RP Leader , KJ has made a fair and decent expression of his views and concerns.
Its expected that a responsible politician defend his party and clarify doubts and express concerns so that the public knows what is their stand and opinion.

We should investigate who masterminded the verbal attacks among opposition party members or supporters?

the thingie about words is that sometimes they can be interpreted differently by different people.

I take exception to Kenneth J’s rejection of “confrontational Westminster style”. He equates it to throwing punches in parliament. Confrontational does not mean violent. It means one calls a spade a spade and questions that spade squarely in his/her face.

Kenneth J is helping the PAP to propagate this notion that confrontational politics is unacceptable in Singapore. If an Opposition party does not confront the PAP, what does is it expect to do? Cajole, coax, plead with them? Tsk, tsk.

Let’s not make words into swords and turn on each other. Now, is the best time for oppositions to amalgamate into a strong opposition force.

Like the story BraveHeart. After the Battle of Sterling, William Wallus tells the Scotish Nobles:

“You’re so concerned with squabbling for the scraps from Longshank’s table that you’ve missed your God-given right to something better. There is a difference between us. You think the people of this country exist to provide you with position. I think your position exists to provide those people with freedom. And I go to make sure that they have it.”

It is most delighful to hear Mr. Kenneth Jeyaretnam and MP Low Thia Kiang having lunch together.

This coming Election, Opposition Aprties will have the best chance to capture a few GRCs.

The electorate, like myself, are not only willing but inviting opposition parties to contest in all constituencies over Singapore.

Bring CHANGE and VOICE to Singapore.

A healthy mature exchange is always better for everyone to move forward instead of high handed tactics to silence opposing views. It sets a good example for the present government to follow.

to be fair, i believe that our impression of the late JBJ is largely based on how the mainstream media have previously portrayed and described him over the decades, and as a result, discussions/articles in the domain of new media today are to a certain extent influenced and building on this.

we all play our part in making singapore a better place, and along the way, toes are stepped on. that’s the “wonders” of op ed, isn’t it?

What has this statement, “I would only add that some of the remarks posted in the comments following these two articles degenerated into party bashing and as I had lunch with MP Mr. Low Thia Kiang only yesterday I can assure you that relations between the RP and the WP are friendly”, got to do with the letter of ‘defence’ of Kenneth Jeyaretnam?

From this, Kenneth seems to be aiming to score appease the members of WP, while attacking TOC for reporting what WP members said earlier.

And what is this new and alternative style of writing the new media should adopt? One of patronising the opposition parties and only telling good stories about them? How would that be different from what the msm does – patronising the ruling party.

Why cant you just let JBJ rip.

He contributions to the democractic movement of Singapore, his love of this country, his beliefs in the right political system should never be questioned. Very few can claim to be in the same league as JBJ

So why try to discredit someone by reading beyond words and between the lines, havent we had enough of pettiness over words and insinuations in this country?

Westminister style debate is precisely what we need in this country, you got an issue say it loud and clear and not insinuate, suggest, interpret, etc, and twist the words of an opposing view just because it hurts your pride

If we think of LKY’s politics during the 60s and also during Merger and those days leading up to Separation, as also ‘rambunctious’, ‘rabble-rousing’, and confrontational, then no harm in those words. In fact, it would even seem complimentary. PAP’s style is to ring fence the Opposition and dissenters to a tight format when disagreeing, so that it can shove them out of sight whenever it gets too hot for the Party. Hence, the rules that you have to be a political party if you want to engage in politics, you have to apply for all kinds of permits for speaking in public, for printing newslettrs, for distributing political flyers, etc. In such a scenario, anybody less than rambunctious and rabble-rousing and confrontational stands no chance of getting his points across. The PAP has created the monster, if you wld call it.

Regardless of views, this is the kind of debate and exchange that a healthy democracy should have, and that which the mainstream media has the responsibility to allow.

Kudos to Seelan and KJ for stating their views, and kudos to TOC for publishing them, and its own replies. :)

“6) sam on December 23rd, 2009 3.24 pm ”

i agree.

none of us really know who people like the late JBJ, Dr Chee, Gomez are, except maybe their loved ones.

What we know of them is based on Information we Received.

As prove in this blog, words can mean different things to different people.
Moreover, we are not british. we are reading english. our mastery of english is limited to a certain extent. People like KJ command very impressive english.

So, my point is, we need information in order to analyse and decide for ourselves.
meanwhile , who has information on how much a flat costs to construct?
who knows clearly why there is deficit?

someone knows or everyone here don’t know but base on impression or believe?

Good solutions need good quality of information – both sides of the story. This may be more theoretically possible than practically possible in some cases.

I think KJ and SP have a point in objecting to the way JBJ was described “rabble-rousing politics “ and “rambunctious attacks on the PAP….”

The Free Dictionary gives the meaning of ‘rambunctious’ – noisy and lacking in restraint or discipline; “a boisterous crowd”; “a social gathering that became rambunctious and out of hand”

The way Terrence Lee described JBJ’s style of politics gives an impression of a politician who incite the crowd to be unruly and behave in disorderly conduct. From what JBJ said,

“I myself am not against it, but I didn’t think the time has yet come for that. Before you can effectively launch a disobedience campaign, you’ve got to educate the people; “(JBJ on civil disobedience)

and, as far as we can remember, JBJ had never advocated civil disobedience [because ‘I didn’t think the time has yet come for that’] let alone organized one. Even the ones organized by the SDP do not even qualify as civil disobedience.

LKY might have described him and his style of politics in these terms and this has been played up by the Straits Times. One reason to avoid reading the ST is to keep one’s mind from being polluted.

I believe Terrence did not mean any ill, just a wrong choice of words.

Keep calm; we need to reserve the energy to face the mighty PAP.

Dear Kenneth, why do you bother to defend the current leadership of WP when they left your father out in the cold in his last years. Why do you bother to defend the very same people whom your dad had publicly condemn as “fiddling” and not reforming the system? Why do you bother to criticise an article whose only fault was to show WP exactly the way its current leaders wants – that of a better version of the PAP – when even WP themselves did not and has not objected? If your intention in mentioning your lunch date with LTK was to inspire opposition unity, I salute you. But if it is your intention to align yourself and RP with people whom you’d feel would free you from persecution from the PAP, then you need a spanking from the electorate. Try working with Chee Soon Juan instead. Your father did. Together, they started Open Singapore Centre. And Finally, I take extreme offence of your insinuation of Asian parliamentary debates as violence prone. You are Asian too, are you not?

Aiyoh! Let me summarize and conclude as follow and hope to stop all the ranting and raving liken to TWO little-kids bickering for the same-old-toys:

In Singapore political landscape:-
jbj– a respectable BUT not successful politician!
lky– a successful BUT not respectable politician!
ltk & cst– neither respectable non successful! Not ambitious politicians just mind their own backyards!!

For those whom aspire to take on politic as their life-long careers, who do you want to emulate and mimic? Combinations of all the above characters and personalities! Your own-self to decide!!

Are my judgments fair and equal? I hope so, heehaheehaheeha………..

A Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to all of you!
Let’s make a resolution for the New Year a better world for us to live in without abject poverty and destitute environment!!
All will be happy and lucky!!!
Cheers and toasts to prosperities!!!!

@13) ben ang on December 23rd, 2009 4.23 pm

“Try working with Chee Soon Juan instead. Your father did.”

Ben suggested that RP try working with CSJ, the prime civil disobedience instigator in this country.

In his letter, KJ tries vigorously to deny that his father was ever “an advocate of civil disobedience.” One can impute that KJ does not think too highly of such tactics to bring about societal change. This is a sensible stand and bodes well for RP.

RP would be well advised to keep a vast distance from the confrontational politics and attention-grabbing forays employed by SDP, all in the name of civil disobedience.

