LOLLL And this gaffe come from our million$$$ FOREIGN AFFAIRS minister?!?!?!

John Moe – you are spot on yet again. As a Singaporean I am concerned that Mr Yeo considers a military dictatorship appropriate if the circumstances, in the view of those in power, call for it. I always thought that George Yeo would have more sense.

This article is a great shock to me. I always thought that George Yeo is a well read gentlemen and familiar with world history especially history of neighbouring countries. I had also thought he’s a bit more intellectual and familiar with political scenarios, as should be the case for a person with the responsibility of a Foreign Minister.

If Mr George Yeo doesn’t respond to this blog post in TOC, then it will be completely unforgiveable and i would rate him as I would rate the rest of Chiak Liau Bees in the cabinet. I can’t believe he make such stupid mistakes, assuming this article is true. MR GEORGE YEO SIR WHERE ARE YOU. Speak your piece and see if you can be redeemable. There is nothing wrong to come down from the ivory towers and put a post here, just like you came down from your ivory towers and went to McDonald’s. Keep up the good work and we may still be able to love you.

Zero

So much for being an elite. Vote him out.

Well read but a $$ man perhaps? Beholdened?

that we have a cabinet full of Comical Alis…..

I agree with most of your article and I’m sorry to nitpick, but I think you meant ‘chronologically’ and not ‘chronically’? There is a huge difference between both words.

as the old saying go.. nv trust politicians. they say anything to hang on to power.

Common sense indicates the noble idea of working from within the PAP is doomed from the start………………..eventually you become one of them.

In the event the PAP is voted out and the biggest Chimp sends in the army, we can expect George Yeo and Kishore to say only the military rule of the PAP can hold the country together……what a freaking laugh !

Perhaps Mr George Yeo is better off reading http://www.altsean.org to check the facts on Burma instead of regurgitating malicious propaganda spread by the SPDC and their apologists :)
Alternatively he can always read the Irrawaddy Magazine while being driven to these public engagements.

Well, look at it from another point of view…by having such a twisted view, think of what the other world leaders will think of GY….I think it will be with the eyes of contempt…

In response to this article, Mr. George Yeo made the following comments on his Facebook page.

“I am surprised and saddened that my comments about Myanmar have been made to seem as if I’m against the people of Myanmar. Ravi Phiilemon’s report did not fully capture what I said. I went back to Burma under the British Raj when Rangoon was dominated by Indians, subsequently engendering in Ne Win and others a xenophobic reaction against Indians and Chinese. That left the army as the only institution holding the country together in the face of armed insurrection by ethnic groups in various parts of the country. Aung San is a leader revered by both the army and pro-democracy activists. As for the disqualification of a Myanmar citizen marrying a foreigner from becoming leader, this is a matter for each country to decide. I wasn’t passing judgement. I stand corrected whether the inspiration for that provision originally came from Aung San; that was certainly suggested to me by Myanmar ministers I met.”

“The Singapore Govt’s positions on Myanmar’s road to democracy, the need for economic engagement, release of ASSK, national reconciliation are well known. When the authorities cracked down brutally on peaceful demonstrators in Sep 07, we made clear our stand and, as Chair of ASEAN, expressed our revulsion. After Cyclone Nargis, we bridged the gap between the Myanmar govt and international agencies which helped to prevent a second wave of deaths from disease and famine. We are opposed to sanctions because they don’t work and only cause more suffering to the people. ASEAN may not have teeth, but ASEAN has a tongue.

Just to clarify, John Moe was not expelled from Singapore because of his views but for breaking the law in Singapore.”

in the event the biggest Chimp sends in the army after a freak elections result,
we can expect George Yeo to say only the PAP’s military rule can hold the country together.

well money talks, so obviously if Burmese Generals pump $$$ into Singapore then definitely Spore Govt will back them, ditto MNCs who exploit workers, ditto FTs who deprive Singaporeans of jobs. Money talks in Singapore and obviously BS walks

In the event the biggest Chimp sends in the army after a freak elections result, we can expect George Yeo to claim only the PAP’s military rule can hold the country together………ain’t that right georgie ?

