truth to rebut pay and pay, i guess u are so blinded that u can’t see.

If you have been following theonlinecitizen, all the evidences are there.
If not, go broaden your knowledge by reading the IHT, The Economist, FTs etc.
All are reputable foreign news reporting.
You can’t rely on the states times to enhance your political knowledge because it is controlled by gahment.

may wisdom and truth be with u.

#8 – Z
can we speak about ‘truth’ when we know damn well that there is only one truth – the pap’s interpretations of anything and everything.

can we conclude that, “because the other six had apologised, therefore the accusation must be true?”.

we can’t, as long as there is a threat of such exhobitant financial penalty.

the six of them probably had no choice but to apologise in order to pay a smaller amount of compensation than if they had contested the suit. i am sure they would have fought to the ends of the earth if they are are drawing million-dollars salaries.

as for your final comment on suing one to bankruptcy who says bad things about you . . . i have only one thing to say . . . sure, go ahead and sue but you cannot later blame the bystanders for what they think of you . . . a merciless creature . . . nowhere near being a human than an animal . . .

this is the sort of blindness we see ever so often in Singaporeans. they think they know everything because they have heard them from ‘reliable’ sources. what can be further from the truth than for one to belive what they read and hear from mediums that are biaised and one-sided?

I wonder if there is another running dog in the midst ? ? ? . . . welcome to the party . .

tan (#3), don (#4),

The last known Singaporean who financed the Opposition was Tan Lark Sye. He was a self-made millionaire. His citizenship was not only revoked in response. He was exiled to China too.

Supposing you have a Parliament with 10, 15 or 20 opposition members out of 80, then instead of spending my time thinking what is the right policy for Singapore, I will spend all my time, I have to spend all my time thinking of what is the right way to fix them, what’s the best way to buy my own supporters over. – Lee Hsien Long, 3 May 2006

We already don´t have a world-class government. You can tell LHL´s priority is to fix the opposition first, then focus on strategic issues concerning Singaporeans. This is really no better than the calibre of politicians from 3rd world countries. Singapore is no where near first world.

huh? . . . Tan Lark Sye who?
must remember him the day the opposition takes control of Singapore.
he’s so forgotten. must be appropriately honoured.

it must have came at a time when senior Lee was personally tutoring his junior Lee how to fix things?

You’re right, Singapore is no where near first world but the national kitty is – it is out of this world – from another planet!

kuchinta – kuchinta – kuchinta – !

Never forget that everything Hitler did in Germany was legal. -Martin Luther King

Those currently in power can do what ever they like and think they are right at the moment.

By eliminating the last voice of singapore is as good as already won the next coming 2011 GE. This is not something new in sg eversince the ruling party took power 40 years back. The only difference now is that they are getting more and more daring in doing what they like becos the laws becomes theirs to intepret. The citizens have no more says but just to follow regardless of how much more money they want out of the peoples pocket, no mercy. But then again, who is to blame here? singaporean, who allow them into power?, singaporean again. Its too late to oppose now, for they have already got full control of all the nation reserve to do anything to the people if you do not obey. The hope of singapore now lies in the hands of the young lions. Singapore belongs to the singaporeans. Do what’s right and save your country.

3) tan
Its not that people do not want to help. The Pappies has passed a law that state that any person who want do donate a larger amount ( i think its few thousands dollars) need to fully declare himself/herself. Would any businessman who would want to help do so knowing the no of companies controlled by the govt thru’ Temasek Holdings that they need to deal with?
They may think they are impartial to businesses, but we know human nature especially PAP’ nature.

our opposition need to learn from taiwan..

but,,,pap really use a lot power to beat opposition..
so ….

only the winning method ar..
internet and their own newpaper..

then it will have a group of supporter le…about few 10000pp..

then go to against the policy tat r unfair…

in sing,,only this method is working..
go go go

” I believe if that Chee had said the truth there won’t be a situation where “Six other defendants, all SDP central executive committee members, had previously issued an apology”. And also if someone were to say something bad about you which is not the truth. Will you be angry and want sue the other party till bankruptcy?”
What ? You are concluding that Dr Chee is not stating the truth just because others pay the paid a total of SD$340,000 (US$233,000) to the plaintiffs ?
Please don’t insult the reader’s intelligence here and please don’t insult JBJ who is no longer with us. Isn’t JBJ paid the charge too ? Does that means he pay up means he been telling untruth as he is been sued ?
It shows that whether one pay up or not doesn’t means he has not spoken the truth. Can these six persons pay up to prevent further consequences and extended kangaroo lawsuits ?

” Then you earn my respect.”
Who really care about your respect when your thinking is so dubious and cannot stand scrutiny ?

Hi there guys I am not worried that SDP ceased to exist :)

in fact has bankrupt Dr Chee and his comrades deter anything so far… few years back Dr Chee was almost one lone protestor…. right now u see a handful of activists and the beauty of civil disobedience conducted by Dr Chee has a indirect effect on Singaporeans…

for instance the govt has no choice not to get embarrass again by lifting the speakers corner and recently we see 600 singaporeans gathering at SC.. of course it is not instigated by Dr Chee but we must acknowledge that thanks to his constant pushing beyond the OB markers… he and the few others has gradually unshackle the fear or obstacles placed by the govt

SDP is just a name, any people who can tomorrow just register any party and called themselves (Party of Singapore Democrats… best why not called themselves Popular Action Party so that in election some clueless uncle aunties will think it is PAP) but is it a party with substance or not… the quality relies much on the members and supporters. So even without the name SDP… I believed that Dr Chee and supporters will still carry on (in fact just one small practical thing, SDP website will just rename themselves and moved to another host) and people will still log on to it .