I am very confused by KJ’s views which is certainly not a continuity of Reform Party set up by his father.

From the FEER interview, JBJ described his style a far cry from those of Low Thia Khiang and Chiam See Tong which are “acceptable by the Lees”.

Isn’t it strange now that KJ is acting to “cozy” up with Chiam See Tong & Low Thia Khiang?

So will KJ be more like his own father, or another “milder yet more credible” oppositions?

I have one question to ask:

KJ said that JBJ “was never an advocate of civil disobedience.”

Terence Lee countered his claim by pointing out that his father did endorse or at least ponder the possibility of civil disobedience in the FEER interview.

Is “civil” disobedience that bad a thing that must be avoided at all cost by all “credible” opposition politicians in Singapore?

Aren’t they peaceful, non-violence actions taken by the powerless against the rulers?

I have to agree with JW in his observation.

I think although Terrence Lee did not mean ill in his article, his subsequent justification by quoting JBJ’s comments on civil disobedience was in a way twisting the truth with regards to JBJ’s position on the matter.

Civil disobedience has its place in the battle against injustice. The great Mahatma Gandhi used it against the Colonial masters in India, so did the Civil Rights movement, led by Martin L King, Jr.

That Singapore has not reached a state where such actions are required or can be justified, and change by achieved, was perhaps the point JBJ wanted to make when asked by the foreign correspondent.

To therefore conclude that JBJ was thus a supporter of using civil disobedience to achieve change is therefore furthest from the truth. He was a believer in effecting political change through constitutional means. His determination to set up a new party, get himself discharged from bankruptcy and to contest the next elections, is the clearest indicator of his position on the matter.

If however there ever came a day when the government of the day was so totally out of sync with the people, and the people were ready to exercise their rights as citizens through public demonstration and acts of civil disobedience, then any politician worth his/her salt, should be ready to take charge and lead the people in such actions.

To: LWL

If the PAP continues to rule that civil disobedience is unlawful and criminal acts (as most authoritarian governments always do), and people are forever fearful of arrests, who would then dare to be the first person to take charge and lead the people?

Unlike Terrence Lee’s assertion, the words “rabble-rouser” and “rambunctious” DO carry negative connotations that frame JBJ in a negative light.

Do a street poll and most educated people will agree on the negative connotation of these two terms.

No man, be they saints or politicians, is above criticism, including JBJ. However, to claim JBJ is a rabble-rouser and rambunctious at that is to do him a disservice, to play into PAP’s strategy of portraying themselves as rational and logical while the opposition as irrational, emotional creatures.

Perhaps the article was meant as a sacrcastic dig at the mildness of WP under Low Thia Kiang, but to contrast it against JBJ and claiming he was a rabble rouser is simply a wrong writing strategy.

We don’t know who Terrence is in person, personally.
So , we won’t know what he meant by those words as english can be ambiguous in nature.

If he is fully aware of the double-meanings of those words, he should be responsible for his writings and come out to explain in person and not via TOC editorial.

Personally, i believe that this is all a misunderstanding and Terence did not really have ill intentions. Maybe we can read his other articles to find out more about him before we assess this matter? I also believe that TOC’s standing behind Terence’s article simply means they believe the author has no ill intentions.

But KJ’s writing the letter is the right thing to do being a responsible and responsive and interactive opposition leader. Some shy away from directly engaging with the public on the internet. I think his style is good and could be welcome by the younger population who are more vocal and interactive than their parents who are not very vocal either due to nurture or culture and i dun want to know.

lets close this issue and focus on the public en…..

I too feel that TOC did a great disservice to the opposition cause by publishing the article by Terence. You may feel that there is no harm done, but the fact that you are causing arguments among so called opposition supporters already showed how divisive your article is.

Its becoming clear that out of the 33.3%, how many are not satisfied with the performance of low and chiam although to be fair, they most likely would still support them if they come to their wards . this could be due to their logical mind that aspire for more transparency etc that could be achieved if the situation is more balanced. The issue is there has not been enough opposition parties to choose from. So, some are saying WP should not take the 33.3 for granted considering also the population size has changed significantly.

eg. more Transparency : how did the deficit come about and how much does it cost to build? if any of you have the answer, reply to muah and i shall shutup and sitdown from here on.

While WP and RP should evolve to become the opposition that the people Really want. Part time work as MP may be nice job to aspire for but the main thing should be how to better represent the 33.3.

I hope that opposition parties come up a common manifesto for the election that may come soon.

@3 confrontational

or blow?

This mature exchange of views is very good.

It is a pity that Andrew and Terrence while denying disparaging the memory of JBJ did not see fit to include in their responses at least a bow to the father of Singapore’s democracy. In ten years time when Singapore is a thriving multi-party democracy, JBJ will be our Nelson Mandela. The only pity is that he did not live to see the day. Maybe he is our Chief Luthuli….

Rest in peace, Mr Jeyaretnam

I’m sure Kenneth Jeyaretnam and the Reform Party are very credible. I hope to see them win. PAP are the hooligans.

I dont like the idea of Terrence lecturing Kenneth on what JBJ was like…

@13) ben ang on December 23rd, 2009 4.23 pm

“Try working with Chee Soon Juan instead. Your father did.”

Ben suggested that RP try working with CSJ, the prime civil disobedience instigator in this country.

In his letter, KJ tries vigorously to deny that his father was ever “an advocate of civil disobedience.” One can impute that KJ does not think too highly of such tactics to bring about societal change. This is a sensible stand and bodes well for RP.

RP would be well advised to keep a vast distance from the confrontational politics and attention-grabbing forays employed by SDP, all in the name of civil disobedience.

I respect TOC’s stand. I support RP and KJ.

When come to GE, all fingers should point at PAP.

It will be a betrayal of JBJ’s legacy if RP under KJ were to cozy up to Low Thia Khiang, the unknown member of WP who was able to get elected to parliament in 1991 through tenacious and relentless campaigning by his father.

On the day of launching RP, JBJ was explicit in telling Singaporeans to join him if they wanted change. But he also told those who felt that change was not needed to go and join “Low Thia Khiang or Chiam See Tong”.

If KJ thinks that the PAP system of governance, based on greed, secrecy and concealment ( according to his father) does not require change, then he should leave RP and join one the opposition parties. And if he feels that none of the existing opposition is good enough, he should start a new party. He should not usurp RP just because he happened to be the son of JBJ.

#27 5566,

Either you are ignorant about what genuine democracy is about or you are from the PAP Internet Brigade trying to play opposition party against another.

Civil disobedience is a perfectly legitimate way of challenging unjust and draconian laws. Without cd, the blacks in America will still be riding in the back of buses, one of the Marcos’s will still be Pres of the Philippines, Taiwan still under a dictatorship etc. Get the picture???????

Mr. Ken Jeya said: “I am gravely concerned that a write up of the Workers Party Youth Wing was used as an opportunity to attack JBJ and I believe, by association, the RP as the Young reformers write up showed them sitting in front of a portrait of JBJ”.

Mr. Ken, does you mean that because you is JBJ son, so by association TOC article was attacking you also? Wah I think like that your interpretion is very wahpiang leh.

I was a little taken aback too after reading the article on ” WP youth wing being milder but credible” followed by comparison with its predecessor who was somewhat painted in “negative” flavour. If readers, generally, felt that the writings were somehow written disrespectfully & lack fairness to late JBJ personality, than readers’ thought must prevail regardless of how any dictionary try to describe the meaning behind those “unpopular words” being used.

Nevertheless, the word “civil disobedience” coming out from late JBJ has to be taken with some pinch of salt. If a person is innocent and did no wrong but was painted in every negative way by our main stream medias and pap to bring him down. Any sane person would definitely struggle and acted a little aggresssive to prove themselves innocent – not for himself but for the people in this country. It was even more compelling, then, for late JBJ to be the way he was when the people in this country was apathy in politics and more prone to believe in every shits coming out from main stream media. If one fully understood why he acted the way he was, than this article should not have compared him with the current team of younger WP members, who didn’t take the same test during JBJ’s traumatic period.