Every man has a price.

TOC, please cheack your system as it breakdown quite often. we just cannot log in or take very long to download and it cut off in the end.

As for this article, I think Mr Yeo will need to explain to us what is going on. Asean nowadays is useless, just for show sake.

This is the George Yeo who replied “not substantial” when asked how much arms did Singapore sell to Burma.

Not substantial? what kind of response is that from a govt that keeps statistics on everything.

what a hypocrite.

“Just to clarify, John Moe was not expelled from Singapore because of his views but for breaking the law in Singapore.”

I am surprised the minister made this statement of admission that John Moe was expelled. The authorities, from my collection in interviewing John earlier this year, was that they did not tell him why his work permit was not being renewed.

In any case, John Moe was not the only one who took part in the Orchard Road protest. Many Burmese took part – but not all were expelled from S’pore.

Thus, I don’t understand the rationale for expelling John Moe and not the other Burmese.

12) LCC on

John Moe broke which law in Singapore?

I am equally sueprised that the highly respected George Yeo could be so gullible. Or is he? Why did he choose to believe the Burmese Ministers (who obviously are military men) against his better judgement and his wide knowledge of history? He is a well read man. How did he get it so very wrong? Something seems to tell us that there is something he is not telling us.

Agreed, ASEAN may not have teeth. But surely Singaporeans do not expect their highly respected Foreigh Minister to have a fork tongue. Still no apology Mr. Yeo?

“Just to clarify, John Moe was not expelled from Singapore because of his views but for breaking the law in Singapore.” — george yeo

What a stupid statement. That law shouldn’t be there in the first place. Shame on George Yeo.

TOC commentators here also got tongue too……..but we have brains to think as well.

If these were GY’s words and Burmese history distorted ….I am truly sorry to the Burmese people….George Yeo has added insult to injury.

I hope he responds because the world is watching volatile Burma….and a comment such as this one by Singapore’s FM is very strange.

People are calling for ASEAN to expel Burma….and news is coming about Burma’s nuclear ambitions and George Yeo’s comments seems to lean towards the junta.

I hope our FM don’t make us Singaporeans look like a pariah in the world stage.
And I am eargly waiting for his response.

How embarrassing. How can our FM make such a mistake?
Which joker voted for him? Own up!

“Just to clarify, John Moe was not expelled from Singapore because of his views but for breaking the law in Singapore.”

So what is the difference between view and action ? John Moe merely translate his view into action which result in breaking the law ? No wonder the government love NMP and NCMP scheme because these people only offer nothing but view which is NATO (No Action Talk Only). So ant people who translate political view into action that out of OB marker is perceived as breaking the law ?

Dear Zero

What do you base your presumption that GY is a well-read man?
Let’s see if he rebuts the articles about his comments on Burma.

As Minister of Foreign Affairs, I don’t think he can publicly refute the Junta’s account of history.

I think Thiologist is right.

ASEAN has a tongue, use it better with a louder voice backing it up.
As the world watches this drag on, it makes that tongue less potent
because the Junta shows more disregard and disinterest in what ASEAN
is about.
If because it is Singapore making money off Burma, that is sad.

Apparently George has responded to this article through his facebook comments. LCC has helpfully copied and pasted it on this page.

Hey Georgie boy, you do not know your history well! You probably read a few quick fixes on some commentaries and muttered away. You represent “US” so don’t embarrassed us.!

This man almost lost his Aljunied GRC in 2006. Singaporeans cannot get it more wrong at the next election. We want democracy for all of Asean. Do not defend the aggressors for any reasons. Or you will be like Austria, Switzerland and Italy during WW2. Millions suffered because of the silence of these powers.

