Khairulanwar Zaini / Andrew Loh
The last time Dr Chee Soon Juan crossed swords with Mr George Yeo was in 1996. The two had met at a Select Committee hearing specially convened to ascertain the Singapore Democratic Party’s assertions about healthcare costs in Singapore. Mr Yeo was then Minister for Health.
13 years on, the two men are again exchanging words – this time, in cyberspace.
On 8 August, Dr Chee posted an invitation on Mr Yeo’s Facebook page inviting the minister to an online debate, according to a report on the SDP’s website. “I would like to extend to you the same invitation… to a debate on the key issues affecting Singaporeans,” Dr Chee said in his note.updates his Facebook daily, replied, “I am happy to engage as and when issues arise, but I do so as an individual without getting the PAP or MFA involved. Short responses, not long exchanges if possible. So far it has been fun for me and I hope to keep it that way. Hope you understand.”
Mr Yeo suggested Dr Chee wrote to the People’s Action Party if he wanted a formal debate. To this, Dr Chee asked Mr Yeo to pass on his request for a debate to the PAP secretary general at its next Central Executive Committee meeting. He also said he would write to Mr Lee Hsien Loong separately. Mr Lee is the Prime Minister and also the secretary general of the PAP.
Dr Chee, who addressed the minister by his name – “George” – then raised three concerns regarding ministerial salary, the Public Order Act and the operations of Temasek and the GIC.
To this, Mr Yeo referred to the “extensive debates in Parliament” over the issues and said that he did not think he could add much to, or subtract from. The minister added, “I am a little puzzled over this exercise. I fully associate myself with the responses given by ministers in Parliament on salaries and the Public Order Act. I hope you were not thinking that I would privately to you say otherwise.”
Personal view
Dr Chee was however more interested in Mr Yeo’s “personal views” and asked whether Mr Yeo’s ministerial pay was “morally and economically defensible”. “Do you think you deserve the amount (it’s nearly $3 million at last count, I believe) and are you comfortable with this knowing that the poorest of our poor whom you and your colleagues rule over are paid as little as $400 a month?” Dr Chee asked. “Economically is this just? Morally is it sustainable?”
He also raised the issue of public assembly. He pointed out that “PAP supporters (are allowed) to hold processions and assemblies while supporters of the opposition are not.” Dr Chee also sought Mr Yeo’s opinon on Ho Ching’s continued tenure in Temasek despite her presiding over a $40 billion loss.
Dr Chee said he was looking for Mr Yeo’s ‘thoughts and views, not those of (his) colleagues in Parliament’, instead of ‘non-answers’.
In Mr Yeo’s third reply, he affirmed that he “fully associate … with the responses given by ministers in Parliament on salaries and the Public Order Act”.
He assured Dr Chee that “there are many programmes” for Singaporeans facing hardship, adding that “as an MP, (he) address(es) their needs directly.”
He also defended Temasek’s performance. “On foreign visits, I often receive favourable comments about how Temasek is run. A number of countries actually hold Temasek up as a model to follow,” he said. He added, however, that with Charles Goodyear’s departure, Temasek “will have to go head hunting again.”
Minimum wage, Constitutional fairness & Transparency
To this, Dr Chee lamented the “many Singaporeans currently taking on full-time jobs who are paid so poorly that they cannot pay their bills, send their children to school, or live decent lives”.
He said that in light of the salaries that ministers draw, Singapore should “introduce Minimum Wage”.
Dr Chee also asked about the disparity of treatment when the so-called Tak Boleh Tahan protestors were arrested, compared to the protests held by the Consumers Association of Singapore (Case).
He also reiterated that Temasek and the GIC were not transparent, and that Temasek’s statement on Chip Goodyear’s resignation left much to be desired.
“The transition failure between Ho Ching and Chip Goodyear exemplifies what I mean about the non-transparency issue,” Dr Chee said. “Other than a brief and general statement from Temasek, little else is known about why Chip did not continue as CEO. Can the Government be more forthcoming with information on this?”
The exchange continues.
——-
HELP keep the voice of TOC alive!