JBJ used the word “civil disobedience” has also paled greatly in comparison to LKY threat of “sending in army in event of freaky result.” You guys can judge for yourselves who is more “rambunctious” & “unruly”. And the whole team under PAP is even more appalling in recent years, you guys knew that too.

However, instead of comparing personalities of late JBJ with WP youth Wing, why not simply write about the changing tide and time and strategy needs to be tweaked in favour of the younger WP team so that they can tap on some of JBJ’s strength but still watchful of their steps to avoid getting into defamation suit which are famous “tool” used regularly by PAP and highly supported by kangaroo court. I believe WP Youth Wing would have agreed along this line too if they meant no disrespect to JBJ.

The word “milder” is symbolic of Singaporeans personalities which may be good or bad depending on situation, but in political context, it can be a sign of lack in confident. As the articles written by Terrence suggested, since aggressiveness is no longer WP cup of tea, they better be credible – but don’t count on PAP to be milder when election arrives or even if you win many seats in parliament. Only then, you would have been more appreciative of what JBJ has gone through and than decided to take a leaf or two for referral.

Having said that, opposition is my only light & hope now. Agree to dissagree is healthy but end of the day, please unite for the benefits of many suffering Singaporeans.

.

In reply to 18)

It is precisely the fact that any act of civil disobedience would invariably be in breach of existing laws of the land that would require a person to possess a great degree of courage to take the lead, just as Gandhi or Martin L King Jr did.

So civil disobedience per se, must be seen as one of the tools in which can effect political and social change, if a regime starts to, for example, stuff ballot boxes and ostracise a segment of the population in a country.

To acknowledge this fact of civil disobedience as a tool, does not make one an advocate of such an action. But if the circumstances require, then a true leader must be prepared to lead in such a course of action.

We are not there today, here in Singapore, but if the gini coefficient continues to widen, the foreign population continues to increase at the present rate, then truly, a segment of our population will be marginalised.

The anger and fear will then drive those adversely affected to act in a manner that may be unimaginable at this juncture in time, even if it means breaking the unjust laws that make it illegal. It would then take a true leader to make sure that any such act does not lead to open revolt and violence, but stay its course as a peaceful act of civil disobedience, and force a peaceful transition of power.

That was the case in India and also in USA when the people chose to stand up to injustice through such acts but still remained true to a non-violence means of struggle.

Sporadic violence did result in both India and USA, but it was because of the leaders of the day, it was contained, and the uprising was essentially peaceful and today, we have independent India, which no doubt its lesson to the British, enabled us our independence. And in the US today, we celebrate an African Black President.

Can we please stop fighting over who carries the legacy of JBJ and look towards the future? JBJ has come and gone. Yes he has done us proud, but what people (such as Seelan) need to do is to look forward and STOP THIS BICKERING and dragging other innocents down with them.

I am certain JBJ would not want us to waste our energies killing each other off. We’ll just have more of the same.

#26 5566

We have heard nowhere as much about CSJ as from the state media, and his “politics and forays” is nowhere as widely publicised in Singapore as in the ST. No offense to you, Sir, but I am not prepared to accept the ST’s take on CSJ, neither on the court coverage of his cases, nor the reported opinions of other opposition party members on his activities.

As to the contentious article here, can TOC and the writer convincingly argue that the words chosen have unambiguously positive senses in unqualified common usage, or that the article does not seek to present a positive view of the Youth Wing by contrasting its strategy with the late JBJ’s (which by comparison would therefore be cast negatively)? Is accepting something as a late resort the same as advocating it?

Finally, if shit-slinging is the preferred mode of Singaporean debate, maybe the old man was right after all.

Please prove him wrong.

Terence Lee, you quoted Mr JB Jeyaretnam’s intervew with emphasis on the following para to justify your assertion that Mr JBJ was an “advocate of civil disobedience”:

‘Certainly civil disobedience has a place, and as I told the foreign correspondents at the lunch on the 31st of July, I suppose there might have to come a time that if the government is not prepared to listen to our peaceful protests, there must come a time where we have to resort to civil disobedience.’

But if we were to read the following para which you did not emphasize, can we truly say that Mr JBJ had advocated civil disobedience?

‘I myself am not against it, but I didn’t think the time has yet come for that. Before you can effectively launch a disobedience campaign, you’ve got to educate the people; you’ve got to get them ready to participate in it. That is just not possible today in Singapore, because of the fear that girds Singaporeans. They say yes alright if we come and participate in this civil disobedience, what’s going to happen to us? Aren’t we going to be arrested and carted off into courts, and then put into prison?’

Based on the above, I feel that Mr JBJ was only commenting that “disobedience campaign” has a place in society and that certain conditions must be fulfilled for such a campaign to take place. (Based on your logic, would you say that since Mr Ong Teng Cheong once sanctioned a strike in the shipping industry, he must be an advocate of strikes?) You need to provide further evidence to convince me that Mr JBJ is an “advocate of civil disobedience”.

#32 ((….., opposition is my only light & hope now. Agree to dissagree is healthy but end of the day, please unite for the benefits of many suffering Singaporeans.))

Agreed.

But unity forums were organised in the recent past to forge the idea of brining together opposition parties. However, these overtures were snubbed by a party whose leader openly claimed that he had voted for the PAP in the last general elections.

Is such a party really an opposition/alternative party or a proxy to perpetuate the authoritarian rule of the PAP? A real opposition should look beyond its home “turf” and the monthly salary from PAP parliament.
.

hi Terrence

Perhaps you should apologize for your provocative reply note. valid as your argument may be, it is outright disrespectful to badmouth a dead man. Not only the fact that he can’t defend himself, he is after all the Father of Opposition who left teachings and inspiring values to many Opposition figures and Singaporeans.

JBJ’s birthday is nearing and I’m not surprised Kenneth speaks so strongly for his father. kindly build some good karma for yourself and be more tactful in your statements in the future.

Kenneth will not apologize since this is his father’s honor he is defending. please be gracious, take a step back, apologize and take 2 steps forward against the PAP.

to both Terrence and Kenneth:
this war of words can go on forever.
both TOC and RP will take collateral damage, and PAP is watching this amusingly.

for Singaporeans, please move on. I hope TOC and TR will stop publishing coverage on this saga.

all of you are great motivational writers, use your ammos on the PAP.

vote for Change, vote the PAP out

please set

aiyah… not a war of words lah.. just a differing opinion on a highly biased subject. KJ’s view is certainly different from most of ours (which isn’t really helping since we get most of our ideas from the MSM).

lets drop this. and move forward. (and to the bar, so we can crack some silly jokes)

unite the opposition.

RIP JBJ

In all honesty, I’ve put the matter to rest in my mind already. I’ve said what I needed to say, and TOC has replied accordingly.

Let’s take all criticism in stride and move forward to build a better Singapore.

Kudos to TOC for publishing everything, and kudos to all involved for sharing their personal views instead of trying to bankrupt each other.

If we all agreed on everything .. well then we’d TRULY be living in the fairytale world the MSM would have us believe we’re in :)

We all show the greatest respect to JBJ. Likewise, KJ the son too. But I hope KJ as a newbie into the political arena of PAP control politcs should rationalise his thoughts before putting into writing.

I for one do not support anyone. I just oppose the capitalist PAP robbing the nation and citizens of their every life. And that goes the life of JBJ. He fought a hard and great battle against the authoritarian rule of PAP and to many of us is like an egg knocking against a rock. For one, I really empathise with his courage and ‘confrontational politics” with PAP. Chiam See Tong and Low Thia Khiang can survive that long is because of their politcal astuteness and knowing too well they have to have a different approach to counter the tyrannical PAP and LKY, and they survived till today.