I am definitely not familiar with the history of Burma/Myanmar. But so far, we have only seen two versions. If history is written by victors, then there should be at least one more or even several more versions of the story, it cannot be just one monolithic truth.

Besides Mr. George Yeo and Mr. John Moe’s version, is anyone else familiar with the history of the region and its political context? I am not siding with any party, but I believe for us to have an informed and intelligent debate, we must understand more before we be so quick to condemn one, or to applaud the other.

Mr. Yeo’s point that 50% of their national population is not Burmese is quite glaring and open to verification. Any take on this? How does he define the ethnicity? Pardon my ignorance, is there such an ethnic group as “Burmese” in the first place, given the context of the region, i.e., considering Cambodia, Laos and perhaps even Vietnam and Thailand.

Also, he used “Burma” instead of “Myanmar.” Politically, how a foreign minister, or any official for the matter, addresses another country is very significant. I am not sure how to make sense of this. Any one care to comment?

Eric

Hi folks,

I don’t think Mr. Yeo did not use the term “Burmese.” Mr. Moe’s article cites Ravi Philemon’s article, but not a direct quote from Mr. Yeo. In fact it’s not possible to tell from the article whether Mr. Yeo used Burma or Myanmar during the session. I won’t be surprised if he had used the latter.

Sorry, my bad.

FYI, those who use “Burma” typically reject the legitimacy of the incumbent, the military junta, who changed the name of the country in 1989.

Eric

What do you all expect? Between S’pore and Burma, it is a case of one dictator regime rubbing the other’s back. If PAP loses the next elections, maybe they will also refuse to hand over power and hang on and ask the military to back them up! Like begets like. Or the PAP is more sympathetic to the Burmese junta because it is politically alike.

It’s the Burmese (only the generals and its friends use Myanmar) variant of the “Singapore was a backwater till LKY came along” fiction. Yes, living conditions were not as good as today’s but Singapore was a thriving commercial hub when Raffles landed. Whay do you think all our forefathers rushed here?

Don’t forget, Georgie Yeo was a SAF General himself before. His military training, I am sure, has embedded into his psyche a tendency to favour military regimes to be in power, e.g. the Suharto Era, the Marcos Era, the Jiang Kai Sek Era, and now the Burmese Juntas.

For your info John moe “broke the law” can be seen in these videos on youtube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0t3RYT6Xwds&feature=PlayList&p=E6ECAACEDC232B72&index=6

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dcMLrKoIskI&feature=channel_page

as to further andrew loh statement…. i do not understand why in the context of a foreigner breaking the law as in John Moe, he is not charged in court for illegal assembly… and why only him and some others (to my knowledge so far 6 burmese do not have their permit renewed and thus they have to leave Singapore, this include a NUS graduate and some burmese who have worked in Singapore for over 11 years)

if he breaks the law, fine, i will expect the court to jail him and fine him, but unfortunately they were never charged in court for illegal assembly (for your info, Singaporeans like the Tak Boleh 18 people were either given the option to pay a fine or if they do not wish to pay, they serve jail for a few weeks ranging from 1 week to 3 weeks or more for repeated offenders)

Under Singapore Law, this is penalty for illegal assembly… but I am really shock that for foreigners, instead the penalty is having their work permit not granted which deprive them of their livelihood… this i think is really unfair… this punishment really does not suit to the crime… it is like an analogy of a foreigner working here perhaps he got into car accident, and the punishment is a life sentence while for a singapore the punishment is a big fine and his license revoked… arent the law equal to foreigners or singaporeans alike be it big time “rebel” like Dr Chee. The “crime” really does not suit the punishment… for a humanitarian record… these burmese are now refugees and when they worked in Singapore, the income they earned was remitted to their poor family back home