If you like this article, please consider a small donation to help theonlinecitizen.com stay alive. Please note that we can only accept donations from Singaporeans. Thank you for your assistance.Do you have a flair for writing? Volunteer with us. Email us your full name and contact details to theonlinecitizen@gmail.com
to Khairulanwar #75,
i cannot remember how the debate went back in 1996. Maybe because i was a lot more apathetic then.
Is there somewhere where i can read the transcript of the debate, or if it isnt too much trouble, could you relate to us how the debate went?
patience is running thin for some, this is the crowd where Dr Chee will gain support from- by taking “action”. any action…? 8)
chiong ah Dr Chee (but to where?)!! those who remain silent on issues are not viewed in high regard now, no matter what.
the call to action is stronger by the day, but what is the aim? do opposition parties oppose for the sake of opposing? will the day come where the opposition find themselves in the shoes of the ruling cadre, they will also oppose the dissenters identically harsh? afterall, its in the blood….
mice is nice,
“Dr Chee should have picked Mr Wong KS for the debate instead.”
Just like our expensive clowns are using divide and conquer tactics, opp party is now letting the clowns taste their own medicine.
You see, it is pointless to use Wong KS after all he is already condemned and lost respect by the citizen, and citizen will vote him out if he ever contest again. So it will be wise to move on to target the rest of the clowns to expose their wayangness, and let the citizen vote them out.
No point targetting the same clown over and over again because this clown may not even be contesting in next election as he has high probability of bring down the pappies’ votes.
Mp by Mp, ministers, princess, prince, emperor, enunch, dynasty, lackey, black dog will crumble just like every oppressive dynasty in the past.
94) Dr Syed Alwi and 99) aygee
I’m not familiar with the 1996 debate either, I was only 8 at that time – and Hansard transcripts online only go back to 2006.
The little that I know was that Chee Soon Juan and SDP challenged PAP to a health care debate – and got a few statistics wrong.
In Chee’s version of events, he said that it was a minor mistake that the PAP nitpicked him on. He and the other SDP members were subsequently fined by Parliament for their statements, I think.
But what the second-hand impressions I get was that the SDP didn’t come off pretty good from that debate. I may be wrong, since the record of that exchange is not really well-documented online.
My raising of the 1996 issue is this: as important as the issues at stake are, so is the method of engagement.
“so is the method of engagement.”
So what kind of engagement is effective ? Parliament ? See what happen to ex-NMP Siew or is just pure coincidence that Siew is not elected again ?
Dear Khairulanwar,
Do you honestly think that the PAP will engage ANY Opposition fairly ? I honestly think that CSJ has chosen the right approach. A live debate on cyberspace. In America they have live debates between presidential hopefuls on TV. Now thats what I call a democracy.
I see no reason why CSJ should not take on the PAP in a live debate in cyberspace.
After all, anyone can debate George Yeo on Facebook – so why not CSJ ? The questions that CSJ wants to address are of great public interest. If not CSJ – then why not TOC ?
How about TOC taking on George Yeo in cyberspace ?
You see – there is absolutely nothing wrong with a public debate. Indeed it is much fairer to have it cyberspace than in the PAP controlled MSM.
Ultimately – if one’s conscience is clear – then one should not be afraid to talk in the open.
Regards
Dr Syed Alwi
mike @51
I am interested to know how you form your opinion of CSJ. What source of info did you base on? or do you know him personally or are you at the receiving end of his “bad behaviour”? Are you involved personally? I think the CSJ episodes are all before internet days, so were your opinions of him based on the mainstream media? If so I have A LOT TO SAY. Pls let people know.
Look at the PAP Internet Brigade… They are either trying to censor any news on CSJ (eg. nobody reported the development of the most recent SDP trials) or trying discredit CSJ/SDP at every mention.
Reminds me of the Christian Fundamentalist Internet Brigade during the AWARE Saga. They are either trying to censor any news or discredit the media platform that brought the news. Even sent complain letter to PMO and cry victim.
How can the fundies play victim when they have a weekly radio slot and a regular column on TODAY? They are still permitted to carry out workshops in our schools to promote LGBT discrimination. At least PAP doesn’t pretend to be a victim.
