a disgrunted singaporean....read first b4 giving comments..
-
My apologies, CX, in missing your post of 17 November.
You are certainly correct that in the best of societies there will always be state secrets. However, in these mature societies with open minded governments, the classification of state affairs is intelligently categorized into its various levels of importance, and judiciously vetted before the ‘SECRET’ stamp is placed indiscriminately on any innocuous documents.
Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for the Singapore Government, in which nearly all information is treated as 'SECRET'.
The Freedom of Information Act, as practiced in the USA, will also require certain categories of information to be released if it is critical to the interest of the Electorate, and the Government is held accountable if such information is not released in a timely manner that can result in life threatening situations.
Although the USA has its fair share of silly events – in the name of Freedom – carried to the extreme, it remains a fair ideal for many countries to use as a model; and Singapore will certainly do well if such an Act exist to allow Singaporeans to have access to some historical information.
With regards to the Singapore Straits Times following the practices of charging for the services of accessing archived materials, I will agree with your position when looked at from the usual commercial perspective. Unfortunately, in the Singapore context, with political sensitivities towards opposing views, any research works related to history and politics will attract sensitive concerns from the ‘Powers that be’. The reactions will be close monitoring of those who seek access to sensitive information.
During the late 1960s and up to 1980s, from related and personal encounters, there is a section on the second floor of the National Library at Stamford Road, which is off-limits to the Public, and accessible only to researchers, who have been ‘screened’ and ‘authorized’ by the Home Ministry to work with the sensitive materials stored there.
There exist in the catalog system of the National Library some books on some sensitive subjects that are marked innocently as ’Items not available yet’ – even when these books are already published for more then a year ago; and access to some of these materials will require your particulars to be recorded.
Try researching into subject matters such as: Karl Marx, Revolutions, Guerilla Warfare, Communism and Socialism, Political Systems, and other similar subjects - that are particularly sensitive to our Ruling Party – you will more then likely be stonewalled by the Computerized Search Engine that will inform you ‘Item not available yet’, or when the items are mysteriously inaccessible in the Reference Section of the Library.
Here are a couple of interesting articles pertaining to the efforts of the Singapore Ruling Party to monopolize information:
Lion City runs out of excuse for secrecy
http://www.singapore-window.org/sw01/010606sc.htm
Re-Inventing Singapore – More Transparency, Please
http://www.singapore-window.org/sw03/030808a2.htm
Secrecy cloud Free Trade Agreements
http://www.singapore-window.org/sw00/000807nz.htm
Singapore weakening its Dollar, as data shows sinking GDP
http://www.singapore-window.org/sw03/030711aw.htm -
not that i'm deliberately finding faults, but if even 1/2 of what u claim is true, no undergraduate in the arts fac of the local uni would be able to write any meaningful essays...
i do have the complete collection of Karl Marx's works on my bookshelf... German Ideology, Communist Manifesto, etc etc...
frankly, if u were in the business of research or academia, there is very little for u to be concerned with the supposed "control" that are currently in place.
they can have my name for all i care... as long as i get the data i want to churn out my works... its really a none issue to me.
not that it can't get any better of course... it would be more re-assuring if we knew for sure that source maerials are being released at regular intervals, which is blatantly not the case here now.
actually, i think that the problem lies with pure beareaucratic ineptness rather that govt paranoia. NLB and NHB are known to be rather clueless about what they have in their collections and the catalogues are full of holes. -
Interesting library collections that you have and it will be interesting to know how you managed to get these books – surely NOT off the shelves in Singapore book stores ?
Times must have certainly changed from the 1960s to 1980s, when simple and innocuous political satire such as ‘Animal Farm’ was prohibited reading.
You should be more concern with the ‘nosey’ probing queries that you have to reply with sufficient satisfactory answers before you are permitted to enter the world of prohibited publications in the ‘close sections’ of the various Libraries in Singapore.
Even after having given your names, it will not end there, as your daily and routine conduct will probably be observed by some Government Agent – (most probably from the ISD) - simply to determine and confirm the background information that you have given for accessing such ‘sensitive’ information.