Sure perhaps these burmese really break the law by conducting an illegal assembly… then what about the monks and burmese in Burma protesting then… they also broke the law and I am sure Burma Junta will have invent alot of unfair laws to curb them… so why is the world and Singapore making noise about it? Arent we be hypocritical then when we issue statements that the junta is being brutal to those “lawbreakers”

this is my personal opinion and Mahatma Gandhi have long again express this thot: that some laws are unfair and those lawbreakers are not “criminals” in challenging a unfair law

I hope Singapore Govt can have the wisdom to see that these “lawbreakers” have a big heart…

if Singapore govt believes in the rule of the law, then Nelson Mandela, Gandhi are criminals isnt it… so why are we giving red carpet treatment to some of these world leaders who used to be law breakers too?

and I understand that Singapore govt did issue warnings or “chances” to the Burmese activists not to engage such activities, but cant the govt think out of the box and see the context why these people are doing such things… dont they know the whole world when saffron revolution happens, everywhere burmese and the world communiity are going out on the street in peaceful protest against the junta’s crackdown

lastly if the excuse is that Singapore govt have already given chances to the burmese activists, then what about the Junta… arents these hooligans generals more unrepentant… why are we still being so cordial to these bunch of murderers, like giving them red carpet treatment, having an orchid named after the general, allowing them to come here for medical treatment… how many chances have we given to these unrepentant junta… shouldnt the Singapore govt
be more firm in dealing with the junta then dealing with these bunch of small flies like the burmese activists?

My response to GY: http://singaporesocialactivist.blogspot.com/2009/08/george-yeos-response-to-my-article-on.html

Hello guys, GY got no choice to ’saka’ the Burmese gov because s’pore is so small. All of us are afraid offend other big big countries. Black said colour, wrong sais right. No choice la, must pity him. He is stuck in the middle.

this is not surprising – people often say what they would like you to believe, regardless of the truth. check out mr wang’s blog. there is a great article about this.

all said, this is truly yet another dent in their credibility.

As one Patrician to another, spare a thought for those in need George, whether they are here in Singapore or over there in Burma.

Spare a thought for the 25% of Singaporeans who earn less than $1,000 a month and the 284,000 who earn an income but who have no money going into their CPF accounts AT ALL, when the CPF is supposed to be compulsory.

Spare a thought for the destitute Burmese, especially the orphans, in the cyclone-devastated parts of the country.

Go back to our Patrician roots George, the Catechism sessions before the start of formal lessons each week-day and the sermons in the lovely stain-glassed chapel.

Do your fellow Patricians proud George!

It was the junta who held the GE in the first place.They should accept the defeat graciously.Is Mr. Yeo saying that anarchy will reign if the NLD rules,given the demography of that country?That is dealing in hypotheticals.
This is the so-called socio-political pragmatism of a member of the PAP.Democracy and human rights are mere blood sacrifices to be offered on the altar of this pragmatism if the situation warrants it.Hemce the witless Burmese people must thank those enlightened generals for keeping the peace.What rationalsations will our FM come up next if Daw Aung San Suu Kyi is jailed?
Will such “blood sacrifices” be carried out here too by the ruling party?We are having more MPs appointed,not elected by the masses.God knows what tweaks will the PAP come up with next…..

No wonder he and his team almost lost PAP Aljunied GRC. George Yeo’s view as foreign ministers is tantamount to pap’s view, this alone, is quite scary because there is tendency of twisting facts into fiction in order to buy votes. I think it has happened and GY’s statements are good example why pap cannot be trusted to rule this country like junta.

Perhaps George Yeo …..who visited Burma under the British Raj, did not understand then….

The Burmese are made up of many ethnic groups, but the economics was handled by Indians and Chinese.

They, the Burmese were trying to get independence from the British and their economic masters as well, which I think was their just cause at the point in time, since they were treated like 2nd class ciitizens in their own country.
I stress this point.

Many Indians from Malaysia & Singapore died during their journey to India to fight the British. They were recruited by Subhas Chanra Bose.Given up to the British by the Indians in Burma.
His family was just recently credited by Japan for it’s contribution during the war.(WW2)

The times were so different then…..and I hope George Yeo comes to live amongst us now, for sighting history which was far complicated then.