# 91) theofflinecitizen on August 11th, 2009 11.05 pm
>>”I personally would like to see someone looking into the bonus payout of Temasek and GIC. I heard rumors saying that the employees of GIC were told by their boss that they would not get hefty bonus this round as GIC no longer is an organization that is unheard of by the majority. Now that it is under the spotlight, they have to be more discreet in payouts.”<>”Useless bunch taking our hard earned $$$$$$! And guess wat? their bonus is still better than most of us despite losing billions!”>>
Is this a sign of just being sour grapes, what have their bonus being better than us got to do with what we are fighting for?
It is lucky that you have bonus! Do you know some of us don’t even get any?
91) theofflinecitizen on August 11th, 2009 11.05 pm
>”I personally would like to see someone looking into the bonus payout of Temasek and GIC. I heard rumors saying that the employees of GIC were told by their boss that they would not get hefty bonus this round as GIC no longer is an organization that is unheard of by the majority. Now that it is under the spotlight, they have to be more discreet in payouts.”
Are you using unsubstantiated rumours to stir shit here…I don’t think this is professional at all. We count on clear facts and issues for us to initiate citizen’s actions, NOT RUMOURS!
>” Useless bunch taking our hard earned $$$$$$! And guess wat? their bonus is still better than most of us despite losing billions!
Is this a sign of being sour grapes, what have their bonus being better than us got to do with what we are fighting for? It is lucky that you have bonus! Do you know some of us don’t even get any?
# 108) Oxford Dude
Looks like these gay militants are out again, now even exploring a political issue to advance their agenda…get out of this thread will you and go somewhere else to fight your cause…we have more important issues to focus on then your abnormal (or should I call it deformed) sexual preferences.
Hi #111,
How much does your principles cost? I offer to buy them. Haha…
No matter how well questions are posed by Dr Chee , i wonder is it a must to respond to his questions?
do not be mistaken, what i mean is simply, the real actions can only come after the new harliday.
its wait, wait wait……very hsian.
In singapore, as far as i know, only a handful can come up with tough questions like Dr Chee.
I hope more like him exist. These questions are Intellectually Stimulating!
Challenging!
Refreshing!
Exciting!
Majulah!
To Oxford Dude #108,
just because one doesnt agree with CSJ’s methods, doesnt mean one is a PAP Internet brigade. Thats being judgemental.
i just find more credible opposition in Sylvia Lim, Chiam See Tong, Low Thia Khiang and potentially credible Kenneth Jeyaratnam, who’s academic achievements rival that of LHL’s. May he also have the same fire in his belly like his dad.
Yes, a public forum could be a great place to discuss issues, but if we were to look at how Tony Blair and Obama engage the public and opposition, thats what i call a refined, dignified, civil engagement on issues.
On the CSJ and GY exchange, i likened it to this.
“Hey, lets have a public debate on issues.”
“Yes, sure. but lets keep it short and sharp. i’m comfortable that way.”
“What is your stand on points 1, 2, 3?”
“My stand is the same as already delivered by my govt, and they are 1, 2, 3″
“You must have personal opinion? You really personally agree with what your org stand for?”
“Yes, i agree with what my org stand for.”
and then everyone starts attacking GY for sucking up, being a yes man, having no stand etc etc etc, and CSJ is great, he’s god, he’s standing up for truth, he’s a martyr, etc etc etc.
I do agree that we do not have an open platform/ freedom of speech like the UK or the US. I do agree the PAP likes to bash up the opposition and shut them down.
But taking the tactic that CSJ has done – a call for public forum – clearly doesnt help change anything or even make a dent in getting any points across.
What do we get? a bunch of angry people calling each other names so far, from what i’ve seen in this discussion thread. and very likely, getting PAP to find even more ways to shut down open debates and discussion.
I dont have the answer as to what would be a better platform for debate and engagement – parliament? Feedback sessions? media briefings? more blogging? PAP is still steeped in the old ways, and perhaps will change over time, as they take in the power of social media. We have seen how social media can affect politics – in the US and closer to home, in Malaysia, Iran and Philippines.