TOC has all along done a good job. I believe there is no malice on their part in any report. Truth can stand the test of time.

See what happens to PAP now, hiding too many skeletons in the closet. They cannot do it anymore. They realise the sentiments are very strong and against them. Let us unite to rid the PaPies out slowly with a strong cohesive force of the opposition.

Everyone of us see with our eyes. Judge with our sense and act with our wisdom.

JBJ was and is always a great man and fighter. He left a legacy which will be even stronger than LKY to the eyes of many.

Dear Terence

Your quote of JBJ “suppose there might have to come a time that if the government is not prepared to listen to our peaceful protests, there must come a time where we have to resort to civil disobedience.”

to indicate that he is a person who advocate civil disobedience is purely a indication of your ignorance of history which have been and continue repeating itself even at present.

Like a car turbo engine Pressure release valve, excessive pressure need to be release and same for boiler and other machineries. When a country is being denial of the right to release this pressure, civil disobedience will take it natural course (whether you like it or not). Question is, where is Singapore tipping point? Or rather threshold it an take on suppression. Thus, what JBJ speak of is logic and nature of life, which is very much different from advocating.

Three cheers for Terence.

Ever since his death, there has been a tendency for netizens to ignore JBJ’s many warts, turning him into an icon. Did they buy his books?

He was a very, very brave man who could have done with more grey matter and humility.

The bottomline is:

any opposition is better than PAP.

The pigs will likely hold on to power but they must lose some pigs.

The remaining ones will work very harder to serve the citizens.

We don’t want them flying around like GY, LKY and not contributing to the future development of Singapore.

Every GRC has a minister.

Lose 1 minister and his pay can pay 10 opposition mps.

That ex minister can then contribute to the private sector since he is such a talent.

You can say whatever you want abt JBJ, but he is the champion of human rights and not a single, I repeat, not a single PAP MP can come up to half his mark.Merry X’mas all.

notice that this is “LEE versus JEYARETNAM” again hahaha

how is the opposition camp to head anywhere if they are not able to rise above petty rivalries like these?

No. 42 leesjuanpat,

You said “Chiam See Tong and Low Thia Khiang can survive that long is because of their politcal astuteness and knowing too well they have to have a different approach to counter the tyrannical PAP and LKY, and they survived till today.”

Please remember that any MP has the obligation of serving his/her constituents and more broadly Singaporeans. Opposition MPs should not be in parliament to window-dress and ensure their own survival.

If Low and Chiam are in parliament just for PAP to show that there is an opposition in parliament and fto play it ’safe’ to keep their seats, then they should do us all a favour and retire now.

For me, all this online debate represents the growing maturity of Singaporeans being involved in political debate. It is definitely a much better form of “political education” than what the PAP can ever dish out.

We should continue this kind of exchanges, so long as we all remember not to allow it to degenerate into party-bashing or personality-bashing (alive or not).

Every party have their right to decide how they want to do it. Every citizen can exercise their right who they want to support. Anyone who thinks they have better ideas can start their own party, or stand as independent candidates.

I am glad to see KJ making a stand. And TOC replying. This kind of exchanges (minus the trolls’ fire-fanning and mindless instigations) contributes to our political maturity, and hopefully will lead us to make this place a better home.

I hope all opposition parties can sort out their differences way before the GE. Agree to disagree on any areas if necessary, but direct your collective firepower in the correct direction, for the sake of all of us.

it is terribly sad that this is dwindling into WP/ CST bashing. We need to unite. not to divide. remember boys and girls.thats wat they want it to become.

WP=weak and meek
SDA = all about CST, nothing much else.
SDP = foot stomping brat talking about highfalutin issues

i believe none of it. there is more than what they try to portray. really.

To: 12) JW on December 23rd, 2009 4.21 pm
To: 17) LWL on December 23rd, 2009 5.41 pm
Such solid, fair and non-biased comments are rare in Singapore.
We need more balanced views for our declining economic and social landscapes.
We have to try our best not to behave like Taiwan Politics.
Wish you all Merry Christmas and a happy new year.

Terence Lee’s article was a fair portrayal. He is entitled to his views and he has a right to express them.

Kenneth Jeyaretnam tried to criticise Terence, but was debunked, because Terence was able to cite chapter and verse to back up his own opinions. It appears KJ does not know his father’s political career and thoughts all that well, which is no surprise since KJ emerged from the shadows only after his father’s death.

People who try to silence Terence by claiming his article is “divisive” are talking nonsense. So what if his article is divisive? So what if his article promotes disagreement and different views? We should not shut out his views simply because we fear that the opposition will become united. Otherwise the opposition will be behaving like an anti-democratic dictatorship.

My two cents: Words like “rambunctious” and “rabble-rousing” tend to paint a picture of a troublemaker. Unfortunately. Alternative words like “fiery speaker with the common touch” could have conveyed a similar meaning, and perhaps fairer portrayal of the man in question.
But heck, we are still a long way away of being all things to all people, in the use of language and words. Remember, our people is made up of different races, different backgrounds and different levels in the use of the English language. I won’t even go into the subject of the use of proper Singlish.
And for a long time, we have not even spoken about such things like politics. We have to re-learn how to give-and-take, without taking too much offence over the occasional lapse in proper discourse. And we are now learning how to do this — confrontational Westminster style or not.
JBJ would have arched an eyebrow over this row. I am sure he would whispered theatrically: By jove, what have we here!

in my opinion, the opposition parties, all of the are the most tamed in the world in terms of their style, character and behavior.

but do feel free to disagree with me but only if you know what u sayin.

Dear all,

I see no need to apologise to KJ regarding the tone of my letter. It was a response in kind to KJ’s criticisms, which were by themselves harsh sounding. Thus the need for a robust rebuttal on mine and Andrew’s part.

The choice of words “rabble-rousing” and “rambunctious”, in my view, can be positive as well. Meaning is extremely subjective. I do not regret my choice of words, and see no need to tone it down to portray an overtly positive image of JBJ.

I stand by my view that JBJ was an advocate of civil disobedience. Yes, he may think that the time for it is not right, but the grey area lies in where he thought was the tipping point. Therefore I find KJ’s assertions that he never advocated CD ridiculous.

In any case, I am agreeable that we need to move on from this debate. Carried beyond a certain point, this debate harms the efforts of the opposition parties. I have no hard feelings against either KJ or Seelan.

If we want to continue arguing, we can debate until the cows come home, and the issue won’t be settled.

[...] Road to Election – a blog day’s work: Mildly different or credibly different? – TOC: Exchange of letters between Kenneth Jeyaretnam and TOC [...]

> 57) Terence on December 24th, 2009 10.49 am

Thats about the most arrogant post I’ve seen yet on this matter. A pity really. Whether you’re right or wrong, you appear to be thoroughly lacking in humility.

41) Seelan Palay on December 24th, 2009 12.51 am

In all honesty, I’ve put the matter to rest in my mind already. I’ve said what I needed to say, and TOC has replied accordingly. Let’s take all criticism in stride and move forward to build a better Singapore.

42) Blackbeard on December 24th, 2009 1.47 am

Kudos to TOC for publishing everything, and kudos to all involved for sharing their personal views instead of trying to bankrupt each other.

It is time to move on. Dragging this can only benefit one party – the People’s Action Party.

in this world, many times, only God knows the truth, for those who believe in God, any type of God.

Terence is a good example of real life – he base his writings on what he read and what he perceives and believes. He cannot base his writings on what he DOES NOT KNOW. At the same time, what he thinks he knows may not be the Truth. This means it may Be the Truth at the same time.

Thus, we need Transparency – access to info.

How many contracts awarded by ?? to ?? members?
If there is nothing wrong, there is no reason for the public not to know if its of public interest. By this, its up to the People to request for this info. Else, who need to provide info?