The fact that information are stamped ‘SECRET’ are NEVER released at any time will show quite clearly the vulnerability that the Government feels of making information readily and freely available.
Bureaucracy do not come into existence by itself, as it is the Government that created, instructed and put the bureaucracy in place to ensure a watchdog role over the wealth of information that is available.
The recent ridiculous episode, concerning data dispute between the Acting Manpower Minister and the University Dons, clearly shows the ridiculous length that information is being protected, and researchers being chided for the supposedly ‘wrong use’ of such data taken from the Public Domain.
Just a note of caution, now that you have as many books on Communism, Karl Marx, and Political Theologies, which are seen as ‘alternative’ or ‘anti-thesis’ to politics as propounded and preferred by the Ruling Party -
Either you keep those books and stay out of political activities,
Or get rid of those books, so that in the event that if you ever fall on the wrong side of the political fence, your library collection will not be used against you, to confirm any ‘trump up’ charges – (that are so commonly made against others) – that you are a Communist. -
i DID get them off the shelves of a local bookstore... and if u've read them, u'll understand why it is considered harmless today...
for one thing, academic Marxism has been divorced from philosophical Marxism for more than 30 years... so it has always been relatively safe for academics to pronounce Marxist leanings.
Marxism offers a ready made and complex theoretical framework for academics to analyse economics, history, sociology, politics and lots of other stuff... mostly, we merely object to HOW it has been incorporated into that framework, not the framework itself.
and how can anyone read not read Marx if u wanna understand the full impact of 19th century German idealism???
besides, its not exactly light reading... its more likely that u'll fall asleep reading it rather than misread it and turn into a rabid communist...
if Marx should be banned because it challenges authority, then why not Foucault as well? the ideas are even more objectionable, subversive and truth be told, more relevant to the context today.
i still don't believe in your conspiracy theories. i agree that info could be more open and that the govt has abused the "secret" labels to protect their entrenched interests, but that is another issue altogether.
those info are contemporary. the ones u're referring to in the library, are historical. the govt may jealously its data and any post independence govt papers would probably not be available for any kind of academic research. but then, many countries don't release this kinda data for any purpose also.
i only know USA with its FOIA. and even that's conditional. so what's your point? of course big brother's watching... so? we still make the best out of what's available to us. besides, even if govt papers were released, it remains to be seen if anyone can make any sense out of them... u're not gonna find a memo with the title "blueprint to screw the little man over" u know...
even when the US Pentagon Papers got leaked, it took awhile before pple realised how EXACTLY the US got involved in Vietnam. -
'Conspiracy theories' of 'likely' Government reactions towards researches for 'Truth' of events in Singapore ?
Unfortunately, it is better to err on the side of caution then to be foolhardy and accept the present 'calm before a storm' that can occur at any time.
Did the following interview (via email) of a fallen dissident Singapore Son - now residing in the USA - appear in the Straits Times, after it was conducted in October 2003 ?
If not the 'Conspiracy Theory' may prove to be correct and warrant continued vigilance on our part.
Transcript of Francis Seow's ST interview
October 19, 2003
A Straits Times journalist, Tan Tarn How recently invterviewed by e-mail, former Solicitor General Francis Seow.
The Sunday Times, Oct 19, carried a report , Fugitive dissidents form group to fight for free speech, and made references to Mr Seow.
The former Solicior General, after readiung the ST report said, "It was a travesty of the answers to the questionnaire." The following is Mr Seow's replies to the Straits Times.
Q. What have you been busy with lately?
A. I have myriad things and interests to keep me busy. I have just completed a book, entitled Beyond Suspicion? The Singapore Judiciary -- an analysis of the multiple defamation proceedings by Lee Kuan Yew and his PAP myrmidons against political opponents -- Tang Liang Hong and JB Jeyaretnam -- viewed through the prism of the Hotel Properties Limited, whose luxury condominium units in the chic purlieus of Singapore were purchased at controversial discounts by the entire Lee family, and more especially Lee Kuan Yew and Lee Hsien Loong, not to mention Justice Lai Kew Chai. The manuscript will be published by Yale UniversityÂ’s Center for International and Area Studies.