We’ll find a way one day, but what i do see is that CSJ’s tactic didnt result in anything at all.
The point to note i like to note is that GY did not return the favour – he didnt ask for a similar public engagement with CSJ and challenge him on his ideas and issues, and what he’s doing/suggesting to make Singapore a better place.
And in my mind, as an individual, as a leader, i know who has better class :-)
I agree with Dr Syed Alwi @ 106.
Let’s supposed the one challenging GY is someone else, say ME, and not CSJ. Should not GY engage Me then, and answer Me’s questions? If GY cannot do this, then why does he want to come online and pretend to engage the citizens?
Let us not make excuses for GY when he is clearly being evasive. Certainly, CSJ is not the issue – if GY is honest enough to want to engage the people. Another sataying exercise, if you ask me.
All the able people just think of themselves. No one willing to stand up for election because of fear. I ready call upon all capable s’porean to come out to stand in the next election. I’m sorry I can’t, only support with my vote.
I think CSJ/SDP ‘s supporter has to concede that CSJ/SDP made their handful of mistakes in the past and PAP’s past tactics have been very “successful” against CSJ/SDP. It’s not easy to “remove” the label once you’re being “branded”. Not many people really “bother” to relook on a “foregone” conclusion.
Fortunately, the people are generally quite “forgiving” and there are opportunities for “redemption” (I mean public “image” here). An apology will usually settle the dust – I always cannot understand why PAP’s MP refuse to apologise when mistakes are made (this only infuriates the people further – maybe god don’t make mistake).
Anyway, if CSJ/SDP is really working for the people – they will have a space in Singapore’s political arena – actually, I believe his supporters are the one that are more prone towards “action” type and the numbers are “growing”. I believe PAP senses that too.
Fortunately, now we have the cyberspace where the ground is levelled. I personally look forward for a fair and good “debate” among any future/prospective leaders from any camps. I believe the forumers in the cyberspace can be the judge base on the “actions” of the individuals.
In cyberspace, the king’s, princes and nobles are mere commoners…. oh, if any future politicians think that they can avoid the internet totally – good luck….
The mainstream media like the “newspaper” are dying…. Internet is the new media now – the one that starts ahead will be the future leaders – that I can guarantee you – I have 6 nephews and nieces and everyone of them read news from the internet at the age of 5 – none from the newspaper.
Actually I am quite surprise to hear very little “publicity” in the Internet for Worker Party; at least Reform Party is already ahead and been writing on TOC; a good starting point, and I believe they have scored several good political “points” already.
Finally, welcome to the new battle field.
To aygee: It’s exactly this sort of inertia that goes with the mentality of “PAP is still steeped in the old ways, and perhaps will change over time” and “we’ll find a way one day” that smacks of indolence and makes a sorry excuse for not taking action.
It is exactly because of the lack of genuine public discussions, debates, involvement that the PAP has evolved into a government that makes servants and slaves of the people. Contrary to your belief, public forums have a tremendous effect on how the government works for the people.
To dumb and dumber: I’m sure SDP makes mistakes, as do WP and PAP. Strangely, the mistakes made by the PAP are easily glossed over and in fact Singaporeans are lied to about these mistakes due to the non-transparent and unaccountable nature of the PAP.
To aygee: “what i do see is that CSJ’s tactic didnt result in anything at all.”
Speakers’ Corner?
“what i do see is that CSJ’s tactic didnt result in anything at all.”
Seriously, how do you come to such conclusion ?
The fact that CSJ take every opportunity to create awareness and publicity is the result. How else will you able to question, engage and enliven the discussion like in here if not for CSJ’s tactic. HOw else can we find the answer right from the gahmen’s mouth if not for CSJ’s tactic ?
Remember the pathetic response of old fart and his pinky during the court case audio recording ?