Some people also question why that SDP always go to court and battles on despite it seem they will sure lost their case… my opinion is that part of civil disobedience always want to bring it out in the open to make the enemies “ridicule” themselves (the more they slap these activists faces, and they remained unbowed, gradually more and more people will see who are actual bullies and victims are… such as the roo t shirts)

huh? . . . Tan Lark Sye who?
must remember him the day the opposition takes control of Singapore.
he’s so forgotten. must be appropriately honoured.
- Gemami (#15)

He used to finance the Barisan Sosialis.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barisan_Sosialis_Party

Tan Lark Sye used to finance the Barisan Sosialis.

PAP had the Barisan Socialis and its associates wiped out years ago.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barisan_Sosialis_Party

There is some truth in the Wikipedia article, but it is still very biased.

21) Choon Hiong on October 17th, 2008 2.56 pm

to a certain extent i would agree with you that a stand-alone CSJ could be just as effective in fighting the cause of civil freedom. come to think of it, he might even be stronger and louder without the need to account to a party banner.

thing is, whether he stands alone or carries a banner is immaterial. we do know him better than he is being made out to be. this we must continue to share with our apathetic brethrens. we too have the responsibility to educate and eradicate.

yes; educate the neutral masses to eradicate this regime.

Nepotism = favoritism (as in appointment to a job) based on kinship = family run business.

You know who , I know who but we cannot say the “you know who” openly……

If only I am in the family, (sing) we are family and ‘cha cha cha’. (Evil grin) ;-))

Hi Donald,

Some correction on info on Tan L S. He remained in Singapore and passed away here. I attended his funeral in Katong…

May I offer a different perspective?

Like what “Z” said, it is important to first establish whether the defendents in defamation cases were actually speaking the truth before jumping to their defence.

Defamation (libel/slander) implies a statement or allegation that is FALSE and DAMAGING. So if someone makes a false and damaging statement against you, what must you do?

(1) If you remain silent, people will think that the statement is true;

(2) If you protest that it is not true and leave it at that, people will think that it is natural for you to deny some unsavoury accusations against you;

(3) If you demand for a public apology, it may not be forthcoming;

(4) So, it appears that the only way to clear your name is to refer the matter to a third party for judgement using objective evidence. And that means sueing the accuser as (in theory at least) what can be more objective than the Court? I think the Govt has no choice but to clear its name publicly or else it will lose its moral authority to govern.

(5) Whether the false accuser becomes bankrupt or not, that depends the quantum of damages as assessed by the Court and his ability to pay.

(6) Of course, such a tactic had been used repeatedly by the Govt because it had proven to be very effective. So, the opposition must be more creative and change strategy to win at this game. Repeatedly banging your head against the wall is not to be admired!

Some correction on info on Tan L S. He remained in Singapore and passed away here. I attended his funeral in Katong… – jy (#24)

My understanding was his citizenship was revoked, but when he died, he was allowed to return to have his funeral in Singapore. For those who don’t know Tan Lark Sye is, he is one of the most important chinese philantrophists and activists in Singapore’s history. He died in 1972.

During his chairmanship of the Chinese Chamber of Commerce in the 1950s , he fought for citizenship for the Chinese of Singapore and for the Chinese language to be counted as one of the official languages. He initiated the funding that led to the founding of Nanyang University, and was the Chairman of Nanyang University’s Executive Committee from 1953 to 1963.

Defamation (libel/slander) implies a statement or allegation that is FALSE and DAMAGING. So if someone makes a false and damaging statement against you, what must you do? – smallvoice585

If that’s the case, how come it is only required for Dr Chee and his associates to prove their case, while the Lees and their associates do not have to prove their case as well?

If that’s the case, how come it is only required for Dr Chee and his associates to prove their case, while the Lees and their associates do not have to prove their case as well?
No point asking this question. They are the laws themselves even IBA do not have the rights to interfere, so what are we talking about?

Donaldson Tan ,
That’s interesting information.

Ironically, “His most outstanding contribution, however, was the initiating of the founding of Nanyang University in 1953. He donated personally $5 million to its building fund, as well as 523 acres of land for its campus on behalf of the Hokkien Huay Kuan. In the period 1953 – 1963 he was Chairman of Nanyang University’s Executive Committee, and gave of both effort and money to look after various aspects of the university – building, teaching staff, research facilities, library, student welfare and others. The campus of Nanyang University is now occupied by Nanyang Technological University.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tan_Lark_Sye

Will he be happy to see the state of NTU been partisan to the ruling party instead of one that breed independent and critical minds if he alive ?

Sad. Very sad.

“If that’s the case, how come it is only required for Dr Chee and his associates to prove their case, while the Lees and their associates do not have to prove their case as well?”

