Letter By Chee Soon Juan
-
Originally posted by norey:
please dun compare sun yat-sen with GY jaun...the latter is still way off the mark by the stabdards and contribution of Dr Sun.
Dr. Chee is one of the few who dare to challenge the Spore narrow brand of politics, and they accused him of importing his own brand from the West.. which BTW is the same thing when they accuse of [[Lim Chin Siong ]] being a communist..
Any if anyone wanna read about this topic abot Dr. Sun goto
http://www.sgwiki.com/wiki/Dr._Sun_Yat_Sen
All these people are [b]local brand, and they all stand up for what they believe is right..or wholesome for the people but ..just ppl are unable to accept now..but in time things and events will have to change..there may be a time when ppl are more open and ready to really appreciate their ideas...I think his ideas of democracy and liberty are the best so far as cp with opposition politics in Spore...
[/b] -
That's a point I certainly agree with - Singaporeans, holistically, are a bunch of daft ingrates who simply aren't worth the time of anyone(and I include honest, albeit foolishly ineffective, people who run for the opposition in that assessment) trying to give them another option. In any other healthy democracy, it'd be appalling to even imagine the ruling party winning sufficient seats to be empowered to change their constitutions at a whim!Originally posted by caramon.:The support, no matter how small, is his daily driving force. However, I don't think singaporeans deserve him. A whole ungrateful lot. I sometimes wonder if Singaporeans are worth fighting for. If there is one man who can topple this Government, it's DR CHEE SOON JUAN. That, I've absolutely no doubt.
That said, I think there're a few points about Chee's approach which are questionable - questionable not because they are wrong, just that they aren't(and will never be) effective when applied in the wrong context. For starters, the SDP members who share Chee's ideology are better off being a civil society group/political activists(including being an underground one if need be) because quite simply, their stance(helped in no small part by the fascist press' manipulation) will simply not get them anywhere at the polls - let's face it, you don't fight for freedom and democracy in elections in a state whose politics are teetering closer to what's preached in North Korea than the US. And civil disobedience is such an abstract concept to Singaporeans at large that 90% of the population would probably understand it no better than rocket science - I think it's just self-defeating to aspire to restore democracy in Singapore on one hand, yet put themselves through the same electoral process they have rightly condemned as a dead-end with regards to having any realistic chance of reforming the political system.
Personally, I am not convinced Chee actually understands the framework and circumstances under which Civil Disobedience needs to function under - for starters, he doesn't even have the sort of support Ghandhi and Walesa had when they inspired hordes to eventually overthrow the British and the Communists respectively. I don't see any hope of a political reform by democratic means anyway and Chee's concepts and ideas are certainly on the right track, but for him to succeed, he'll have to be able to reach out more effectively(inspite of the constraints he faces, of course) to more people to get his message across and establish his base before he can even dream of putting his ideas into practice. Chee certainly needs to understand selling his message across to the average Joe(most of whom do not understand his politics anyway) and plain Janes are as essential as selling them to the intellectuals who have little problem identifying with what he is driving at - but comprehend the rudimentary logic that in any democracy, an idiot will have as much power as an intellectual to determine the kind of system he/she wants to live in. So long as he doesn't reach out to sufficient average Joes and plain Janes, I just can't see his campaign being kickstarted regardless of how tough a stand the fascists take against him. Afterall, few(if any) non-democracies were ever toppled by democratic means in the 20th Century.
For me, two revolutionary pro-democratic movements in the 20th Century clearly stand out, illustrating the contrasting consequences of doing the same thing under grave and grossly different circumstances - the Solidarnosc movement and the Tiananmen incident. On close scrutiny of the two events, it's really not hard to understand how Walesa was able to inspire - helped in no small part by Pope John Paul II and Mikhail Gorbachev in the later years of his movement admittedly - a revolution which eventually swept across the Eastern bloc and realised the previously unimaginable reality of living in a world with the absence of the 'mighty' USSR. I doubt there was a better organised non-violent revolution on a scale as grand as that of Solidarnosc in recent memory. The Tiananmen revolution, on the other hand, failed miserably not just because of the Chinese authorities' heavy-handed approach to dealing with the protesters - ultimately, I thought the lack of unity and common purpose amongst the protesters and various groups fighting for different interests made their efforts self-defeating. Clearly, these 2 events serve as prime examples of how similar movements hoping to achieve the same goals(albeit with slightly different measures) met with such different fates despite the fact Solidarnosc actually started off on a much more modest scale and had infinitely fewer people than the quarter-million who packed Tianmen Square in June '89.