His tactic might not appeal to many but the result speak for itself when his tactics did dig more shit out from the gahmen than the usual wayang answer from those in the parliament.
to daniel, tango:
i think u missed my point – perhaps u didnt read my earlier comments.
what i meant by tactic was engaging GY on Facebook. i dont think it resulted in anything for now, outside of a lot of angry, and loaded responses, which tatum’s response clearly examplify (Which is understandable, as we all have our biasness).
i said perhaps we’ll find a way soon to have a more open platform for debate between parties – and perhaps social media will do it. but not through engaging GY in FB, the way he did.
its his delivery, his questioning that is a failure. Any govt official would shut up and stonewall, with that kind of questioning.
yes, CSJ created awareness and publicity. But is it positive, for him, for his party? Is it anything new in the first place? did it bring out fresh discussions? did it create new conversations in parliament and in the coffee shops, at meet-your-MP sessions, feeback units, letters to ST Forum? Has he found a new way to get the govt to re-think its policies?
has this FB engagement opened more doors for him and for SDP, or has it only created a lot of angry brickbats being exchanged on the internet?
He needs a better social media strategy, if he needs to engage the govt, and inform the public. What that strategy is, i dont know. He can look to malaysia, Obama, Iran for ideas, i think.
and again, its my opinion. You can care to disagree and engage me on my points, but please, you dont have to put me down, if i dont agree with what u say.
Aygee,
I think Chee’s exchange with George Yeo was what it was, a debate on issues that personally, I am interested in as I am a Singaporean. Whether it opens doors for SDP or positive for his party or creates angry brickbats on the internet, I don’t care.
The questions posed to Yeo are of interest to me because I am a Singapore citizen and this government is answerable and accountable to me and my fellow citizens.
I am not putting you down, aygee, and I hope you don’t mind my saying that your arguments are somewhat naive and superficial.
to aygee @115,
Dr. Chee’s tactics is to create awareness about this govt.
The fact not much has changed for the better is a clear indication to citizens that they have made a serious error in giving such an overwhelming mandate to an arrogant, stubborn and self serving govt.
Come next GE, you will get to see if Dr. Chee’s tactics has worked.
For every citizen that is enlightened, is a good chance of a vote gained for the opposition. It all adds up, one vote at a time.
To: 115 aygee
You said:
“But taking the tactic that CSJ has done – a call for public forum – clearly doesnt help change anything or even make a dent in getting any points across.”
after you had begun saying:
“i just find more credible opposition in Sylvia Lim, Chiam See Tong, Low Thia Khiang and potentially credible Kenneth Jeyaratnam, who’s academic achievements rival that of LHL’s.
”
Leaving out KJ as he is new, what EXACTLY have Sylvia Lim, Chiam, Low “help change anything or even make a dent in getting any points across”?
And what exactly do you and people of your thinking would like to suggest not only CSJ but other people who don’t fall into the category the power that be deemed fit to be FIXED, should do to gain the support of the lesser mortals……..the tactics, strategy, platform etc.
In any case, this thread is about Minister George Yeo offering to engage netizens on the Internet as a private citizen and CSJ has joined in.
So what’s the beef of those who criticise the person who has accepted to engage the Minister in the latter’s personal capacity as a pte citizen?
I agree with Steve Wu that it is difficult for GY to defend the indefensible.
Incidentally, all should reflect on why our elite Ministers and other office holders from the gahmen want to engage voters on the Internet and yet refuse to be serious in clearing doubts.
As to GY’s reply on the Temasek question, what do foreign goverrment know about Temasek’s actual performance to want to emulate it? Foreigners might be interested to copy Temasek’s SET-UP as Temasek has been able to gain from overcharging by the GLCs, like utilities, telecom, gambling ops etc……as to Temasek’s performance, even Presdient Ong was in the dark.
It is obvious that you are anti-CSJ to the core, in the same vein as the msm and gahmen would want to demonise him.
Each time when the opposition tries to raise its profile and rises to put a challenge to the firmly entrenched PAPies, we will have some people, who are apparently very confused psychologically, who will immediately try to shoot-down the tactics and strategies that the opposition tries, especially when it is the SDP involved. These unprincipled people are either those who have been nicely brainwashed by the PAPies or the fencesitters (those cunning people who, in local lingo, ‘see which way the wind blows’ and they will side with the stronger side) . LKY has long ago warned the entire populace that “you are either with me, or you are out”, this being the only style of politics that LKY endorses. Therefore these brainwashed PAPsupporters and the cunning fencesitters are really people who don’t have the slightest bit of courage, on top of the fact that they lack any sence of conscience. Therefore, leaving aside those brainwashed by the PAPies, the other group the cunning fencesitters are the most dangerous of the lot. It is these people who the opposition have to watch-out for, because even if Singapore and Singaporeans will to rot under the PAPies, they are not going to be seen supporting the opposition, due to their apparently confused split-personality.
i dont need Dr Chee to tell me these problems,.