I am now working on another book, Murder by Scuba: The Sunny Ang Trial. It is a case of legal and historical interest. Ang was charged with and convicted of the murder at sea of the bar maid Jenny Cheok, whose misfortune was to have loved him blindly. Her body was never found.
When I am otherwise not writing, I give presentations on aspects of Singapore, the last one of which was at the University of Chicago.
Q. Are you attached to any organisation?
A. I am not quite sure to what you are referring. If you mean whether I am still with Harvard Law School, the answer is no.
Q. Which part of the US are you living in now?
A. Boston, Massachusetts.
Q. Do you still keep in touch with what's happening in Singapore? How do you get news about Singapore?
A. Of course. It is my constant study. In this day and age, it is not too difficult to get – as you put it -- “news about Singapore.” There are the Internet avenues, such as Singapore-window.org, Singaporeans for democracy.org, to mention but two, and your Straits Times Interactive.
Q. Do you hope to return to Singapore one day? Why?
A. But of course. It is the country of my birth and my ancestral home, thatÂ’s why.
Q. How do you feel about being away for so long? Do you miss Singapore, and what do you miss?
A. My absence from Singapore was not of own choosing.
But truth to tell, I do not really miss Singapore. There are many pursuits over here, as I have said, that keep me well occupied. Boston is not only the historical but also the intellectual and the medical capital of the States, amongst other things.
If I do miss anything, it is my dear mother, a scion of one of Singapore’s Brahmanic families but we keep in touch through letters and the Internet. She has just celebrated her 97th birthday. I do not miss anything else – not even its food!
Q. Do you feel you are a Singapore at heart? Why?
A. This is an inane question. I am not an arriviste or a temporary Singaporean. As stated, my family traces its origin to the early founding of Singapore -- and beyond to omphalic Malacca.
Q. What are theirs thoughts now on the events leading up to you having to leave?
A. I take it you mean my thoughts. They have not changed one iota. Read my book To Catch a Tartar: A Dissident in Lee Kuan YewÂ’s Prison.
Q. Do you still keep in touch with other 'exiles' such as Mr Tang Liang Hong, Mr Tan Wah Piow and Mr Zulfikar? What is your view of the exile association that Mr Zulfikar has set up?
A. The contextual phrase “still keep in touch’ is not only vague but suggestive of many construction. I occasionally hear from Tang, and more rarely, from Tan Wah Piow, who incidentally is doing extremely well in his law practice in London. Mr Zulfikar is not known to me. What HAS the Singapore government done to him to make him leave paradise? I do not know of any exile association that has set been up by Mr. Zulfikar or whoever or its objects.
Q. Do you still have your Singapore citizenship? How are your feelings on losing it? What nationality are you now?
A. Now, this is another inane question. I do not know that I had “lost” my citizenship. This question is best addressed to the Singapore government. I have not been informed that I have “lost” my natural born right of citizenship. Even so, no ill-conceived or arbitrary executive diktat can obliterate the historical bonds between the country of my forbears and me.
Q. I realise these are a lot of questions! Is it possible to get a recent picture of you for publication?
A. The Straits TimesÂ’ archives have already albums galore of my photographs. For your information, I have not changed all that much.
Q. I understand that you have been unwell, and hope to confirm that.
A. Nothing of any moment for concern. I have been assured I will live for a long time more.
Francis Seow
Sunday Times
October 19, 2003
http://www.singapore-window.org/sw03/031019fs.htm -
Continuation from above post, which was a reaction from Francis Seow in response to the original article printed below that had included his name in the alleged Association:
Sunday Times
October 19, 2003
Fugitive dissidents form group to fight for free speech
Led by ex-Fateha website chief, the Melbourne-based group aims to educate S'poreans on activism
By Tan Tarn How {&} Neo Hui Min
A GROUP of Singapore dissidents, led by a controversial activist on the run, has set up an association in Australia to fight for free speech here and educate foreigners on Singapore politics.