Again, its always boils down to the people.

Terence Lee,

“I stand by my view that JBJ was an advocate of civil disobedience. Yes, he may think that the time for it is not right, but the grey area lies in where he thought was the tipping point. Therefore I find KJ’s assertions that he never advocated CD ridiculous.”

By your logic, we can argue then that many of us are “advocates” of a lot of things (capital punishment, war, violence) since “the grey area lies in where [we think is] the tipping point..

Unless u r a fool, u may not know that the PAP is not only brutal and ruthless to the opposition, they r also ruthless to the main leaders in the PAP. That how he seize power by using the IS to imprisoned all those that disagree with him, instead of fighting fair and square in the election.

Why do u think all the fighters disappeared?

If you support the PAP, then you must be a Troll because no1 in their right mind would support such a tyrannical and ruthless gov

I remember the first time i was introduced to JBJ and how i looked at him with awe. My mind also went back to the time when we were embroiled in cases together. I remember the joy of winning and the anguish of losing cases. The anguish was far more than the joy. Most of all, i remember a courageous man who sacrificed so much for singapore because of the principles he believed in. In my sorrow, I forgot that this man can be stubborn,obnoxious and pig-headed. I could only remember his toothy grin and the way he wept when i saw him in prison. It was so sad.

I will remember JBJ for all the good things-his courage,tenacity and the will to fight on against all odds. He did not see the fruits of his struggle suring his lifetime but i am sure that some time in the future, a new generation of singaporeans will.

My comments: Notice subhas also pinpointed JBJ weakness, but that does not meant he is portraying him in a bad light.He only wanted to show JBJ from different angles. JBJ, LKY, CST, CSJ, LTK, KJ etc are just human beings like us,they have their strengths and weaknesses, we should not “demonise” them in our debates. When PAP is finally voted out, i hope the opposition to be magnanimous and heal the divisive splits in the nation just like Mandela and Gandhi did. Afterall, as singaporeans we hope for the best of the country and not just support parties blindly. Only a true check and balance rational democracy can stand the test of time. All parties should aim for this goal.

I am beginning to feel that Terence’s words are not so harmless afterall.
To me JBJ’s message was that CD is practised in some parts of the world, under certain circumstances. Having mentioned what is practised elsewhere in the world does not sound like he invented CD or is asking people to perform CD. Its up to the people to decide.

Other relevant phrases include : Rule of Law, Ruled by Law, Just Law and Un….. etc….

Terence, Andrew,

I feel your responses following KJ letter here was not necessary. The readers will have their own intepretations of what to make of the vatrious articles. As long as every word you have written stands true to your beliefs, you will be able to take any criticisim standing proud.

Unfortunately, imho, your follow-up response feels like you are keen to have the last say. May I remind you that in the online world, there is no such thing, and everyone has a right to respond – KJ, Seelan, and most importantly, your readers.

Essentially, I see nothing in what KJ or Seelan wrote that says your are wrong to have to defend Terence’s article as such. It seems to boil down to a choice of words, and I do hope you can be gracious enough to let KJ and Seelan have their’s. Again, what to make of it all is entirely up to the readers.

I share the same sentiments with HL to some extent.
I sensed TOC was a bit too defensive.
Terence should respond directly also given his ability to write.

JBJ is a Singaporean Hero. He was very brave, determined and selfless. He was peacefully devoted to his convictions. He fought for justice and a fair go for the average Singaporeans. He was not reckless. The confrontational image some Singaporeans have of JBJ is the making of the PAP propaganda machineries. The one who is really reckless and confrontational in this fight is Lee Kuan Yew who is hell bent on destroying an innocent and patriotic Singaporean who dare to stand up for Singaporeans against the PAP draconian and dogmatic ways.
Singaporeans owed it to JBJ to correct many of the false impressions the PAP have created. We must purge the PAP propaganda from our subconsciousness.

“….it is more helpful to focus on the spirit of the article’s introduction rather than be bogged down by its details”

Let the spirit…Live On….

It is quite clear the intentions were all good. I hope this matter is put to rest and the future of Singapore worked on.

The WP’s style of engaging in politics is cautious, if not it might be just too expensive and we all know why.

Good on you people. Happy Holidays.

Terence and TOC are entitled to have the last say. It’s their blog, after all. And it is far more widely read than Kenneth Jeyaretnam’s own blog.

KJ came across as being very defensive, and oblivious to what his own father has said and done. That’s because KJ has spent his entire childhood and adult life outside Singapore. He has little knowledge of Singapore and no connection to what its heartlanders think and feel.

However, simply because he is the son of JBJ, some blogges accord him god-like status. They bristle when he is challenged in any way. They do not look at facts or logic. They seem to have forgotten the manner in which KJ himself took over the Reform Party. His own father had selected people – long time associates and supporters – to man it, but when KJ came he managed to piss off all his father’s friends and supporters. The present Reform Party is nothing like what JBJ wanted.

Will we be allowed to comment on KJ and what he has done? Or is any criticism of him prohibited?

PS there is nothing wrong with describing JBJ as rambunctious and rabble-rousing. Those of us who are old enough to remember him in his Anson days will know that it is a fair portrayal of the man.

#69 ((The WP’s style of engaging in politics is cautious, if not it might be just too expensive and we all know why))

Yeah, cautious to the extent of maintaining stony silence when asked Wong Kan Seng should resign over MSK affair. Yeah, cautious to the extent of voting for the PAP in the last GE..

Don’t hoodwink the people by claiming to be a “watchdog” just to make sure of the MP salary and lifelong pension.

For such caution, one might as well join the PAP.

.

Don’t mean to over-parse Terence’s original article, but it seems to me that “rambunctious” is a fairer description of JBJ than “rabble-rousing”. (Calling the masses who supported JBJ and the WP ‘rabble’ is a little harsh, surely.)

Rambunctious, combative, pugnacious, adversarial — these are all adjectives which I think would accurately capture JBJ’s style of politics (and for that matter, LKY’s). I do not think these words in themselves bear any pejorative meaning. To the extent that we perceive words like “rambunctious” etc. as synonymous with words like ‘anti-social’, ‘destructive’ and so on… I submit that we’ve subconsciously imbibed the PAP conception of what a democracy is about — i.e. polite, inoffensive, temperate and rational discussion among an elite class of junzi.

What we ought really to be asking is, why is being “rambunctious” necessarily bad? A truly democratic politics is one where discussions are impassioned, where people (saying it like it is) can afford to be uncivil and even rude, without being exposed to governmental coercion — simply because society’s injustices may be so gross that there is just no ‘temperate’ way of talking about them.

That firebrand style of politics, I think, is JBJ’s unique legacy, in which neither (e.g.) Chiam See Tong nor Low Thia Khiang can claim a share. Since 2001, there has been a JBJ-shaped hole in Parliament — we are missing the relentless, confrontational speeches the man always brought with him (along with a deluge of rebuttals from PAP figures). To some, he was a political gadfly; to others, a tireless crusader against authoritarianism. But he was surely far from being a ‘moderate’ on the local scene. And just as we have to be wary, as Kenneth says, of attempts to “rewrite history”</I., we must also guard against “counter-revisionist” efforts to paint an idealized portrait of the man.

//la nausée

Try experience being bankrupted for something you believe in.

See if you won’t sound aggressive with your enemy.

Ask your enemy not to bankrupt you first.

My humble observations..

Did JBJ advocate civil disobedience?

JBJ was a man who would take on any issue or question head on. When asked about civil disobedience, he replied matter-of-factly that it was indeed a viable approach but he did not think Singaporeans are ready. In short, he supports it but I would not dare say that he advocated it.

Was the use of the words “rabble-rouser” and “rambunctious” on JBJ inappropriate?