Tango, my point being – a debate to what purpose? debate for the sake of debating, as you imply?
I already know and am already unhappy of what the govt is doing and has done. TOC, Sze Hian, Andrew, Khairulanwar, Tan Kin Lian, sgpolitics, wayangparty, and many other bloggers have already raised the issues, and i’m very aware of them. i read these blogs every day.
Did CSJ make a difference when he engaged GY? i just dont think so. to me, it was an exercise in futility, and thats about it really. CSJ wants to be martyr – but to what intention? righteousness? the truth? i already know all this.
What i do think will happen is probably a stronger response from the govt to either control conversations on the internet, or control opposition on the internet, or control govt folks from engaging people on the internet (looking at the history and behaviour of our govt).
ok then, i’m done. We seem to disagree on this. I wont try and defend what u think is superficial and naive.
But wanting a debate for the sake of a debate, or to ask questions that wont be answered on facebook, just for the sake of highlighting one’s profile, i wonder who’s the one who’s naive and superficial here.
Nothing Changes,
I’m not anti-CSJ. like i said, he articulates himself very well in foreign media and his books. i just think his methods dont connect with me.
i didnt demonise him – i just dont support him wanting to be a martyr, and the methods he goes about trying to be one.
i have nothing against him as a person, what he stands for, nor his party. just his methods.
To: aygee
“…i have nothing against him as a person, what he stands for, nor his party. just his methods.”
Then, you still need to read up on what civil disobedience is about and the below link from SDP:
http://www.yoursdp.org/index.php/perspective/special-feature/1796-misconceptions-about-the-singapore-democrats
aygee,
although to each his own opinion.
If you want to know my opinion, this is it.
I strongly believe there is never such thing as debate for the sake of debating, at least not in Singapore. Whatever people can try and can do, do it rather than just doubt it will be effective at all. Those who can’t shouldn’t discourage those who can in their capacity no matter how ineffective and irrational it seems.
“Did CSJ make a difference when he engaged GY? i just dont think so. to me, it was an exercise in futility, and thats about it really. CSJ wants to be martyr – but to what intention? righteousness? the truth? i already know all this.”
If there is such thing call “debate for the sake of debating” , then isn’t the parliament debate is worthless and useless, since we know that the parliament debate is not going to change anything (or are we deluding ourselves ? Mr Wang has blogged on this before and he says that all along the parliament is just speaking to themselves and I concur).
So can we even question that
“Did Parliament debate make a difference to those issues raised by citizen (especially in area that impact them like FW policy, CPF Life, GST, HDB cost, TH/GIC investment loss etc) ? i just dont think so. to me, it was an exercise in futility, and thats about it really. Concerned MP/NMP wants to implements changes – but to what intention? righteousness? the truth? i already know all this.”
So if you conclude that debate for the sake of debating is not effective then how effective is those parliament debate anyway ? Aren’t Low, Sylvia Lim and others wasting their time in parliament or just wayanging knowing that whatever issues they brought will be thrown into market anyway because they are debating for the sake of debating since they know that in history of parliament, nothing is going to change anyway ? So why are parliament people still “debating for the sake of debating”. The answer is simple. They want to make the issue known and keep as evidence in internet. Every incident of engagement whether effectiveness or not serve will be recorded down and serve as reminder of how the government is treating the nation.
Hence it will be the same for Dr Chee, and political bloggers. Did those intelligent bloggers like Lucky Tan and Mr Wang think that they can change anything by “blogging for the sake of blogging” then ?
Hence I don’t think one need to care whether it is effective or not effective anymore, do whatever to make voice heard. Forget about social media strategy, forget about strategise thingy, just do with what you have in current situation, Of course, if you have strategy, go ahead, otherwise just proceed as each day live its own.