That show the Kangaroos are the league by themselves. Dr Chee and court transcript and records just confirm my worst fear that we have indeed a kangaroo court in place. Kangaroo is running amok. We should ask and learn from Australia how it controls the Kangaroo so effectively. Our expensive and incompetent kangaroos are beyond hope and repentance.

“Defamation (libel/slander) implies a statement or allegation that is FALSE and DAMAGING. So if someone makes a false and damaging statement against you, what must you do?”

Really ? Question is what will you do ? Or does it applies to some but not to others ?
What if that someone call you a psychopath, will you yourself dare to sue that someone in the kangaroo court if that someone hold high official post ?

MM Lee on Dr Chee
“He’s a liar, a cheat, and altogether an unscrupulous man,” Mr. Lee [Kuan Yew] said of Mr. Chee. “I could also add that I’ve had several of my own doctors who are familiar with such conduct,” he continued, “tell me that he is near-psychopath.” [New York Times]
Where is the evidence to prove that on Dr Chee ? Just because of his so-called doctors ? Who are his doctors ?
Should read on Mollymeek’s analysis.
http://mollymeek.livejournal.com/190409.html

Nanyang University is not NTU, or vice versa.

“If that’s the case, how come it is only required for Dr Chee and his associates to prove their case, while the Lees and their associates do not have to prove their case as well?”

He who decides a case without hearing the other side, though he decide justly, cannot be considered just. – Seneca

Now you people know what kind of judges and judiciary standard we have in Singapore.

Pearson. “Singapore has nothing to fear from a vocal opposition and its people have everything to gain.”

Pearson forgot to include a third party – the PAP. If they stop using defamation suits, the lightning bolt will lose its deterrent effect rather dramatically dont you think? And they would have to depart from the modus operandi and venture into uncharted territory.

Perhaps, years of fixation on the defamation suit have led to their political minds being too disingenuous to look beyond it?

I’d like to recommend the book “Predictably Irrational” by Dan Ariely, Published by Harper Books. The author attempts to uncover everyday decisions that seems to defy rationality which I feel would help us better understand why Singaporeans continue to oblige voting the PAP in at every GE.

Silencing the opposition is one tactic that has no place in Singapore’s present stage of development. I believe the PAP leaders are still living in the past and their actions will not endear them to the citizens or win their respect.

Running dogs / PAP apologists can pass this proposal to the PAP leadership.
Rather than suing CSJ and the SDP, the MM and PM should initiate an open debate with all politicians and show all Singaporeans they can defend their governance and policies.
Hiding behind the lawsuits and judiciary is not the way forward as an example to the younger generation. The students from our junior colleges actually put our leaders to shame by debating live on television.
Come on MM and PM , both of you can do better than the silly one sided lawsuits.

Dear Donaldson Tan

How the court conducted itself to arrive at its verdict is not amenable to question from people like us. You can condemn, you can ridicule and you can criticise in anonymity, but it’s not going to make any practical difference.

The line of argument used to justify sueing political opponents as I’d listed in post #27 is very hard to resist. It’s probably more profitable for the Opposition politicians to learn from it and find a better way to turn the whole situation around.

In fact, dear Daniel, it may not be such a crazy and suicidal idea if CSJ had the guts to sue MM for calling him a liar, a cheat, an unscrupulous man and a near-psychopath! The law should work both ways.

If sueing political opponents in law courts is now an acceptable and established practice, then the opposition should try to beat the Govt at its own game. Perhaps, they should scrutinize every word uttered by the Govt and swarm them with law suits.

Or they can make the undesirability of political court cases as the key election issue at the next General Election. When votes are at stake, the Govt is more likely to consider stopping the practice.

36) conjob on October 17th, 2008 7.39 pm
I bet you they do not even dare to face any open debate even with students like yourself, do you think they dare to face other politicians? Well, maybe if they do, I think at least half the entire population including all MNCs would declare a special OFF DAY to watch this once in a lifetime event of the entire nation. Don’t you agree singaporean?

“In fact, dear Daniel, it may not be such a crazy and suicidal idea if CSJ had the guts to sue MM for calling him a liar, a cheat, an unscrupulous man and a near-psychopath! The law should work both ways.”

Are you kidding me ? The law should work both ways ? You means in Singapore politics ? Idealistically Law should work both ways but as we know, as long as it is nothing to do with politics. Why not you engage with Dr Chee and WP or whatever party, I’m sure that they are willing to welcome and entertain you as I am running out of patience.

In reality, the Law does works both ways BUT it depends on who you are dealing with.

Look like I should stop responding to you. You are obviously living in a make-believe world and making self-denial. To me, you are as good as insultng the intelligence of the commenters here and those prestigious publications like Wall Street Journal, IBA, Economist, FEER, Financial Times, etc.

It is one thing to be intellectual like you and it is another to have a intellectual live in his own ‘idealistic and surreal Singapore’.

Frankly, are you really talking about Singapore or are we in different frequency ?

“The law should work both ways.” ya hor! how come I dunno? all these years, I only know is that there is only one way, head I win, tail you lose!. . . . .and don’t ask why!