It is simple as ABC to recognoze the rule of the vote from the people. Burmese military refused it, then and still is.(The reason for the golden triangle). I wonder who was making money, eventually that must be the reason.

People like you are perpectuating a sysytem…unstable and with unreliable facts.

STOP IT.

Please remember, FM George Yeo, you made a big mistake. Trying to tell people that it’s a family fued (if you had said that)…..

.it is not….it is a country….filled with people….who walk in silence to protest….
who join the monastries to be monks…refusing to carry guns…
to achieve peace through God’s grace..
both for themsleves and their beloved country…
who in turn get beaten up…. ruthlessly…losing thier lives…with some
body bruised…and feeling they have done their duty to God and Country..
their country…BURMA…
The least we should do is to feel the pain for them and think of ways to help…
Creating new histories to distort facts will eventually fall on us…with great vengence.

This is the standard of our minister after years in Government.

Wonder why Cambridge invited him to talk.

Maybe to raise money?!

Dear Mr George Yeo,

I would like to justify on your comment which you said “Just to clarify, John Moe was not expelled from Singapore because of his views but for breaking the law in Singapore.” http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=551572184&ref=name#/georgeyeopage?ref=ts

1) I had never denied my participation in protests. I was involved in a peaceful staged demonstration in Singapore together with over 40 Burmese national on 20th November 2007 at Orchard Road, I prepared banners such as “Listen to Burma’s desires”, “Do not follow junta’s Order” it called for ASEAN to stop while military soldiers brutal crackdown on the peaceful monk-lead Saffron Revolution. Here is video link for your ref; Burmese staged peaceful demonstration in Singapore http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0t3RYT6Xwds

2) I was also interviewed by Channel News Asia, Today Newspaper, The Straits Times newspaper and several Burmese news agencies where I highlighted that violating human rights during the referendum process arrangement was organised by the Burma Embassy in Singapore. Besides, I highlighted to the media that the constitution is not for the Burmese people and that is only for the military to prolong power all along. Here is video Link for your ref; BURMESE SAYS NO http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dcMLrKoIskI

3) Does it Mr Yeo clarify on it taking part in the protest is breached the Singapore law? If it is, why don’t take egalitarian action accordance with the law of Singapore rather than given impunity. That is not fare treatment if compare to ordinary Singapore citizens’ those who are still facing various trials for similar protests.

4) What about other Burmese still living in Singapore they took part in the same protests too? Why Singapore government given impunity? Why Singapore government acted selectively and told Burmese prodemocracy activists to leave the country instead of charge them like what Singapore government exercising on Singapore opposition such as Singapore Democratic Party (SDP).

5) Given the fact that Singapore authorities have not given any specific reason for Expulsion of Burmese activists despite two Singaporeans protested outside the MOM building. Here is video clip for your ref; “Singaporeans arrested for protest in support of Burmese” http://vimeo.com/2808270?pg=transcoded_embed&sec=2808270

With warm regards,

John Moe

Heard of the term: Legal Corruption ?

[...] Moe called this shenanigan out, saying that ‘the military junta only introduced the rule in 2008, deliberately aimed at [...]

One junta general learning history from another?
The fundamental thing the world is not happy with regarding the situation is –a democratically elected leader is prevented from her rightful ruling post.
George please justify that.

John Moe has done us a great service by setting the record straight on this matter.

Singapore’s history, too, has been selectively interpreted and many stalwarts of the past appear to have been forgotten. I hope one day the record will be set straight on our own history too.

Here Here Peter :)

[...] Free Burma – TOC: George Yeo is mistaken about Burma’s history [...]

History is subjective, and also fluid. I’m not sure how many of you were actually at the Minister’s coffee shop talk, but I was. And I believe that the Minister’s comments have truly been taken out of context. I also believe that he was sorely misquoted.

