i would understand the passion and actions of jbj then and not hold him to ransom for what he had spoken literally. other politicians that speak with clenched fists looks more intimidating at times.

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.

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..

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

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.

” 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.” “

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.

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

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.

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)

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…

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.

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?

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