I know that Kangaroo can hop both ways but I’m not really sure that “The law should work both ways” here much to the detrimental political impact on the ruling party.

Good news for democracy and human right in Singapore.
Bad news for the kangaroo.

AngMoh finally lend hand to help Dr Chee ! Thumbs up and salute to AngMoh.
“I’m pleased to announce that my law firm has agreed to represent Chee Soon Juan and his party on a pro bono basis, to assist him in every way possible to continue his good work to bring democracy to Singapore.”
http://www.robertamsterdam.com/2008/10/in_singapore_an_uphill_battle.htm

How the court conducted itself to arrive at its verdict is not amenable to question from people like us. You can condemn, you can ridicule and you can criticise in anonymity, but it’s not going to make any practical difference. – smallvoice585 (#37)

Of course it doesn’t make a difference if it is only 1 person criticising the judiciary. We need the entire country to criticise the judiciary.

The line of argument used to justify sueing political opponents as I’d listed in post #27 is very hard to resist. It’s probably more profitable for the Opposition politicians to learn from it and find a better way to turn the whole situation around. – smallvoice585 (#37)

This is obviously a difficult problem. If Singaporeans continue to vote the PAP, it is only fair to say that Singaporeans are propagating the electorate environment where is there is no alternative. Somtimes, I stop to question if Singaporeans deserve the sorry state they are in, but I realise that not everybody wants my sympathy or my meddling.

End of the day, it is not surprising to see any local talent with any sense of social responsibility choosing to emigrate out of frustration and lack of appreciation. One of my best friends (an ex-Singaporean) constantly reminds me how most Singaporeans deserve their plight in our little draconian island because they somehow somewhat repel people who wants to bring progress, unless they themselves have been marginalised.

Like to share one touching song that reveal perhaps what we need all along
The song is aptly named Believe sang by Savatage. Lyrics is applicable to democracy, that is to believe in democracy rather than fear it.

“A child alone
On your own
Retreating
Regretful for the things you’re not
And all dreams you haven’t got
Without a home
A heart of stone
Lies bleeding …
http://www.lyricsdepot.com/savatage/believe.html

Audio
http://www.imeem.com/zakcover/music/nAyE5Ttk/savatage_believe_acoustic/

Video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h8NWfPwWB4E

37) smallvoice585

i somehow get a sense that there is an element of entrapment in your post, particularly this part of it:

“the opposition should try to beat the Govt at its own game. Perhaps, they should scrutinize every word uttered by the Govt and swarm them with law suits.

Or they can make the undesirability of political court cases as the key election issue at the next General Election. When votes are at stake, the Govt is more likely to consider stopping the practice”.

Taking up such a job entails plenty of references to past cases which have already being decided. by the aptly described ‘kangaroo court’. This is tantamout to re-opening old wounds which in turn will land the opposition in hot waters.

The end result would be the total elimination of the opposition by means of defamantion suits that the PAP would surely file against not only the individuals but the parties they belong to.

We can ‘beat them at their own game’ only if there is complete trust in the judiciary and that the PAP would play on equal grounds, both of which are highly unattenable at this point in time. Not to mention the media bias and its ever-ready position to be the voice piece of the PAP to turn things around to PAP’s favour.

“AngMoh finally lend hand to help Dr Chee ! Thumbs up and salute to AngMoh.”

I would like to express my thanks to people who can & are willing to lend help to uphold justice.

I know while every effort may be futile especially when you are dealing with a kangaroo court, i wish you all the resilience that you need.

No matter what is the outcome, the battle is won, for through the years, this has drawn the attention of foreign media, Human Rights Watch, IBA etc.

Singaporeans, if you have eyes, let you see, if you have ears, let you listen, do not deny the oppressed state you are in. Face up to reality and stop deceiving yourself just because you’ll feel better. Knowing the truth hurts, isn’t it?

46) don

well said!

CSJ does not need to sue this govt to prove he has guts. He and his SDP have more guts than most of the PAP eunuchs put together !
The last thing CSJ needs is some PAP stooge trying to give some boh liao advice. We should continue to humour PAP stooges, try to understand they have little skills besides sucking on some banana.
IBA [ angmoh legal organization ] have confirmed what many of us knew about the biasness of the judiciary. How can there be justice ?
It is certainly mischievious to suggest taking out law suits against the incumbents.

http://www.robertamsterdam.com/2008/10/in_singapore_an_uphill_battle.htm

I’m surprised that people here have either become super-paranoid or fallen into a state of extreme cynicism. Both are unjustified and self-defeating and betray your fears and lack of self-confidence.

It seems that anyone who refuses to thoughtlessly join the chorus of condemnation of the Govt is labelled a PAP supporter.

If Person A here says the Govt is terrible, then Person B says – ya, ya very terrible, then Person C says – certainly horrible, etc, etc… And I join as Person D to voice a similar opinion, what have we achieved? Absolutely nothing! Except just to ventilate our frustrations? What’s the point?

We all know we have a problem here with Singapore society – that’s why we are here contributing comments! We should try different viewpoints and brainstorm different solutions. We should try to understand the deeper complexities of the political landscape here.