At best, I'd liken Chee to spearheading a disorganised, disunited group(and a minority at that) at the Tiananmen protests. At worst, he's just a lunatic ranting and raving on the streets who speaks a language the average chap can barely comprehend. If he's to succeed with his civil disobedience efforts, I think he'd be better off first taking a leaf out of Ghandhi/Walesa's book and understand the fact he will not succeed without sufficient support so as not do something in vain, much less for a bunch of daft ingrates... -
that said, if the man wants to make any real change... he needs to learn to fight smart, not fight hard. Guess who's very good at playing hardball, and it's certainly not him.
-
CSJ is good. but he should leave SDP to form a one man party, he only sabo them since his reputation has gone n heavily damaged by the media. we see tis election how SDP has fallen.
-
I dON't know, but are we supposed to sympathise with CSJ? The man who spends most times outside the country, receiving foreign aid in donations, and most of the time making speeches that seemed a little anti-singapore. If he is pro-singapore, and if he is making anti-PAP speeches, I'm fine with that, but to me, he has mixed up PAP and Singapore together. That I have a problem. PAP is not equal to Singapore.
-
for a one man army he shld go to some western power's head of state and pursuade them to liberate us... i m very sure that our army wont even resist them... we would welcome them with open armsOriginally posted by 798:CSJ is good. but he should leave SDP to form a one man party, he only sabo them since his reputation has gone n heavily damaged by the media. we see tis election how SDP has fallen. -
The guy is crazy la... who in singapore is goin 2 support him man, why would i want a guy who goes around sayin rubbish to look after me??? i must b siao man!
-
you dun sell ice-cream to eskimos...only ingrates call others ingratesOriginally posted by walesa:That's a point I certainly agree with - Singaporeans, holistically, are a bunch of daft ingrates who simply aren't worth the time of anyone(and I include honest, albeit foolishly ineffective, people who run for the opposition in that assessment) trying to give them another option. In any other healthy democracy, it'd be appalling to even imagine the ruling party winning sufficient seats to be empowered to change their constitutions at a whim!
That said, I think there're a few points about Chee's approach which are questionable - questionable not because they are wrong, just that they aren't(and will never be) effective when applied in the wrong context. For starters, the SDP members who share Chee's ideology are better off being a civil society group/political activists(including being an underground one if need be) because quite simply, their stance(helped in no small part by the fascist press' manipulation) will simply not get them anywhere at the polls - let's face it, you don't fight for freedom and democracy in elections in a state whose politics are teetering closer to what's preached in North Korea than the US. And civil disobedience is such an abstract concept to Singaporeans at large that 90% of the population would probably understand it no better than rocket science - I think it's just self-defeating to aspire to restore democracy in Singapore on one hand, yet put themselves through the same electoral process they have rightly condemned as a dead-end with regards to having any realistic chance of reforming the political system.
Personally, I am not convinced Chee actually understands the framework and circumstances under which Civil Disobedience needs to function under - for starters, he doesn't even have the sort of support Ghandhi and Walesa had when they inspired hordes to eventually overthrow the British and the Communists respectively. I don't see any hope of a political reform by democratic means anyway and Chee's concepts and ideas are certainly on the right track, but for him to succeed, he'll have to be able to reach out more effectively(inspite of the constraints he faces, of course) to more people to get his message across and establish his base before he can even dream of putting his ideas into practice. Chee certainly needs to understand selling his message across to the average Joe(most of whom do not understand his politics anyway) and plain Janes are as essential as selling them to the intellectuals who have little problem identifying with what he is driving at - but comprehend the rudimentary logic that in any democracy, an idiot will have as much power as an intellectual to determine the kind of system he/she wants to live in. So long as he doesn't reach out to sufficient average Joes and plain Janes, I just can't see his campaign being kickstarted regardless of how tough a stand the fascists take against him. Afterall, few(if any) non-democracies were ever toppled by democratic means in the 20th Century.