Mr. Philemon’s article quotes the Minister as saying that “..it was also General Aung San who created the rule that a Burmese who married a foreigner cannot rule the country and that now Aung San Suu Kyi is married to a foreigner.” I was listening very closely at this point, and clearly remember the Minister saying that “General Aung San was the one who said that a Burmese leader must not marry a foreigner.” The Minister never said that the General created a “rule” per se. Personally, when I was listening to the Minister’s response, I took it to mean that the General had advised Aung San Suu Kyi, or any Burmese leader, against marrying a foreigner. Not once did it occur to me that it was a “rule,” and neither did I hear the word “rule” at any point in time.

I believe that a lot of misunderstanding has been caused by this miscommunication, and that it’s important that we look at both sides of the situation more objectively and not be swayed by one single statement. I am speaking from a neutral perspective and hope that it will shed light on a more balanced view of the Minister’s comments.

- Wu Jiezhen

any of you peeps remembered when the unarmed monks were demostratin against the price of fuel that went up?

Aung San Suu Kyi plead with the singapore government not to support the military juntas
what happened next?
our secret service department marked all the brown shirts wearer
our manpower minister revoke/deported all the burmese freedom attendees foreign workers

now our senile minister is blamin her for bein the problemo
liked our fellow kaki here posted
was it not Aung San Suu Kyi elected by the people of burma
or maybe Aung San Suu Kyi won the election through the GRC process perhaps?

“Burmese military ruled the country since independence”.

I believe it is not wrong (or) it is correct to say that: because within 100 days of independence in 1948, Myanmar’s civil war has begun. First, the communists went underground and some Burmese battalions revolted. The Karens (KNU-KNDO) who were fighting against communists together with Myanmar Army took opportunity to seize the power of the country from the weak elected government of U Nu, by rebellion in Jan 1949. The communist and KNU insurgency goes on. While the civil war was raging, the KMT(Kuomington forces) intruded into Myanmar while fleeing from China’s PLA forces and seized large areas of North/Eastern Shan State. They bring along the “Poppy”, thus Drug War Lords and their armies were born.

Who do you think was dealing with all these problems and insurgencies? Of course “The Myanma Tatmadaw(Army)”.

Further more, the ruling party became cracked in 1958. So the Army act as a caretaker government for a few years. Not once, but twice.

There are many more “incidents of the country” that the Army’ve had to solve and maintain its intrgrity as a nation. Therefore I would agree with Singapore’s FM Mr Yeo that Myanmar Military ruled the country since its independence.

A long-time and seasoned Foreign Minister commenting and making remarks upon a foreign country without having the full grasp of its background history is a true reflection of the real standard of our minister.

Definitely, I would say, he is not a top notch talent who deserves the world’s highest salary, but a make-belief ‘outstanding talent’ whom somebody would want all of us to believe so.

This is not only embarrassing but also unfortunate. Unfortunate because such an incident will not go down well for Singaporeans and the Singapore Nation as a whole in the long run.

How can such a blunder be so easily made in the first place? Is it due to the eagerness to please the winning side and therefore have no choice (mentally blinded) but to find words to put the other party down?

Don’t ever forget, in any foreign relation, there is no such a thing as a long-term friend nor enemy. There is only long-term interests.

Today, the Burmese Military may have the upper hand, but who knows, one day Aung San Suu Kyi or someone from her party may, with the relentless and full support of the Burmese people, be the ruler of Burma (not Myanmar as renamed by the Military Junta).

And also, don’t ever forget, the PAP cannot and will not be in power forever!

George Yeo was not talking about the Presidency. He was talking about election as an MP under the 1947 Constitution leading to leadership of the winning party and nomination as Prime Minister. It was General Aung San who introduced a clause, not about marriage, but about loyalty to the State. Joe Moe and George Yeo have been talking at cross purposes. Joe is right (about the Presidency) and George is right (about the Premiership). Simple as that.