Called the Association For Democracy In Singapore, it is headed by Mr Zulfikar Mohamad Shariff, the former head of Muslim website Fateha who fled Singapore last year amid a police probe into a criminal defamation case.
Now a research fellow with Monash University, he told the Sunday Times that the group was registered as a society in Melbourne a few months ago. It is being advised by opposition stalwart J.B. Jeyaretnam, Singapore Democratic Party chief Chee Soon Juan and former Workers' Party election candidate Tang Liang Hong.
The group's work will extend the efforts already made by the advisers and others in the international arena for democracy and human rights.
They include Singapore's most well-known exile, fugitive activist and lawyer Tan Wah Piow, and the former solicitor-general and opposition candidate Francis Seow.
They plug into a network of institutions sympathetic to their cause, receiving moral encouragement such as awards and other support such as funds or appointments.
Prior to the setting up of the association, these people had worked loosely together or as individuals campaigning against the Singapore Government.
The Melbourne-based group aims to educate Singaporeans on free speech and activism, including the use of defamation suits against political opponents, which Mr Zulfikar said had made Singaporeans apathetic and fearful of politics. It aims to hold a conference here next year about workers rights with a few other groups, he said, but declined to identify them.
Unionists from overseas who can help train Singapore workers about rights and activism will be invited to the event, he said. 'Like the Government, we believe Singapore needs foreign talent,' he added.
The group also wants to let foreigners, such as academics, activists and policy makers, know about the 'extent of control over dissent' here, he said.
It also hopes to air a radio news programme for Singapore listeners via an Indonesian station, an idea hatched by Mr Zulfikar three years ago that failed to take off then. Apart from him, the association is run by another staffer and funded by contributions.
Mr Jeyaretnam said though he believed the fight of dissidents should be carried out here, there was no harm if others preferred to work from abroad.
But Workers' Party chief Low Thia Khiang, MP for Hougang, was sceptical: 'I don't believe in those who say they aiguo, but they go to another country to say they aiguo.'
Aiguo is Chinese for 'love the country'.
But he added that some Singaporeans 'have no choice'.
As for the others, he had this to say: 'If it's just a matter of going to jail, how long can you jail me for? '
-----------------------------------------------
The four who fled
TAN WAH PIOW
WHO: Fugitive ex-student radical Tan Wah Piow, 51, fled Singapore in 1976 after failing to report for national service enlistment. He was stripped of his Singapore citizenship in 1987.
NOW: It is time the Government closed the file on him as he is no longer a threat to national interest, he said, adding that he wants to come home. He also denies charges that he masterminded the alleged 1987 Marxist conspiracy.
Now a partner of a law firm, the British national lives with his wife and 19-year-old son in London. He keeps in touch with Singapore politics through the Internet and visits the region often, usually to meet his 92-year-old mother, who lives here.
TANG LIANG HONG
WHO: Exiled opposition politician and former lawyer Tang Liang Hong, 63, fled after the 1997 General Election. The Government accused him of being a Chinese chauvinist, and People's Action Party leaders won a defamation suit against him. He was made a bankrupt when he could not pay up.
NOW: 'I really want to go back,' the former lawyer told a Malaysian newspaper a few months ago. He lives in Melbourne with his wife and travels to the region regularly.
While he told the Sin Chew Daily that he would leave politics to focus on cultural activities if he does return, he is also adviser to the Association For Democracy In Singapore. 'A people without culture has no future,' he said.
FRANCIS SEOW
WHO: Former solicitor-general Francis Seow, 75, stood on the Workers' Party platform in the 1988 General Election. He fled Singapore that year after being convicted of tax evasion.
NOW: He has just written a book analysing the PAP leaders' defamation suits against political opponents, he said.
Now living in Boston, he's working on another book on the controversial 1965 trial of Sunny Ang, convicted of murdering his girlfriend though her body was never found. He was the state prosecutor for the case.
He is the least connected to the Melbourne group, and is not aware of the exiles' new association. On whether he wants to return, he said: 'But of course.'