For me, two revolutionary pro-democratic movements in the 20th Century clearly stand out, illustrating the contrasting consequences of doing the same thing under grave and grossly different circumstances - the Solidarnosc movement and the Tiananmen incident. On close scrutiny of the two events, it's really not hard to understand how Walesa was able to inspire - helped in no small part by Pope John Paul II and Mikhail Gorbachev in the later years of his movement admittedly - a revolution which eventually swept across the Eastern bloc and realised the previously unimaginable reality of living in a world with the absence of the 'mighty' USSR. I doubt there was a better organised non-violent revolution on a scale as grand as that of Solidarnosc in recent memory. The Tiananmen revolution, on the other hand, failed miserably not just because of the Chinese authorities' heavy-handed approach to dealing with the protesters - ultimately, I thought the lack of unity and common purpose amongst the protesters and various groups fighting for different interests made their efforts self-defeating. Clearly, these 2 events serve as prime examples of how similar movements hoping to achieve the same goals(albeit with slightly different measures) met with such different fates despite the fact Solidarnosc actually started off on a much more modest scale and had infinitely fewer people than the quarter-million who packed Tianmen Square in June '89.
At best, I'd liken Chee to spearheading a disorganised, disunited group(and a minority at that) at the Tiananmen protests. At worst, he's just a lunatic ranting and raving on the streets who speaks a language the average chap can barely comprehend. If he's to succeed with his civil disobedience efforts, I think he'd be better off first taking a leaf out of Ghandhi/Walesa's book and understand the fact he will not succeed without sufficient support so as not do something in vain, much less for a bunch of daft ingrates... -
Originally posted by walesa:
Reply ..........
That's a point I certainly agree with - Singaporeans, holistically, are a bunch of daft ingrates who simply aren't worth the time of anyone(and I include honest, albeit foolishly ineffective, people who run for the opposition in that assessment) trying to give them another option. In any other healthy democracy, it'd be appalling to even imagine the ruling party winning sufficient seats to be empowered to change their constitutions at a whim! unquote
Thanks our newcomer and great speech here...
With that said you could bulldoze your way here without
much problems thru the many opponents here.
Perhaps you could stand for election here in Singapore! 3 lousy cheers for telling us –
[b]Singaporeans, holistically, are a bunch of daft ingrates who simply aren't worth the time of anyone
Such bold remarks reflects your great misunderstanding of us – Singaporeans, however, you could go for a walk sometimes and try to figure out more, I think you miss far more than …
“those daft ingrates”
a copy-cat term used by someone describing those victims delivered by those supposed great brave American soldiers who went to Iraq.. So the analogy with Singaporeans : an apt description?
SORRY..lah! It manifests your own ignorance except for the rhetoricÂ’s written here.
BTW, we are just a worst bunch than you can ever imagine: just like durians
So stay and enjoy our durians in Singapore, we have it in the markets all over, donÂ’t miss itÂ…before you leave!
goto http://www.sgwiki.com/wiki/Durians -
oh yes, daft ingrates, the majority of us are money-grabbing, myopic, child-beating/blaming fat-arsed housewives who will thank the heavens for a measly little progress package.
wanna add more?
-
I don't sell fascism under the smokescreen of democracy either - and even more importantly, less likely buy that concept as 66.6% of the electorate did!Originally posted by newmanmback:you dun sell ice-cream to eskimos...only ingrates call others ingrates
So I can live with that... -
Perhaps you never deny U r but an ardent supporter of PAP brand of totalitarian fascism>Originally posted by walesa:I don't sell fascism under the smokescreen of democracy either - and even more importantly, less likely buy that concept as 66.6% of the electorate did! So I can live with that... 