Rabble-rouser – Yes
Rambunctious – No.
Rabble-rouser has connotations of a demagogue. JBJ was not that kind of politician. While in Parliament, he spoke unreservedly on issues that rocked the foundations of the PAP – the role of Lee Kuan Yew in Government, climate of fear, criminal justice system, ministers’ salaries, bastardization of citizens’ rights and the elections system. I suggest Terence Lee and TOC only read his book The Hatchet Man of Singapore.

Was Terence’s unapologetic tone of his reply inappropriate?

Yes and no. Terence could have been more tactful. That should come with more experience. But I appluad his and TOC’s unwavering stance in defending the article, and allowing KJ and SP their full right of reply. It is a valiant show of journalistic intergrity.

What does Kenneth Jeyaretnam hope to achieve with his reply?

No one will begrudge him for speaking up on his father’s legacy. But KJ seems to be caught in a conundrum. While he defends his father’s name and even his criminal record, he cannot or will not acknowledge that peaceful civil disobedience do have a role in a authoritarian State. His current close alliance with Low Thia Kiang and WP is indicative that he has decided to take a political path that will avoid any clashes with the law, be it CD or defamatory-like criticisms. In short, while JBJ stood closer to Chee Soon Juan in principles, KJ has decided to move away from CSJ/SDP and closer to LTK/WP.

Would his father approve?

An open ended question.

@cat, actually you’ve got cause-and-effect the wrong way round. JBJ was bankrupted in 2001, having been in politics (and with his own aggressive style) for over two decades by then. It was his combativeness that caused his bankruptcy, and not vice versa.

And that’s precisely my point. How many local politicians are that headstrong and self-abnegating? None I can think of, except perhaps CSJ — who however doesn’t have the charisma or gravitas of JBJ. The man’s tenacity was thus remarkable (even admirable). Yet his politics was also foolhardy — some might say he committed political suicide by challenging the PAP so bluntly and persistently. And there’s little doubt that the far more subdued character of opposition politics today has something to do what we saw happen to JBJ — and countless others too, but none so prominent.

I read this article before I read Terence Lee’s article on his interview with the WP youths.

My gut reaction to Terence’s reply to Kenneth J was it was a VERY COMBATIVE reply. He sounded very much like he was replying to the PAP over a point of contention – ie unfriendly.

On the other hand, my impression of Kenneth J letter is that he was making a great effort to counter something that Terence said in his article, something he obviously fely very strongly about.

My reaction above was BEFORE I went on to read Terence’s writeup.

However, when I did read his article my sense is that both of you have OVER REACTED.

On balance, I can understand Kenneth’s reaction a bit – he felt his late father had not been given a fair shake in those introductory comments in Terence’s article. A lesson here perhaps for Terence to weigh what he write without more introspection or circumspection. His comments about JBJ were too brief and can have the capacity, intentional or not to give a false/mistaken/unintended impression – without more words of clarification and elaboration to say what you really mean. It is disingenuous to reply to Kenneth by as it were, ‘comparing’ dictionary meanings of the words. Sorry, but I am not convinced by your explanation also of ‘rabble-rousing’ – that can have only BAD interpretation. A other posters are right, you have taken his remarks in an FEER interview OUT OF CONTEXT without acknowledging that he was making a ‘philosophical’ point. There is a distinction between being a practitioner and one who believed and most important did not think the context/time for CD has arrived.

I agree with other posters that the rather curt replies that you and Andrew gave are over the top, unnecessary and unwarranted. Don’t forget, you were the provocateur, Kenneth had every right to react. IF YOU AND ANDREW HAD NO ULTERIOR MOTIVES, THE GENTLEMAN’S RESPONSE SHOULD BE TO APOLOGIZED AND EXPLAIN YOURSELVES TO KENNETH BEHIND THE SCENE. THEN PERHAPS A LESS ROBUST RESPONSE FROM HIM WOULD HAVE BEEN ELICITED.

I am disappointed at your lack of maturity. Such behaviour can only be good for the PAP. the only valid principle here is not to show up your weakness for others to exploit.

I read with interests the exchange between KJ and TOC. Particularly about the supposed position taken by JBJ with regards to “Civil Disobedience”.

Many people thought that in politics, or even Singapore’s context, “Civil Disobedience” is definitely “restricted” to “confrontational” politicians and definitely not in a “mild but credible party” like WP.

First of all, let me qualify this, “Civil Disobedience” is never a “No No option” strikes out from any political (opposition) parties, although some did not practice it. Just like JBJ, he did not RULE OUT the use of “Civil Disobedience” as a political means but it doesn’t mean that he would go to that extend to practice it. It will always be the LAST RESORT, the LAST CARD that we would throw in if there is a serious abuse of the powers.

Even WP, in the post-JBJ era under LTK, has not ruled out “Civil Disobedience” either. Maybe the WP Youth Wing members are new to the party but the WP CEC has seriously considered the option of “Civil Disobedience” in certain instances which was actually raised by the SG himself as an option to protest against the authority for certain unfair treatment (I shall not divulge the details here). But the CEC has finally decided against the “Civil Disobedience” option but to wait out. This is the democratic process happening in the party itself AFTER GE 2006.

The option of “Civil Disobedience” must be carried out with the notion of the party taking the high political moral grounds. If not, it may just backfired and portray the party as “trouble makers” or “extremists”.

Personally, I will keep my option open to Civil Disobedience instead of writing it out totally. There is nothing to feel “shameful” of to keep this option in time of need. It is just a matter of judgment on whether it will do more good than harm to the party eventually.

Goh Meng Seng

Just wonder if Terence will have the guts to write a similar article portraying Lee Kuan Yew, JBJ arch rivai in the similar light that he is doing to JBJ, and explain his way out of it flimsily in the event that he is confronted by the MIW. There are plenty of archives in London that has been released for public information on what Lee Kuan Yew did and was.

[...] Mr Kenneth Jeyaretnam also joined in the fray, accusing TOC of attacking his late father, and by association, the Reform Party. He even [...]

hi again, can’t possibly read all the comments, but like to ask the following question. maybe you guys can help me out.

is civil disobedience in singapore illegal? i know aspects of it are illegal as we’ve got public assembly laws and other miscellaneous stuff.

so if we were to ever have civil disobedience, what are the legal forms it can take?

I have not and will not join in the debate of whether the terms used by Terence to describe JBJ is appropriate. Everyone will have his/her own feelings on its appropriateness, given that language is, after all, an art, not a science.

I, however, fail to see the reason or logic behind Terence’s latest comments with regards to his claim that JBJ was an advocate of civil disobedience…..

“I stand by my view that JBJ was an advocate of civil disobedience. Yes, he may think that the time for it is not right, but the grey area lies in where he thought was the tipping point.”

Unless Terence thinks or had exchanges with JBJ on the subject, it would be purely speculative as to where that grey area laid.

Was it that once a person was bankrupt and did not qualify to stand for elections, civil disobedience would be a viable option??

Was it a case that a person had been wrongly imprisoned and subjected to unfair treatment by a judicial system that makes civil disobedience the right cause of action??

JBJ’s actions have clearly articulated his position…. Prior to his premature demise, he set up a new party, got himself discharged from bankruptcy and publicly expressed his desire to contest in the next polls.

Clearly the grey area being referred to is not so grey after all.

A politician that does not rule out the use of civil disobedience is akin to a nation that maintains an army and does not give up the right to wage war against adversaries as a last resort, when diplomacy and other means fails.

That, by no accounts, can be deemed as grounds to categories that nation as a war-like state.

Is Civil Disobedience “legal”? Civil Disobedience is definitely ILLEGAL, it is actually an act that disobey laws or rules that are deemed as “unfair” or “unjust”. Of course, being “illegal”, there will definitely be legal consequences or repercussions. It is a DIRECT challenge against the law and those who are doing that will have to be mentally prepared to face the full onslaught of the Law… just or unjust.