ZULFIKAR MOHAMAD SHARIFF
WHO: Former Fateha chief Zulfikar Mohamad Shariff, 32, left in July last year while the police were investigating if he had criminally defamed Senior Minister Lee Kuan Yew and others.
NOW: He heads the Association For Democracy In Singapore, and says of returning home: 'I will have to make sure that my work is done before I am incarcerated...I don't see what I can do for Singapore while I'm sitting in jail.'
He lives in Melbourne, with his four children and his wife, who is doing her master's in education. He is doing research at the Monash Asia Institute on government transparency, and hopes to write a book on the subject. 'I think about Singapore all the time,' he added. -
This is a second article that will be quite revealing in its historical values of events in Political Singapore :
Still standing
Star, Malaysia
September 7, 2003
To some, he is a foolhardy troublemaker who took on the Singapore PAP government and lost, suffering personal ruin in the process. But after more than 30 years of chasing what others might consider a lost cause, J. B. Jeyaretnam is still fighting and he tells MARTIN VENGADESAN why.
LOVE him or hate him, it really is difficult to question Joshua Benjamin Jeyaretnam's courage. Singapore's most recognisable opposition figure may have lost a few battles but there's no doubting his determination to soldier on.
At 78, J.B. Jeyaretnam is still energetically engaged in his struggle to turn his country's dominant party system into a multi-party democracy. Despite losing his parliamentary seat in 2001 due to bankruptcy (which occurred after he paid out more than RM3mil in damages and court costs), Jeyaretnam is committed to changing Singapore. His latest project is the recently released book, The Hatchet Man of Singapore, which he now sells at Singapore street corners.
Jeyaretnam was down in Kuala Lumpur last month for the launching of his book by former Bar Council chairman Raja Aziz Addruse. In an interview with Starmag, he was jovial and optimistic, belying the image of the bitter firebrand that some would like to equate him with.
With his trademark Dickensian whiskers and cultured English accent, Jeyaretnam seems for like a retired country squire from a by-gone era. What prompted him then, to pursue an arduous career in opposition politics when most men in his situation would simply have settled down quietly to enjoy their wealth?
“My major reason for going into politics was that when the People's Action Party (PAP) was in the opposition in the 1950s, I had felt that it would be good if they took over,” he reminisces with a wistful smile. “Its leader, Lee Kuan Yew, was a great democrat who didn't want detention without trial, wanted free speech and defended workers’ rights. I was in the legal service then and couldn't fully take part, but I thought there was a man after my own heart.
“But when PAP did take over in 1959, it seemed like everything changed overnight and I wasn't at all happy with what was happening. The main reason for my leaving the legal service was that I felt that the judiciary should be free from political appointments, and after a while I wasn't satisfied that that was the case.”
The political landscape that Jeyaretnam entered in the early 1970s was a bleak one for the opposition. In 1963, as part of the prelude to its entry into the Malaysian Federation, the PAP government had detained more than 100 prominent opposition activists in Operation Coldstore (including many former PAP leaders who had split from the party to form the Barisan Socialis), a move that decimated the opposition.
In fact, by the time Jeyaretnam's active involvement in politics commenced, when at the age of 45 he took over the leadership of the dormant Workers Party, there were no opposition members in Singapore's Parliament!
“I became very active in politics in 1971 when I became leader of the Workers Party, which had been founded by David Marshall after he resigned as Singapore's Chief Minister in the mid-50s. But it had remained quiet through the 60s. Unlike the Barisan Socialis, which comprised mainly ex-PAP members who were left-wing and gave the impression to the public that they were willing to go beyond constitutional means, the Workers Party leadership was not of the left fringe and were willing to work within the system.
“But what I was angry about was the injustice in society, the disparity between rich and poor, and if that is leftist then I am very happy to be labelled a leftist,” he adds with a twinkle in his eye.
Jeyaretnam's ascent in politics was certainly not rapid as he contested three general elections and was defeated each time. However, in the 1981 by-election at Anson, he enjoyed his biggest triumph when he defeated the PAP candidate and became Singapore's first opposition parliamentarian in more than a decade. Jeyaretnam enjoyed celebrity status as his dogged battles with then Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew were televised live on Singapore television.