-
...BTW in Hokkien it's bosst carrier!Originally posted by norey:Perhaps you never deny U r but an ardent supporter of PAP brand of totalitarian fascism> 
&...bad durians... -
I guess some people hated CSJ is because he used to dumped his mentor CST. Anyway, singapore need people like CSJ to voice out against the goverment. I don't think he is a bad person though, he ended up bankrupt and not gaining anything for his speechs which is braver than those who join the pappies to have a better life for themself rather than helping the citizens of singapore.
-
I suppose you're right - just that he's not getting his message across effectively. Obviously, CSJ is not going to get anywhere given the intelligence of most people(few of whom have already demonstrated their intelligence on this thread itselfOriginally posted by Anti-RuleSS:I guess some people hated CSJ is because he used to dumped his mentor CST. Anyway, singapore need people like CSJ to voice out against the goverment. I don't think he is a bad person though, he ended up bankrupt and not gaining anything for his speechs which is braver than those who join the pappies to have a better life for themself rather than helping the citizens of singapore. )... -
Listening to CSJ was a waste of time.
I went to his speeches some time ago.
He mentioned many mistakes and failures by the Government.
What did he offer?
We must Check
We must check.
We must not let xyz ruin SG.
We will empty the reserves just because we think emptying the reserves helps.
-
What do U know about ppl like CST and CSJ ?Originally posted by walesa:I suppose you're right - just that he's not getting his message across effectively. Obviously, CSJ is not going to get anywhere given the intelligence of most people(few of whom have already demonstrated their intelligence on this thread itself )...
They are just ppl ...i don't take sides in such stupid quarel.. their raw feelings are still on the ppl side, U r a skunk here!
..& With Ur kind of intelligence.. U barely touch the real ppl in Spore, just perhaps a bunch of snobs among the elites so called. If U wanna to resonate well: You better get of the high horse!
And we should rapport betterÂ…else U r a distraction here Bye.. -
Apparently you belong to his warped universe.Originally posted by walesa:I suppose you're right - just that he's not getting his message across effectively. Obviously, CSJ is not going to get anywhere given the intelligence of most people(few of whom have already demonstrated their intelligence on this thread itself )...
Rule 1, when you offer a problem, you offer a solution.
Rule 2, when you want to accuse anyone of anything, please give evidence to back up your accusations.
Rule 3, when you want people to listen to you, listen to the people first.
Rule 1 is the basic principle in politics.
Rule 2 is the basic principle in law.
Rule 3 is the basic principle in communications.
Enough said. For someone who fails to practise the three rules above, you won't get my vote. -
If you'd read my points in context(most of which were addressing someone's perspective I'd quoted anyway) and not foolishly read things in a manner symptomatic of someone plagued by selective amnesia(although I can understand the local media has trained you well in this respect), Rules 1 and 2 would have been addressed anyway. And no, I'm not in the least interested in garnering your vote, so Rule 3 wouldn't apply to me! Truth be told, I'd be concerned if people like you shared my sentiments anyway...Originally posted by Nelstar:Apparently you belong to his warped universe.
Rule 1, when you offer a problem, you offer a solution.
Rule 2, when you want to accuse anyone of anything, please give evidence to back up your accusations.
Rule 3, when you want people to listen to you, listen to the people first.
Rule 1 is the basic principle in politics.
Rule 2 is the basic principle in law.
Rule 3 is the basic principle in communications.
Enough said. For someone who fails to practise the three rules above, you won't get my vote.
If anything, this merely serves to reinforce the threadstarter's opinion that CSJ is indeed doing something futile for a load of ingrates(and pretty daft ones at that I must add).
Since when did I make any reference to taking any stance between CST and CSJ? Case in point of why CSJ is indeed doing something in vain. You've got a point in saying that I "barely touch the real ppl in Spore" though, which explains why I'm rational and sane enough to not be as noble as CSJ and run myself into a brick wall!Originally posted by alien2:What do U know about ppl like CST and CSJ ?
They are just ppl ...i don't take sides in such stupid quarel.. their raw feelings are still on the ppl side, U r a skunk here!