If you feel that there are moles here; that you can’t trust our judiciary; that you can’t trust our police; that you don’t respect our institutions; that seeking redress through proper channels is useless, naive or living in a dream world – it just means that you have lost hope!

In fact, I believe you may have given up. I’m advising you not to give up hope.

In my post #37, I said – “The law should work both ways.” If we do not work on that basic premise, then short of an armed revolution, we have no chance of doing anything for Singapore. Co-incidentally, in today’s article on Dr Vivian Balakrishnan, he said the same thing as I did. What? – You don’t trust him or any other PAP member either? If that’s the case, I have nothing more to say.

“Taking up such a job entails plenty of references to past cases which have already being decided. by the aptly described ‘kangaroo court’. ”

Exactly. Even before the start, the summary judgement already issued.

“lack of self-confidence”
It is not we have no confidence in ourselves but we don’t have confidence in this government.

“In fact, I believe you may have given up. I’m advising you not to give up hope”
I don’t think many still give up. As long as the people still commenting, they still harbour hope. The only thing is that people giving up on this government, they did not really give up on the country.

” You don’t trust him or any other PAP member either? If that’s the case, I have nothing more to say.”
WEll, maybe we can learn to trust him after the old farter died and PM step down.

smallvoice585 (#50):

Even you say the law should work both ways. From my personal experience in taking matters to the authorities, it is not always the case. Should I give up? No. It only highlights the state of despair the government is in and we, the citizens, must continue to push for reform within PAP and the government.

Even attempts to build a student union independent from the school´s administration were met with repeated scaremongering from the administration. Will the authorities do anything about it? Worst still, some people in power will tell you that threats of defamation suit is not scaremongering, and reaffirm that defamation suits are for defending their integrity.

A few years ago, a Muslim unwed mother wanted to give away her baby girl. Sharia Law makes the baby Muslim because her mother is a Muslim. The child adoption agency advised the mother to give up her religion so that the baby´s status as a Muslim would cease. Muslim babies can only be adopted by Muslim couples. This would boost the baby´s chances of finding new adoptive parents. Yet, if the mother gives up her religion, she faces abandonment and condemnation from her family and peers.

When this issue was taken up to the MCDYS, the ministry referred it to the Islamic Religious Council of Singapore (MUIS). MUIS then told the mother to ¨sort it out herself¨. Sounds familiar? What should we as a society do? Should the government intervene in view of that there may be some form of oppressive religious repercussion against the mother? In principle, Opposition exists to take up issues that the government and/or ruling party refuse to participate, but Singapore´s opposition is already in a state of crisis.

Why do I do what I do? Because action speaks louder than words. I don´t have extreme cynicism or a lack of self-confidence.

Those who condemn this govt are thoughtless,super paranoid , self defeating, lacking self confidence…..if only you knew the truth what some of us do in real life, don’t be presumptuous !

It is not what Vivian has said but what has he done to be trusted ?
Any person who is self confident in his own ability does need to join the incumbents for a living. There are many talented men who are disgusted with the govt’ activities and it is the main reason why they have no desire to be part of the ruling party. DISGUSTING GOVT ACTIVITIES BEGETS CYNICISM !

Most of the criticisms of this govt is absolutely justified, and I repeat absolutely !
It is condescending for anyone to think he knows how to handle this govt.
It is not surprising for some netizens to react negatively to comments by so called political neutrals. Running the opposition down betrays the intentions of these neutrals and my experience tells me they do not have honourable intentions. I agree that not having anything else to say is the right step. LOL

#50
“It seems that anyone who refuses to thoughtlessly join the chorus of condemnation of the Govt is labelled a PAP supporter.

I believe if you are here in this discussion platform you would be open to all kinds of opinions and all mannerisms of presentation. I find nothing wrong in the way each poster presents his or her point. Some are direct, some are blunt and some makes no sense to me. We take them all in our stride.

One example is your generalisation of all who condemn the PAP as ‘thoughtless’.
Do I take offence, No, because i do know, and graciously invite, all to share and discuss their views.

I do agree with your person A, B, C & D analogy though but we must realise that this is the way things have been – this is why it is so difficult to dethrone the PAP regime. More importantly, person A in this context is the main stream media.

Wikipedia articles can be edited, you know. By people who know more, or better; go sign up for an account and DO something productive instead of whingeing.

better still if we can do both.

I understand that some comments here may provoke certain people as it may come across as cynicism and condemnation.

What i want to stress is that, this is the internet and we have every right to voice out our concerns and opinions. If the comments are an eye-sore to you, i suggest that you should skip that, you have every right not to read the comments or even patron this site. And we are talking about human rights here!

If you genuinely understand the deeper complexities of the political landscape here, you will understand why people are lamenting. Search your heart, do you truly feel free in singapore? Is there freedom of speech? Is there free demonstration against electricity hike or ERP hike? Anyone who tries to do that will end up in … u know it clear enough, i don’t need to spell out everything.

Is it a surprise that i don’t trust our gahment and judiciary after all the broken promises and ridiculous sentencing? We voice out because we hope to see change (though apparently there’s not even a tiny glimpse). If you don’t feel good reading all these because you feel your conscience is pricked or they tarnish the good impression you have of singapore’s gahment, there are 2 solutions.