He was re-elected MP for Anson in 1984 with an increased majority, but by 1986, he had been forced to give up his seat after receiving a heavy fine and a one-month jail sentence.
It was to be the first of many legal battles which saw Jeyaretnam raking up a number of convictions, getting them overturned on appeal by the Privy Council, and finally losing the libel case which resulted in his bankruptcy and second disqualification from Parliament.
While much has been written about Jeyaretnam's political views, his private life is somewhat less publicised.
He was born on Jan 5, 1926, to a Jaffna Tamil family that had settled in Malaya. His father was with the Johor Public Works Department. But Jeyaretnam was born in Sri Lanka because the family had returned there for a holiday.
A bright student, he attended the University College in London, where he met his future wife, Margaret Cynthia Walker. The couple married in 1957 and returned to live in Singapore, where he began his legal carrier.
They had two children, Kenneth, a London-based economist and Philip, a lawyer/author who resides in Singapore. (As a proud father, J.B. was unable to resist adding that both his two sons achieved double-firsts at Cambridge!).
His wifeÂ’s untimely death in 1980, at 50, was a devastating blow to the family.
“I lost Margaret to cancer. She was my greatest supporter, always accompanying me to all my rallies and even though we had suffered financially from my going into politics, she was always behind me.
“I have never been unduly worried about losing my properties and wealth but losing her was difficult to accept,” he says quietly.
He had a brother and two sisters who lived in Malaysia. They too have passed away. Jeyaretnam has four grandchildren – Jared, Tristan, Quentin and Miranda – whom he clearly delights in. He spends his time shuttling between Singapore (where he stays with Philip) and the home of a relative in Johor Baru.
“Some people worried about me after the bankruptcy, but I'm not starving,” he laughed, “I don't have a car and when I'm not staying with family, I rent a room in a budget hotel.”
He also has a wide range of interests to keep him occupied. “I try to read a lot. I usually read historical works but I also really enjoy English novels. I love authors like George Orwell, E.M. Foster, Fielding and Somerset Maugham, all of whom have a liberal/humanist bent to their writing.
“I do things other people do. I enjoy listening to music. I watch football – I'm an Arsenal supporter. I used to travel as well – to India, Australia and the UK – but not much anymore.”
Jeyaretnam also describes himself as a religious man. “I was raised in the Anglican faith. And if it weren't for my religious conviction, I don't think I would have carried on this far. I believe that I have a duty to continue this struggle for as long as God chooses to allow me to.”
In recent times, Jeyaretnam has been busy setting down his thoughts in print. In 2000, he published his first book, Make It Right For Singapore, a collection of speeches he delivered in Parliament from 1997-1999. His latest work, The Hatchet Man Of Singapore contains Jeyaretnam's views on Singapore's founding father Lee Kuan Yew.
The intriguing title is a reference to a quote by Lee published by the Straits Times on Nov 3, 1995: “As Prime Minister, I reserved executive powers in the Internal Security Act and Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act, both inherited from British times, which I did not repeal in order to be able to act against subversives or criminals like drug traffickers against whom there is insufficient evidence for a court of law without having recourse to the courts. In other words, I was my own carrier of a hatchet.” -
continuation of above article:
“The book is an account of how Lee has ruled Singapore, not the whole story, but how it relates to me,” Jeyaretnam explains. “The focus of the book is the 1997 general election and the Cheng San Group Representative Constituency (GRC) contest and how the PAP felt that there was an actual danger they might lose Cheng San.”
The Cheng San GRC was a real flashpoint of the 1997 general election when a five-member PAP team narrowly defeated Jeyaretnam's Workers Party line-up.
Jeyaretnam argues that the PAP leaders targeted one particular member of the Workers Party line-up: then party general-secretary Tang Liang Hong, who was accused by some quarters of being an anti-Christian Chinese chauvinist.
He also believes that the Cheng San voters were not really affected by the allegations against Tang, but by high pressure tactics.