There are a few things we all can agree on, which is that the military regime of Burma is illegitimate, corrupt and tyrannical.

Everything else is contentious. What George Yeo said about the military holding Burma together is plausible. What would happen to Burma if a civil war were to break out, and all the races were to start fighting against each other? We would probably get a human disaster something like the Congo wars after the fall of Mobutu.

What is the logic behind holding the sanctions against the military regime? The logic is that you want to piss the people off so that they rise up against the miilitary regime and overthrow them. The chances of that happening are approximately zero. What is so abhorrent about doing business with the Myanmese? People live, people do business. People living in corrupt dictatorships also have to fill their stomachs. Singapore welcomes Myanmese labour – what’s so bad about that? Burma is a land of great natural resources. Do you think that economic sanctions are going to hurt the regime? They can consolidate their power, even if they were to become a purely autarkic state

Look at sanctions in Iraq – did that get rid of Saddam Hussein? It just became a big eyesore. People just suffered. Saddam Hussein just got more powerful.

All this freedom for Burma stuff, it’s a great emotional release. It’s great to use as a stick with which to hit people. As a measure to overthrow the military regime, it ain’t worth shit.

Wu Jiezhen@55: You should probably read the FB exchange with GY on this issue: http://singaporesocialactivist.blogspot.com/2009/08/george-yeos-response-to-my-article-on.html, where the Minister admitted that “I stand corrected whether the inspiration for that provision (Burmese marrying a foreigner) originally came from Aung San; that was certainly suggested to me by Myanmar ministers I met.”

OK, first I want to acknowledge that Aung San Suu Kyii is the democratic elected leader of Burma, whatever that means because that was 21 years ago.

That being said, the fixation on her is extremely unhealthy. Burma has moved on. Or rather it is trying to move on but not really succeeding.

China is an abhorrent regime but the world is dealing with China. Why is it different with Burma? Deal with China, trade with China, eventually it will be a more free and liberal society. Shut away from the regime, then it will become all powerful with respect to the Burmese people. When you consider that Burma is neighbours to 3 of the most dynamic economies in the world (China, India, Thailand) you have to wonder how on earth it became so screwed up.

Aung San Suu Kyii is not going to live forever. Maybe there’ll be progress when she’s gone, and then maybe 50 years later we can really think about what her real legacy is.

I think George Yeo thinks people who go to MacDonals are stupid. He can hsien anything he does not know or choose not to know. Thank goodness for the internet! Can you imagine him getting away with all the smoke he throws (which he must have done many times in all the years before internet, like all the rest)?

To 62) Breeder,

“Everything else is contentious. What George Yeo said about the military holding Burma together is plausible. What would happen to Burma if a civil war were to break out, and all the races were to start fighting against each other? We would probably get a human disaster something like the Congo wars after the fall of Mobutu.”
>> We all know that Peace, prosperity and freedom do not come free; you need to fight for it (All Singaporeans’ male has to serve NS, what do you think it is for?).

>>Is the notion of freedom worth dying for? I don’t live in Burma, I don’t presume that they should be “grateful” to the junta. Maybe you want to check that out first.

“What is the logic behind holding the sanctions against the military regime?
>>The logic of not holding the sanctions against the military regime is so that Singapore can benefit from trading with Burma – that I am sure.

“The logic is that you want to piss the people off so that they rise up against the military regime and overthrow them. The chances of that happening are approximately zero.”
>>History has shown us that’s call “revolution”. That how humans have fought for their beliefs. It’s not a matter of how, it just a matter of “when”. No “dictatorship” last forever. The WWII memorial signifies exactly the same thing during the Japanese’s rule; unless you tell me these people are “morons”; US then should “trade” with the “Japs” during WWII instead of “fighting” against them.