1) Do your own research from good sources and justify your stand.
So that people will respect your viewpoint.
2) Accept that people are unique (especially in uniquely singapore) and opinions
may differ.

Do not be so hard up on yourself. Here, people just want to do their part to voice out and educate the 66.6% who may chance upon this blog. If you think that your viewpoint is correct, nobody can take it away from you. Nobody can control how you want to think, be it right or wrong. The vote is still up to you (if you even have a chance to vote).

well said don! just see it with your own eyes here how many singaporean are so unhappy here with the present garmet, the whole system now as I’ve mentioned earlier is no difference like head, I win, tail you lose situation, what are most of us here, the true citizens of singapore! not slaves, not criminals, not politicians, just commoners like in any other democratic countries who wants some simple, happy and peaceful lives. Do we have to be penalized for someone who think he can rule the world in the shortest span of time?

It is indeed heartening to note that dear Donaldson Tan, Daniel, gemami and conjob here have not given up hope for a better Singapore and declare that they are confident of themselves.

And as dear Donaldson Tan says – action speaks louder than words – I trust that henceforth your postings will go beyond mere criticisms of the Govt and try to have more productive opinions. And I hope gemami is sincere in saying that he is “open to all kinds of opinions and all mannerisms of presentation. I find nothing wrong in the way each poster presents his or her point”. Out of common net etiquette, we should refrain from calling people who disagree with us as PAP stooges or moles and assume or accuse those people of bad intentions. Especially, if these people had categorically denied those accusations. It is only polite that you take their word for it. Or else much space will be wasted on unproductive postings.

In that spirit, let me clarify a few things:
(1) Dear Daniel, whether our MM is still alive or not, or whether our PM has stepped down or not, we must not postpone our actions and live in a state of paralysis. Self-confidence will not allow that.

(2) Dear Donaldson Tan, whether we had past bad experience with the law or not, or whether officially declared defence against defamation is actually scaremongering or not, we should continue playing along in the implicit understanding that “the law should work both ways”. Or else, there will be a total breakdown of civil society.

Now, your example about the adoption of the Muslim child is touching on racial and religious issues. I sincerely advise you not to pursue this example (for obvious reasons) and maybe cite a different example.

(3) Dear conjob, I detect you to be an angry person, but please look beyond criticisms and anger for they betray a sense of helplessness. If you had read any of my posts, I had never on a single occasion run down the opposition politicians (their job is already hard enough). It is also careless of you to extrapolate from your past experience of dishonourable “so-called political neutrals” and generalise that all self-declared political neutrals are the same. By the same token, have you ever entertained the possibility that those who condemn the PAP the loudest can, in fact, be a well-disguised PAP mole? Netizens should be smarter and more sophisticated! I’m suggesting that taking a politically neutral stance is both tenable and more productive.

(4) Dear gemami, you should read posts more carefully. When I say – “It seems that anyone who refuses to thoughtlessly join the chorus of condemnation of the Govt is labelled a PAP supporter”, it does not follow that I harbour a “generalisation of all who condemn the PAP as ‘thoughtless’”. What my statement say is that I refuse to criticise the Govt without thinking and my refusal should not be taken as evidence of support for the PAP. It is totally different from saying that all critics of the Govt are unthinking. You could have given the issue much thought and still decide to criticise the Govt. Conversely, someone may refuse to criticise the Govt out of ignorance. What I said originally is a description of my personal policy of thinking through something deeply first before shooting from the hip and I should not be penalised for it.

Dear don, ha ha,

Thanks for your concern. I do not feel provoked or unhappy about postings here as they are mostly rather uniform and unchallenging. I’m here to find out about the political thinking of Singaporeans, exchange notes and educate readers here about what’s the best thing we can do to make Singapore better.

But I do feel disappointed at the sense of anguish, helplessness and bitterness as shown by most posters here. Most spend their time criticising, condemning and scolding and refuse to explore new ways of thinking. If you keep harping on how bad a situation you are in, you will not put your mind to doing the next step.

Who doesn’t know about the relative lack of political freedom and human rights, the fee hikes, etc, etc. There is no need to do any research to know that. But, what’s the use of lamentations? Ok,… you can lament, but only for a while to get it off your chest.

What’s important is to know what’s the next step! And what to do next is NOT to keep banging your head against the wall. We must act within the law and respect our institutions (despite our misgivings about them).

I propose a 4-step process:

(1) Understand the nature of politics and our political situation in the widest context possible – the good parts, the bad parts, how they are related, what are the things that can lead to trouble, what are the feasible things we can do, what new and creative things can be explored without compromising the welfare of the people, etc, etc.

(2) List the possible actions that can be taken.

(3) Select the best course of action.

(4) Assess the best ways to implement it including the use of the internet.

I hope posters here can contribute to this task constructively as fellow loyal citizens of Singapore.

to smallvoice,
you claim to think things deeply before shooting from the hip.
You just did. Where in my posting did I say all political neutrals are not honourable ? And you accuse me of being careless. I made the comment based on so called neutrals who repeatedly run down the opposition. I am well aware of the deception practised by this govt and you are wrong to assume helplessness.
Whilst you detect anger in me, I detect a condescending approach in you.
Re examine your own sweeping statements on those who condemn the govt as being thoughtless, self defeating , lacking in self confidence, super paranoid.
Like I have said, don’t be presumptuous.