“The PAP big guns came down to Cheng San and told voters it was all or nothing, linking all their future benefits to a vote for the PAP.”
Jeyaretnam adds that senior PAP leaders came to the polling centres so that when Cheng San voters went to cast their votes, they would see these leaders looking at them.
“In Singapore that's enough. What was very encouraging is that despite all the pressure, our line-up got something like 44% of votes.” Despite being part of the line-up that lost at Cheng San, Jeyaretnam made a return to Parliament in 1997, occupying one of the Non-Constituency Member of Parliament (NCMP) seats that Singapore reserves for the opposition.
Just prior to the 2001 general election, however, he was disqualified from Parliament and not allowed to stand for election. “I was not even allowed to go on the platform and make speeches for other opposition candidates at the last election.”
The last general election saw Singaporean voters deal a humiliating defeat to the opposition, which had handed the PAP government a victory on nomination day itself by entering candidates for less than half the parliamentary seats. Despite this “no-risk” strategy, the opposition suffered its biggest thrashing since Jeyaretnam's breakthrough win in 1981.
“I was very disappointed by what happened in the last general election. In 1981, PAP had 76% of votes, in 1984 it dropped to 64% and kept dropping until 2001, when they had a sharp increase to around the 75% mark again,” he sighs. “I wouldn't blame it on in-fighting in opposition, but we didn't do the best possible job either.
“People talk about the opposition coming together, but that is easier said than done. Even among the opposition some feel that I'm too confrontational. (Singapore Democratic Alliance leader) Chiam See Tong has said that my style is not his style.”
But given Singapore's obvious prosperity and the huge vote of support for the PAP, why should the opposition persist?
“Firstly, it's a little bit of a myth that Singapore is a truly prosperous country. Yes there are 5-10% who are filthy rich, and aside from the current situation and the 1985 recession, they've been able to put out impressive GDP growth figures and we have huge foreign reserves.
“But I believe the reality is that not all of it filters down. Many Singaporeans live in cramped, often one-room, flats and certain economic markers, like the employment figures, are not very encouraging.
“Secondly, my purpose in entering politics was to try and bring about a democratic system of government. The job has not been done yet, and I feel that as long as God gives me the health and the strength, then I will carry on the fight to bring about responsible opposition in Parliament. I'm very grateful that I don't have diabetes, heart trouble, liver problems or any of the major ailments which normally affect people my age.”
Jeyaretnam does not limit his concerns to democracy in Singapore. “I think that the world at the moment is in a very sorry mess. Last year I had hoped that things would settle down, but I think what happened in Iraq has brought on a great uneasiness in the world about unchecked US power.”
Jeyaretnam's former Workers Party colleagues Francis Seow and Tang Liang Hong have gone into self-imposed exile rather than risk enduring the sort of difficulties he has undergone. Yet for all his battles, leaving his beloved Singapore is something that Jeyaretnam would not consider.
“I always felt that Francis and Tang could have stayed and fought on. Lee Hsien Loong surprised me during last year's National Day celebrations when in reference to Goh Chok Tong berating all those who were leaving the country, he said that Jeyaretnam is a good example of a true Singaporean, because in spite of all our differences, he has never left.”
Ultimately this battle-hardened warrior is determined to go down fighting for what he believes in.
“I think it is not really for me to say what my legacy will be,” he smiles in response to the question, “but I think that even people who are not my friends say that if only for breaking the PAP monopoly in 1981, Jeyaretnam will be a part of Singaporean history.”
The Hatchet Man of Singapore is priced at RM40 and is available at Silverfish bookshop or through Ranee Achariam. Tel: 03-7981 0487 or 016-308 1843.
http://www.singapore-window.org/sw03/030907st.htm -
An interesting piece of observation from a 'disgruntled' dissident Singaporean, whose past relationship with the Establishment afford him a discerning views of Singapore: Past, Present and Future.
This article will need to occupy at least 8 postings, and is best viewed by anyone with interest in Singapore's Politics.
http://www.singapore-window.org/sw03/030214fs.htm
Singapore: Past, Present & Future?