“That being said, the fixation on her is extremely unhealthy.”
>>ASSK won the election 21 years ago; the junta refused to surrender the “power”. ASEAN leaders “embraced” Burma into ASEAN…. what does that tells you? The junta is right not to surrender their power? “Money” is the only thing that matters now? The people of Burma “deserve” to live under the dictatorship of the junta and be grateful?

>>Hence, you may want to ask yourself why the leaders of ASEAN only “talk”? “Talk” is “cheap”. Without “action”, it shows a lack of will or might to enforce what you “preach”; or it’s “doublespeak”.

>>Nonetheless, the fixation on her is about her “goal” to liberate the people of Burma under the current “dictatorship”. Same notion as our War Memorial. How can it be “unhealthy”?

“What is so abhorrent about doing business with the Myanmese? People live, people do business. ”
>>You are “blurring” the line. You are attempting to say that the “junta” and the “people of Burma” is now one and the same. How can they be the same? Slaver and slaves – are they the same even if they live under the same “roof”?

“People living in corrupt dictatorships also have to fill their stomachs.”
>> And they also need to “liberate” themselves from these “corrupt dictatorships” as well.

“Burma is a land of great natural resources. Do you think that economic sanctions are going to hurt the regime? They can consolidate their power, even if they were to become a purely autarkic state”
>>You are “blurring” the line again. “Sanction” means I don’t agree with you – from a country’s perspective with a “bite”. Natural resources is not the only thing a country needs, you need “technology – medical, scientific, bio-engineering” and stuff you don’t produce yourself; hence, you have to trade.

“Look at sanctions in Iraq – did that get rid of Saddam Hussein? It just became a big eyesore. People just suffered.”
>>Iraq is a “poor” example. Who thinks US goes in to “liberate” Iraq? I thought they went in for the “oil”. US went in with UN’s approval? Why not?

“Saddam Hussein just got more powerful.”
>>Saddam is dead. I don’t think Iraqis loves Saddam; they “dislike” US as they are the “aggressor”. The notion of “freedom” is here again. The “rebels” branded themselves as liberators.

“All this freedom for Burma stuff, it’s a great emotional release. It’s great to use as a stick with which to hit people. As a measure to overthrow the military regime, it ain’t worth shit.”
>>Definitely not worth anything to you. Maybe you want to ask John Moe or the people of Burma to see if he cares.

Unfortunately, Burma’s problem is the burden that the people of burma has to bear. Just like singapore’s is singaporeans’s responsibility. You decide your future.

to Anawrahtar :

Having an army rule a country for a long time is like having a maid/mother look after a guy since he was a boy until he is an old man. How is he going to grow like that?

Unless you think having the military rule the country is appropriate.

also, did the military organise any elections that they won effectively?

So, why are they still there if not because they have the guns?

that country certainly have years of political stability but is it growing?

Anawrahtar is confusing the means and the ends?

Anawrahtar :

Another analogy: your mother might give birth to you (assuming you are a guy) and she wears a bra.

That doesn’t mean you need to wear one too.

(actually, you shouldn’t by conventional wisdom)

Ravi Philemon@61: I had already read the Facebook exchange prior to posting my comment, but thank you for posting the link. However, I believe that for Mr. Yeo to say that he stands corrected should not be seen as any form of admission. Also, please know that my intent was not to accuse anyone in particular of misquoting Mr. Yeo, but rather to clear up what I felt was a misunderstanding. My comment was an attempt to state what I recalled to the best of my recollection, and I believe that the Minister saying that he “stand[s] corrected whether the inspiration for that provision (Burmese marrying a foreigner) originally came from Aung San; that was certainly suggested to me by Myanmar ministers I met” doesn’t exactly correlate with what I had mentioned in my comment either. I still do believe that what the Minister had said during the Coffee Shop Talk was taken out of context, and in turn it agitated a number of people. Once again, I hope my being there will be able to give the readers a more objective perspective on the articles/comments regarding the discussion that took place that day.