A few years ago, a Muslim unwed mother wanted to give away her baby girl. Sharia Law makes the baby Muslim because her mother is a Muslim. The child adoption agency advised the mother to give up her religion so that the baby´s status as a Muslim would cease. Muslim babies can only be adopted by Muslim couples. This would boost the baby´s chances of finding new adoptive parents. Yet, if the mother gives up her religion, she faces abandonment and condemnation from her family and peers. – Donaldson Tan (#52)

Now, your example about the adoption of the Muslim child is touching on racial and religious issues. I sincerely advise you not to pursue this example (for obvious reasons) and maybe cite a different example. – smallvoice585 (#59)

To say I should not pursue this matter is to marginalise the poor mother and child. This is exactly the stand MCDYS and MUIS took leaving the mother alone. In a non-religious state such as Singapore, one´s allegiance to the state precedes the allegiance to religion. If any religion preaches any form of discrimination or intolerance, the state should intervene.

to smallvoice585

“Thanks for your concern. I do not feel provoked or unhappy about postings here as they are mostly rather uniform and unchallenging. I’m here to find out about the political thinking of Singaporeans, exchange notes and educate readers here about what’s the best thing we can do to make Singapore better”.

(gemani: I think this platform is more informative than challenging. If you are looking for challenging platforms, then it’s good to go visit any of the opposition websites. You are here because you want to listen to what others are saying about the govt – a different opinion, if you like. From here, you can draw your own conclusion without the need to forced it on you as is the case with the mainstream media.
The day will come when discussion threads like this will be engaging and challenging. Not at the moment. The first step is to inform and with the numerous posters sharing the same voice – and in your own words ‘uniform’ – then it is informative in the sense that there is common ground for grievances and ‘lamentations’.
It is hoped that visitors to this site will see the other side of the coin and be informed that things are not always what they are ‘printed’ out to be by the MSM).

“But I do feel disappointed at the sense of anguish, helplessness and bitterness as shown by most posters here. Most spend their time criticising, condemning and scolding and refuse to explore new ways of thinking. If you keep harping on how bad a situation you are in, you will not put your mind to doing the next step”.

(gemani: the least any of the posters would want any visitor to this site to feel is disappointed. Then again, it depends on what you are looking for. As mentioned, if you are looking to be informed – in no uncertain terms – foul languages included, you will get as raw a deal as you won’t find anywhere else).

“Who doesn’t know about the relative lack of political freedom and human rights, the fee hikes, etc, etc. There is no need to do any research to know that. But, what’s the use of lamentations? Ok,… you can lament, but only for a while to get it off your chest”.

(gemani: I disagree because the first step has to be lamentations. People have to feel aggrieved before they act or even react).

“What’s important is to know what’s the next step! And what to do next is NOT to keep banging your head against the wall. We must act within the law and respect our institutions (despite our misgivings about them)”.

(gemani: remedies are many but are they feasible with the current political climate of fear – both from the people as well as from the pap?).

“I propose a 4-step process:
(1) Understand the nature of politics and our political situation in the widest context possible – the good parts, the bad parts, how they are related, what are the things that can lead to trouble, what are the feasible things we can do, what new and creative things can be explored without compromising the welfare of the people, etc, etc.
(2) List the possible actions that can be taken.
(3) Select the best course of action.
(4) Assess the best ways to implement it including the use of the internet.
I hope posters here can contribute to this task constructively as fellow loyal citizens of Singapore”.

(gemani: agreed, but now is not the time – yet).

Thanks gemami for your kind reply and advice. Perhaps, I’m at the wrong website.
I’ll leave this website permanently for look for other websites or contribute my efforts for a better Singapore at a different platform.

I hereby wish all posters here all the best in pushing your aggenda.

May I entrust you, gemami, to ensure that, in the future, in your own words – “discussion threads like this will be engaging and challenging” and be ready to take the next step because the people of Singapore cannot wait forever.

Goodbye.

A few years ago, a Muslim unwed mother wanted to give away her baby girl. Sharia Law makes the baby Muslim because her mother is a Muslim. The child adoption agency advised the mother to give up her religion so that the baby´s status as a Muslim would cease. Muslim babies can only be adopted by Muslim couples. This would boost the baby´s chances of finding new adoptive parents. Yet, if the mother gives up her religion, she faces abandonment and condemnation from her family and peers. – Donaldson Tan (#52)

Hi Donaldson Tan, it is interesting that you raised an example that is specific and peculiar to support your arguement. Perhaps I haven’t actually understood your stand on the matter well. Could you clarify if

1) if you are in agreement or disagreement for the unwed mother to give away the child
2) if you are in agreement or disagreement to the advice of the adoption agency for the mother to give up her religion so that the baby ceased to be a Muslim

It will be useful to give an indication of the source of this story, the year it occured perhaps?

My direct question to you is because I seriously doubt the authenticity of this story.

Thanks.