I’m not anti-CSJ. like i said, he articulates himself very well in foreign media and his books. i just think his methods dont connect with me.
… because aygee is a coward?
“If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops witthout plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning”;;;by Frederick Douglas;;;taken from the SDP Website;;;especially a message directed to those brainwashed PAPies and the “cunning – fencesitters”.
actually, you people should ponder over whether our politicians are capable of debating in the first place.
take our oldest politician for instance. you think he can be as gentile/gentlemanly as obama or reagan during the presidential election debate?
i think he is someone who does not enjoy losing or be proven wrong. and when you piss him off, he makes sure you go on bended knees or lose your career and ruined financially – if need be.
put it this way, his intolerance and cunningness has infected almost everyone who has been inducted into the party, especially the upper echelon.
and the qualities of oppositions are no better.
the point i am making here is that our politicians are incapable of the kind of presidential debate you see in the states – cannot lose face lah!
if these two REALLY go at it, it will be ugly – neither party is mature but chee will be the provocateur and the pap will strike back.
and what happened when the intolerance style of the pap surfaces?( think)
i think the authorities will prefer to…maintain the sensibility and keep debates boring and manageable – unlike the taiwanese or koreans.
we are peaceful because..we have avoided provoking the wrong people or allowed it to happen.
and here, they prefer to keep things …peaceful and respectful – a quiet power keeping things in order if you like.
as much as you do not like your hair ruffled by hooligans and be forced to show your displeasure, i don’t think they too look forward to having their image ruined on…”youtude”.
this is singapore. the right image is everyth$ng you know.
“many Singaporeans currently taking on full-time jobs who are paid so poorly that they cannot pay their bills, send their children to school, or live decent lives”.
We are the land of the working poor in SG……and rich foreigners.
Shame on George and his salary. I need 3 lifetimes to earn what he does a year. Yet does he discharge his job well?
Daniel #131,
Fair enough. I agree with your point. We need to keep raising the issues, esp in social media, because there’s no other avenues for debate.
Goh #132, thank you for that personal attack. you certainly helped in our discussion here.
Sensitive #134,
You also brought up a good point. Our current politicians are not molded in the environment the Old Man was. They are technocrats and i guess most got into politics because they were given an offer that they cannot refuse (to use the Godfather analogy). I dont think many of them (even many of us here) can debate like in the US and the UK.
Our opposition got into politics because they WANT to. i think thats the plus point for our opposition.
A true test for our govt would be a one-on-one fight in each election ward. But that’ll never happen, would it?
To aygee,
You may be done, but i’m not.
You are so obviously biased against Chee that the substance and effect of the debate is utterly lost on you.
The effect would have been so widespread that even the local mouthpiece would have had no choice but to report it. Unfortunately, George Yeo had squirmed his sorry arse out of what would have been a most interesting political exchange that concerns me as a citizen of this country. Which brings me to the substance of the debate.
The questions that Chee asked, especially ministers’ salaries and Temasek’s losses are of paramount importance as all this money is coming from our CPF savings and taxes. Need I spell out to you why it is important to have George Yeo answer these questions?
As for the fear of the govt closing down cyberspace for such discourse, you are simply doing the PAP’s dirty job for them by teetering along this thin line, afraid to cross it or rather, to cross the PAP.
Aygee, just admit that you are so blinded by your prejudice that you can’t even appreciate that this was a rare occasion that a minister was rightly taken to task.
But of course he won’t. He has learnt the art of taichi very well from Lee Kuan Yew. This will either wake many Singaporeans who are in slumberland who think that these ministers deserve their million dollar salaries and the opacity of how the PAP runs the country.
Hi, TOC,
In case you are not aware. The SDP’s website link is not working, although it’s highlighted.
129) aygee
sadly here @ TOC, to many things are either black or white.
If you say something bad about their favourite heros, or say something good about gahmen, they are not gonna like you very much.