There are no “legal form” of Civil Disobedience.

Goh Meng Seng

Cool down, everyone here.

I really have to say something for Terence Lee/TOC whom seem to be an easy target for everyone to shoot, starting with KJ himself.

Why shoot the messenger, just because he carried the message from WP’s youth wing whose boss he happened to have “friendly lunch” with?

Err…clarifications for the last sentence of my earlier comment:

The 1st “he” meant Terence and the 2nd “he” meant KJ.

@sam (#80), like what Goh Meng Seng said, ‘civil disobedience’ is by definition illegal. Dictionary.com defines it as: the refusal to obey certain laws or governmental demands for the purpose of influencing legislation or government policy.

Actually, I should add (agreeing with others here) that Terence’s reply clearly mischaracterizes JBJ’s position, at least from the quoted excerpt from the FEER interview. It is one thing to accept in principle civil disobedience, and another thing to advocate it. Clearly, JBJ was a lot more sensible and/or shrewd than advocating civil disobedience.

And insofar as JBJ merely accepts what Terence terms “conditional civil disobedience”, that isn’t an extreme view — contrary to what is implied. No one, not even the most dyed-in-the-wool legal positivist, really accepts an unqualified obligation to obey the law. Most people accept that civil disobedience should be an option where society’s laws have become manifestly unjust… the issue then becomes (1) when that threshold is crossed, and (2) what means (violent or non-violent) can be used.

The quoted excerpt shows JBJ’s deep understanding of these issues. He says, for instance, that people should be educated about civil disobedience before it can become a viable option. This is because, prima facie civil disobedience is undemocratic — a minority are standing up to the laws which Parliament has passed, purporting to represent a majority in society. It’s only when enough people participate in an informed way, that civil disobedience becomes justified on the principles of democracy.

The TOC article in question is not an editorial, so please dissociate Terence Lee from TOC in the reference. In no way does the article represents the position of TOC. The responses so far are no more than overkill from both sides!

82) Goh Meng Seng on December 24th, 2009 10.03 pm

Excellently put !

All this talk about CD leads me to ask
Who determines the law?

anyone knows how laws come about for singapore?

Other countries also have laws.
All laws are Good?

I would say yes out of politeness.

how about you 1st world intellectuals?

Singaporeans and writers should focus their attentions on the legality of lots of
the things that are done by the PAP government. Many of their actions are highly questionable and absolutely unacceptable by international standards. Singaporeans must make a conscious efforts to stop themselves from straying
habitually into the mould which the PAP government has crafted for them. This includes accepting what the PAP said and did as the standard on which others are judged.

I feel TOC is not mild, does it mean it is not credible.

Cambridge Advanced Learner’s Dictionary
Definition
rambunctious adjective
/ræmˈbʌŋk.ʃəs/ adj mainly US
full of energy and difficult to control
rambunctious children
a lively and rambunctious puppy

rabble-rouser noun
/ˈræb.l ̩ˌraʊ.zər/US pronunciation symbol/-zɚ/ n [C]
a person who makes speeches that make people excited or angry, especially in a way that causes them to act as the person wants them to
Johnson was unpopular with the management because he was a well-known rabble-rouser.
rabble-rousing
adjective
/ˈræb.l ̩ˌraʊ.zɪŋ/ adj [before noun]
a rabble-rousing speech

Seems to me , the noun ‘Rabble Rouser’ is a not an appropriate word to use to describe someone who is highly regarded, based on #90 quoted dictionary definition.

Would Terence disagree that out of the entire universe, opposition parties here are the most tamed if not the most well behaved ?

So, why paint him as like someone who creates big chaos?

“JUDGE NOT THAT YE BE NOT JUDGED!”

Your whole argument that JBJ advocated CD hangs on his answer to the foreign
correspondent that you quoted. However, having read it many times over I fail to
come to that conclusion. He was merely saying that there is a time and place for CD
in Singapore but it had not arrived. How can that be interpreted to be advocacy of CD? There is a huge gap between the two.

However, I do not think you wrote what you did, and subsequently backed it up twice, out of malice. I think it’s just a misreading/misinterpretation of the quote. But the mistake is yours, so please do whatever is necessary to clear up this situation.

I think by being mild, we could essentially lose the ‘definate’ edge to outwit the rival.

Its like, the dominant group using divide and conquer strategy, an appropriate counter is to provide a clear and strong front, with certain message.

I do not speak for the other Terence, what some of the people I know, sees that right now is not the time for us to take abnormal measures that may be perceived as ‘overthrowing’ in nature.

Then again, what they also fail to orate, is to provide realistic and achievable solutions…

But when the benefits of speaking out outweighs the costs…

#94,
but what solution do you have to show?
To find something to criticise is one of the simplest no brainer things to do in life.
Have we criticised ourselves before we criticised others?

The late Mr JBJ when speaking to the foreign interviewer seems to be implying that in a tough situation, is there no way out other than CD? Why is someone trying to pick bone with someone who has passed away? Someone who has achieved the unthinkable in singapore? He won elections . He was voted into parliament before BY PEOPLE’s VOTES. He never had a chance to win by walkover.

Dear all,

My overall impression of the comments posted so far is encoraging. It proves, at least to me, that online political discourse has matured. Civil disobedience is longer a dirty word. Long festering inter-party rivalries have not degenerated into tit-for-tat ad hominem attacks.

However, in the spirit of Christmas, and in memory of JB Jeyaretnam, may I propose that we closed this chapter, and let JBJ himself have the last word.

Happy Xmas to all..

http://singaporerebel.blogspot.com/2008/10/i-have-lost-everything-but-i-have-no.html

An excerpt of the introduction to Make It Right For Singapore

published in 2000
by Joshua Benjamin Jeyaretnam

I have, as a result of going into politics, lost everything. I have no bank account to speak of and do not own any property in Singapore nor hold any stocks or shares in any company. My practice has suffered as a result of my entering into politics way back in 1971. I drive a car but it is one that my son has lent me. I count it as the Grace of providence that I have not been detained and made to spend long years in prison like Mr Chia Thia Poh who spent 23 years in prison and often in solitary confinement.

This book is my humble presentation to the people who in any democratic society are the final judges of what is good for the society they live in. The speeches have one constant theme running through them. That in any democratic society it is the members of the society – the people – who matter.

That they should determine collectively the good of the society and not have it determined for them by anyone above them, however benevolent.

That the society as a whole should take responsibility for its affairs and participate in the making of decisions that affect them.

That power belongs to the people and the government only exercises powers delegated to it by the people.

That the people are the masters and not the government which is only a servant of the people.

That if this does not obtain in any society it ceases to be a democratic society and the people are reduced to being slaves in their own country. Slaves have no say in what their master ordains for them.

It follows that in every democratic society, the individual matters, however lowly he may be. The dustman is as much entitled to his dignity and the rights to preserve that dignity as the highest person in the land is.

These rights which have been termed human rights are inalienable and no person should be deprived of them even in the supposed interest of the community. It is a blot on the community even if one person is deprived of his rights.

It is only by protecting the rights of every single individual that the community as a whole is protected.

The rights are those that are necessary to the full development of the individual’s dignity as a human being.

The rights to housing, education, medical care, food and clothing. Besides these material rights, are those inalienable rights but no less important. The right to liberty, freedom from arbitrary arrest, to think, to speak his mind, to associate with his fellow beings in speaking together, to move freely and the right to live his life without fear under the law.

To know what the law to which he has agreed through his elected representatives prohibits him from doing and to live his life fully without transgressing the law. That he can only be deprived of any of his rights after it has been proven to him that he had broken his contract with his fellow members of society.

Deprive a human being of these inalienable rights and you make him less than a human being however well off he may be materially.

A person loses his dignity if he is not allowed to think and give utterance to his thoughts whether alone or in the company of others. I am a passionate believer in all these. We are at the highest level of creation when we have taken on the image of God.