It will be useful to give an indication of the source of this story, the year it occured perhaps? – Obzervr (#65)

It happened last year. The story was due to be published on Straits Times but it was axed last minute for obvious reason. I know the reporter who wrote the article. Not everyone at Straits Times is a propagandist.

My position is that I disagree that there should be abandonment, discrimination and / or intolerance arising from whatever choice the mother makes. She is already in dire straits since she is in the situation that compels her to give away her baby, whether the baby is Muslim is not. However, I must say I do not know enough of the motivation behind the Child Adoption Agency to make that advice.

Hi Don,

Thanks for the reply. From the reply, at least now we now that the incident happened last year.

I read that you are appealing that the young mother’s family, friends and community accepts her decision should 1) she decides to give away the baby, 2) possibly give away the baby to a family that doesn’t profess the same faith as her and 3) renounce her faith so as to make it possible. However, I am still very much left to figure out your stand regarding the advice of the adoption agency.

The picture I get is that of a young Singaporean Muslim unwed mother that is without a support system to absorb her and the child such that an Adoption agency becomes the best possible solution. Chances are she may have a traumatic pregnancy (going through the pregnancy alone) and an equally traumatic delivery (having to go though labour and all pre labour preparations alone).

My concerns are:

1) Where is the young mother’s family and peers at the point where she was pregnant and in labour?

2) Was her decision to give away the baby an informed one? Was she made aware of available options to care for her child such as fostering? Is giving away the baby is indeed the best way out to resolve the issue? How did the intervention plans reach the point that adoption was seen to be the way out? After her ordeal, was she in a right state of mind to be adviced and deciding on her immediate future? Whose interests were being promoted here?

3) Even if putting up for adoption was indeed the best way out, is there already a trend of inability for a Muslim baby to find an adoptive family such that the advice to increase the chances beyond Muslim families were required?

In my opinion, getting the mother’s family and peers to accept her decision is solely on the grounds of humanity and compassion. It is not something that can and should be enforced by law but imrpoved through education. However, if education is indeed a possible means to improve the family and peers’ acceptance, then education should begin from the subject of accepting that she has given birth to a baby at a young age, she has difficulties coping and with the best interest of the mother and child in mind, the family members and peers could facilitate the caregiving and help the mother mature in her new role. Why intervene only on getting the family and peers to accept her decision to give a way the child, possibly having to renounce her religion out of compulsion just so that the baby can stand a better chance to be adopted (assuming that indeed there a a lack of suitable Muslim families to adopt the baby… which I doubt).

In such a situation, I am more inclined to challenge the Apdoption Agency’s advice for the mother to renounce her religion such that the chances may be improved. It is a very inhumane act which preys on a person ordeal. Already the mother would have undergone a traumatic pregnancy and delivery, she is also facing the prospects of having to live with a lifelong trauma and guilt of giving away the child and she is cornered into believing that the way out is by renouncing a belief system which under normal circumstances she may not even consider.

If the law prohibits a Muslim mother to give away a child to a non Muslim family and this poses a disadvantage to the child (due to the extremely low chance or total absence of success), then the Adoption Agency should advocate for the law to be amended and NOT the easy way out of advicing mothers in distress to renounce the faith. Again, that is on the assumption that the child will not be able to be successfully adopted by a Muslim family or the child will have a worse off life if adopted by a Muslim family than by a Non-Muslim family. I however seriously doubt this.

You wrote:- “When this issue was taken up to the MCDYS, the ministry referred it to the Islamic Religious Council of Singapore (MUIS). MUIS then told the mother to ¨sort it out herself¨. Sounds familiar? What should we as a society do? Should the government intervene in view of that there may be some form of oppressive religious repercussion against the mother? ”

I agree with the question you asked: What should we do as a society? Do we just challenge and force the family and peers to accept the young mother should she renounce her faith when we are not concerned that she has already been rejected just because she was pergnant and has given birth out of wedlock? Do we accept the advice of an Institutionalised Adoption Agency for her to renounce her faith without challenging the Agency of its rationale, whether the advice was validated by facts or most appropriate? It has to be questioned that when the young mother approached MCYS and MUIS, what were the requests exactly?

I am by no means trying to defend MCYS or MUIS as in my opinion, both these institutions are not direct parties to the issue in the example you raised. Rather, I question the relevance of this example altogether.

Do we really want the opposition to advocate for the government to enforce a measure to prevent religious discrimination by supporting gender discrimination (discriminating the young mother for having a baby and punishing her by giving advice that may not be sufficienly accurate or complete)?

Rgds,

Do you think that Obama is going to win because the Republicans have such a bad candidate?
Why did John McCain make his final argument against Obama… coal?
That’s his closing argument? William Ayers, Rev. Wright, spreading the wealth, Born Alive, meeting dictators without preconditions, etc. all have to take a back seat so that McCain can go to Colorado and New Mexico to talk about coal? Does this more or less explain why he’s going to get his clock cleaned Tuesday?

Do we really want the opposition to advocate for the government to enforce a measure to prevent religious discrimination by supporting gender discrimination (discriminating the young mother for having a baby and punishing her by giving advice that may not be sufficiently accurate or complete)? – Obzervr

What I am saying is that there should be no gender discrimination or religious discrimination. If not, what is the point of having the state as a higher moral authority than religions?