-
surely the PAP can't be so screwed up right...this guy is a traitor lah...you know that time the Nguyen case? He urged the Australians to go against us.
-
Apparently you still belong to his warped universe.Originally posted by walesa:If you'd read my points in context(most of which were addressing someone's perspective I'd quoted anyway) and not foolishly read things in a manner symptomatic of someone plagued by selective amnesia(although I can understand the local media has trained you well in this respect), Rules 1 and 2 would have been addressed anyway. And no, I'm not in the least interested in garnering your vote, so Rule 3 wouldn't apply to me! Truth be told, I'd be concerned if people like you shared my sentiments anyway...
If anything, this merely serves to reinforce the threadstarter's opinion that CSJ is indeed doing something futile for a load of ingrates(and pretty daft ones at that I must add).
Read : deft ingrates.
We choose wisely, we're neither deft nor ingrates. We choose our votes wisely not for the sake to vote for any opposition just because we want an opposition. Look at the reflection in WP contested grcs. The increase in support shows the political awareness. Maturity of political awareness comes with time.
Now look at who is talking? Stupidity reigns in your mind is it not? CSJ condemned Singaporean by saying people who had not chosen him as ingrates when the votes tell no lies.
Why the increase in votings for other oppositions?
Are you so daft to think we're ingrates? Look in the mirror and ask yourself if CSJ will also think the same?
At least I respect CSJ, he did not give up. You? You lacked the brain cells to process information. -
You can't say he is a traitor in that way because CSJ is in the opinion against sanctioned murder even before Nguyen case. He thought it might give rise to changes with pressure from other countries.Originally posted by gr2012:surely the PAP can't be so screwed up right...this guy is a traitor lah...you know that time the Nguyen case? He urged the Australians to go against us.
While, I'm still for death penalty. It's just different perspective.
-
Ladies and gentlemen, your voices are heard... I am going to join the election in the future, please reserve your votes for me...
Thank you... Terima kasih... Nandi... Dankie... Doh je... xie xie... Bedankt... Merci... Danke... Arigato... Gracias! -
Originally posted by DailyFreeGames.com:Ladies and gentlemen, your voices are heard... I am going to join the election in the future, please reserve your votes for me...
Thank you... Terima kasih... Nandi... Dankie... Doh je... xie xie... Bedankt... Merci... Danke... Arigato... Gracias! -
You're obviously no daft ingrate - you're just an idiot who understands politics as well as the first world brand of press coverage your media has dished out(or at least, been trying to convince the hordesOriginally posted by Nelstar:Apparently you still belong to his warped universe.
Read : deft ingrates.
We choose wisely, we're neither deft nor ingrates. We choose our votes wisely not for the sake to vote for any opposition just because we want an opposition. Look at the reflection in WP contested grcs. The increase in support shows the political awareness. Maturity of political awareness comes with time.
Now look at who is talking? Stupidity reigns in your mind is it not? CSJ condemned Singaporean by saying people who had not chosen him as ingrates when the votes tell no lies.
Why the increase in votings for other oppositions?
Are you so daft to think we're ingrates? Look in the mirror and ask yourself if CSJ will also think the same?
At least I respect CSJ, he did not give up. You? You lacked the brain cells to process information. ).
Choosing your votes wisely in this 'democracy' and the increase in 'support' for the opposition is an indication of 'increase in political awareness'? That's as good as suggesting you actually subscribe to the notion that North Korea is also a democracy and indeed, the Commuist Party of DPRK have also got the mandate of its masses since there's no opposition. And whoever equated an increase in political awareness with having anything to do with voting against the incumbents? If your logic was anything to go by, then obviously the Americans and the British at large have had a decrease in political awareness considering how often the incumbents have been voted back to power over the last half-century! In which case, clearly having decrease in political awareness can't be bad at all considering the progress they have both made over the last 50 years.
Carry on with the rhetoric of choosing 'wisely' and ram home the point the threadstarter initiated which I concurred with : CSJ is simply running his head into a wall with his planned policies given the intellect of a vast majority of those who have had an 'increase' in political awareness!