Like Bush’s famous words, either you are with us or you are with the …..
on one side, you hv a rattling rattlesnake loaded with venoms. on the other side you have a king cobra in docile mode.
the rattle snake likes to rattle and the king cobra, very well fed, generally ignores the rattlesnakes rattling noises and chooses to only display its fangs or wings to stave off any advances from the rattlesnakes.
but the minute when the rattlesnake strikes, the king cobra will rise to tower over the rattlesnake and ……
oh mercy, mercy….LOL
Anonymous (#138),
Thanks for letting us know about the url link. We’ve rectified it.
Chee is a striker. I think he will go overboard and he usually does … end up being offensive.
If you have lived in this nation long enough, you will know you seldom get things done FOR YOU if you sounded offensive – your education to work life(especially working for white people) and even in the market place can testify to that.
This country does not allow you to be…angry( you must always be in a kowtow mode).
Mr Chee is a very angry and frustrated man!
hi Daniel,
post #103, on August 12th, 2009 12.39 am
“No point targetting the same clown over and over again because this clown may not even be contesting in next election as he has high probability of bring down the pappies’ votes.”
you got a point there. ;)
Dear People,
I think the issue of debate between George Yeo and CSJ should be put in context. First of all – it was George Yeo who set up a FB site to reach out to Singaporeans. When Singaporeans want to debate him there – I guess thats only natural. After all – there are many controversial things which the PAP has done of late.
What is so wrong with a debate with a member of the public on PAP policies – when George Yeo himself set up that FB site to begin with ?
Don’t want to debate – then don’t set up a site to reach out to Singaporeans lor !
It could have been you and me or TOC who wanted to debate Georege Yeo.
Enter CSJ and he had the courage and conscience to ask these tough questions to George Yeo publicly. So what ? Why cannot ask questions ? Why cannot debate openly ?
Remember – it could have been you and me or TOC who asked George Yeo to debate these issues. But since it was CSJ – no – cannot debate ! What kind of mentality is that ?
Look people – If Your Conscience Is Clear – Then Please Talk In The Open. No need to look for dark corners etc. Talk openly with confidence if you think that you are right and you think that your actions are the right ones.
Talk In The Open Please !
Best Regards
Dr Syed Alwi
“Mr Chee is a very angry and frustrated man!”
So are we, otherwise, why we are wasting time constantly coming to TOC making comment instead of spending our precious time making Money/Love/Babies … haha
CSJ is a moron in this case.
Asking George Yeo what he felt personally about an issue in Facebook.
If I were George Yeo I would just tell him that I personally thinks that he is a jackass and I have better things to do than answer his dumb questions.
While the opposition likes to accuse the PAP of having zero EQ, you don’t need to be a genius to see that CSJ is no better.
Problem is, I have read his books and do not entirely disagree with his views.
But not all thinkers can be politicians. In this case, CSJ is completely outclassed.
I am not even a fan of the PAP.
That’s the point. Most of the time, we don’t debate, we throw punches instead.
Take a leaf from the Aware saga. They went in for a knock out( to discredit the leaders). Subsequently, it takes another knock out( discredit the new leaders) to regain loss power.
All along, the fight was ugly.It turned “cordial” only when there was a clear winner. Then it becomes a “civilize debate” for public consumption.
Few probably know that the actual “knock out” took place behind the scene.
hi Observer,
this is how S’pore works….
“Most of the time, we don’t debate, we throw punches instead.”
On internet, commenters throw punch and reconcile.
On mainstream media and parliament, gahmen throw cold water and move on.
100) Dr Chee should have picked Mr Wong KS for the debate instead.
Yeah. But WKS is 2b soliciting Geyland yeah. Bcos that place is safe for him.
Police nvr do catch anyone at Geylang right. Is a free market lah.
He so happy there, u think he has time to debate. Not enough chicken just let
his man stamp more passes.
Bill Clinton is a proven politician.
These americans, they are so solid and impressive!
Would it be possible to pay Clinton 3 million a year and have him work for singapore, i mean mainly for Singaporeans? Like if give him honorary and real citizenship, elect him into the house and speak for the people, especially the alternative nation who seriously needs someone to speak up for them?
Would this not make the nation more robust democratically speaking?
Clinton, i hope you become singapore citizen.