The speeches scan the period from June 1997 to November 1999. Although a full Parliament was in place in January, Parliament did not meet until the end of May. The government functioned without Parliament. In a parliamentary democracy government takes its authority from Parliament but in Singapore the government was constituted and exercised power before Parliament was sworn in. This was also the position after the 1988 and 1991 elections..

The right to justice is an integral part of human rights. Indeed it is justice that protects and safeguards human rights. I am concerned at some unhealthy trends in Singapore in the administration of criminal justice – the part of justice which protects human liberty and freedom. It is a concern that many lawyers in Singapore share.

It is my hope that Singaporeans may find some inspiration in my speeches. Although, as I said, I have lost everything. I have no regrets.

My reward has been the esteem I have met everywhere I go in Singapore and that is something no amount of money can buy.

I thank God that he has given me the health and strength to render such service as I have tried to from 1971.

- J.B. Jeyaretnam (1926 – 2008)

All of us who are unhappy with PAP has to open our eyes. The fate of opposition parties and alternative news media like TOC is tied together, whether you see it or not. Hence we must all unite, not squabble over petty things.

If PAP win another resounding victory, in the form of overwhelming number of MPs in parliament, life will only be bad for opposition, alternative views and Singaporeans in general. Even foreigners who are the blue-eyed boys and girls of PAP will suffer as they are being invited here to be modern day serfs, nothing more. Only the super rich will enjoy Singapore, for that is what Singapore is and will become, a playground for the super rich, supported by wage slaves.

Do you think right now we can enjoy robust debates and balanced views? If so, then you are dreaming. As long as PAP is totally in control and create laws like “one-man protest”, any debate and views will always be done in the shadow of the PAP hegemony. Believing we have these now is just burying your heads in the sand, ignoring reality.

Without balance in parliament, do not for a minute think you deserve balanced views. Be it we achieve that by civil disobedience or being “mild but credible”, our first aim, above or else is to achieve significant number of opposition MPs in parliament to counter the PAP hegemony. Trying to enjoy the fruits of true democracy before that is a reality is merely counting your chicks before they are even hatched.

There have been so much talk about general election is coming soon, it is time for opposition parties to stand together instead of pointing finger at each others!

I would suggest that both sides get the help of the court to settle the issue once and for all.

The underlying connotation of Terence’s remarks on civil disobedience, is that “civil disobedience is bad in all circumstances” thefrefore anyone who even imputes goodness on It under certain time-line situations, is of dubious nature. This is the basic premise with which he judges the late JBJ in a negative light which caused the uproar.
Let’s pause for a moment.
Is there anything absolute Right or Wrong in this world? What is right, what is wrong. There is a time when killing is right and there is a time when killing is wrong. (think of killing enemy in a war). There is a time even when telling a lie could be right (if the consequences of it saves 1,000,000 people from an unjust fate, for example). In this world there is nothing absolute right or wrong.

History has shown that Nations are born and build up because of civil disobedience against rules which are unjust. Even in singapore’s history i believe there are examples of the current regime resorting to such styles to achieve an objective. So it is not quite correct to cast doubts on any person (JBJ or any one) just because the someone says civil disobedience can be good sometimes.

Civil disobedience in various levels of intensity, has been known to cause good to society throughout the course of world history.

We should all realise that in the scheme of things, Life is not so simple as to conclude that black is always black and white is always white.

Zero

KJ, TL, AL, WP Youth and others

You have the right to publicly air yr views or interpretation of facts. But with a GE coming round, maybe some discretion is called for.

JBJ is dead.

The cause he was fighting for is more impt than what he said or did or what we think of him, or what we think he said or did.

Is there a lesson here in this news report for us?

” LONDON (AFP) – – A British priest who advised vulnerable people to shoplift defended his remarks on Tuesday, arguing that those abandoned by society often had no choice but to turn to crime.

Father Tim Jones, a parish priest in York, northern England, caused a media storm when he advised his congregation on Sunday to shoplift in times of trouble — as long as they avoided stealing from small family firms.

“Shoplifting is a dreadful thing but sometimes that’s all we leave people with,” he told BBC television on Tuesday.

He added: “When we, as a society, let our most vulnerable people down so terribly badly, I would rather that people take an 80 pence (1.2 dollar, 90 euro cent) can of ravioli rather than turn to some of the most appalling things.

“It is an indictment on us that we let people exist in that kind of situation.”

Discussing the situations of certain people living rough in his sermon on Sunday, Jones had said: “My advice, as a Christian priest, is to shoplift.

“I do not offer such advice because I think that stealing is a good thing, or because I think it is harmless, for it is neither.

“I would ask that they do not steal from small, family businesses, but from large national businesses, knowing that the costs are ultimately passed on to the rest of us in the form of higher prices.

“I would ask them not to take any more than they need, for any longer than they need.”

He said his words should not be “misrepresented as a simplistic call for people to shoplift”, adding: “This is a call for our society no longer to treat its most vulnerable people with indifference and contempt.”

The Venerable Richard Seed, Archdeacon of York, did not endorse Jones’ comments, saying the Church of England “does not advise anyone to shoplift, or break the law in any way”.

He added: “Father Tim Jones is raising important issues about the difficulties people face when benefits (state payments) are not forthcoming, but shoplifting is not the way to overcome these difficulties.” “

My impression of Terence and Andrew will from now be coloured by the way they have acted in this episode.

IMO, they could be the seeds of destruction and sabotage planted, yes planted, to deal body blows to the opposition at crucial important psychological moments.

Their track records so far, may be just that, created in Mao’s doctrine- so that they can ’swim like fish’ in the sea (the masses).

REMIND OURSELVES, AREN’T THE G.E. JUST ROUND THE CORNER? SO COULD THIS INCIDENT BE SO INNOCENTLY COINCIDENTAL? The answers may be inferred from KJ strong response because he could probably see what is happening.

Knowing how the PAP has behaved in the past towards their political opponents, I wouldn’t rule out the possibility of its infiltration into many online blogs and forums.

The unrelenting and adamant behaviour of both Terence and Andrew makes me feel it in my bones their malevolent motives towards the opposition cause!!! Their intransigent stance puzzles me a lot on what is seemingly a small matter. But, then, think again, JBJ represents the rallying call of the opposition come this G.E. Are they in fact govt sympathisers in disguise/moles to cause disunity among the opposition?

Merely speculative? Truth can sometime be stranger than fiction. Sorry, I have to call a spade a spade as I see it as I see no better a time then now for the opposition to get more than a toe into parliament and the PAP knows that too well.
It would have pulled out all the stops in the run up to the elections. Don’t be fooled by LHL mild demeanour. He is only the front man for a lot of backroom scheming and plotting.

Dear Terence

As a visitor to your website I am disappointed by your characterization of JBJ’s stated position in his FEER interview. Firstly what you did to his words was comparable to what was done by ST to PJ whom yes all of us in the on line world eviscerated and rightly so.

If it is a qualified statement, then please report the nuances and qualifications as said by the man and a dead respected man at that. If you believe that you characterization of that statement could and will stand up to scrutiny then your original piece should have not done “selective” quoting worthy of Chua Mui Hong and the ST.

Your pieces are excellent but I would submit that you need to differentiate more clearly between a straight Op/Ed and straight reporting, in seeking to combine both you have not earned any points for both.

Locke

I completely agree with LWL(18),,,,

JBJ was a courageous leader who stood up for true democracy and freedom in singapore. For anyone to compare him to a ‘troublemaker’ is really an insult to all singaporeans who value true democracy and freedom and who want their children and their children’s children to live in a place where these ideals are truly upheld..

“Write to inform or Write to mislead and deceive” only the writer knows his intention.

Let us all use plain simple English. Why use BIG words when small ones are more effective and will not cause confusion to your readers.