Some perceptions of the governing PeopleÂ’s Action PartyÂ’s grasp on political power in Singapore
Paper by Francis T. Seow
Former Solicitor General Singapore
February 14 2003 -
most importantly, singapore is peaceful..
-
my dear Atobe,
u insult me with those posts. and i believe that u missed the point.
we all know how dissent is dealt with here. does that mean that we do nothing and allow the current situation to perpetuate?
i have said so many times over the past few posts... that the key to change is the individual. but individuals like YOU discourage other individuals from ever wanting to think... by reminding them of barriers, by reminding them of consequences.
if we allow such concerns to cloud our thinking, nothing will ever get done! we will degenerate into stagnation because change and disruptions always have consequences. DUH.
what is your bloody problem!
if u just want a safe place to vent out, then i guess u'll be hanging around here... unlike some people, there are those who believe that there is much work to be done. and they start by working on themselves. by reading, by having an open mind, by engaging the questions, by understanding the complexities.
YOU, just read the news, complain how bad it is and poison everybody else with your passivity and pessimism.
get a life. -
Atobe, more often than not, you dun put yourself in the shoes of the government.And more often than not, you prefer to highlight the cons and leave out the pros.I agree with you that you are a remarkable peron, with full of ideas and ideals.But sometimes, ideas fail when put to the test.You must point out the pros and the cons of whatever you say, otherwise, nobody is really taking you very seriously.And yes, Atobe, why since you are so interested in politics, why don't you be a politician rather than spend your time and talents in this little forum where nobody actually notices?
-
To my fellow sgForum contributors, CX and CenturionMBT, I appreciate both your comments to my position taken in this forum.
Please do not feel so easily insulted, CX, as there were none intended in the articles posted, and I do NOT see how you could have been so insulted by the articles.
Are the articles a reminder of the barriers that exist ?
Why do you view them as such, from three differing articles posted ?
1. Transcript of Francis Seow’s ST interview – posted 22 November 2003 03:47am - that was related to the article ‘Fugitive dissidents form group to fight for free speech”.
2. Still standing – posted 22 November 2003 – 04:39am
3. Singapore: Past, Present & Future? – posted 22 November 2003 – 05:05am
Could these articles serve to hinder or cloud the mind to think, or would these articles open our mind to information that some late comers to Politics have missed out on the actions of the past ? In Article 3 - Singapore: Past, Present & Future? - there were some very alarming and new information never made public. How did this hinder or cloud political thinking, or instill fear to change ? How could my posts reflect pessimism and passivity, and poison anyone; or is this a reflection of a depressed perception and judgment of the existing situation that one find oneself being helplessly sucked in ?
These three articles were events that had existed, and were posted to prove a point concerning Singapore Politics. Instead of hindering, these articles will hopefully arouse curious minds to enquire more about the present politics in Singapore. A weak mind and weak hearted person should never be involve in politics, and would not have log into this Forum.
When you prefer to see these articles as ‘True’ hindrances to political thinking, others may find some ‘Truth’ in the events that have occurred and find their own position in the Political Process.
It is unfortunate that not everyone in this Forum is aware of the entire episode of Political History in Singapore, with some based on snippets of information gleaned from readings, others from news clippings.
Articles from Newspapers are the most convenient form of information, which lies in the Public Domain, and can be easily extracted; while readings from books that are a result of private effort and enterprise can hardly be quoted in its entirety.
Many thanks, CenturionMBT for your comment -
“I agree with you that you are a remarkable person, with full of ideas and ideals”
– but I am not sure how you have come to this position of “me advocating myself to be a remarkable person “ and you agreeing with me to be that person ?
It is not too difficult to try and put myself in the shoes of the Government to find the reasons for the policies being decided upon, and come up to agree with what has been decided upon – such as National Service and Defense Issues, our stand towards Malaysia on the various issues that block both sides from having an amicable relationship, the stand taken in using the ISA on the J I Terrorists, the necessity of our close relationship with USA and to support them despite the tide of World Opinions against USA.
I tried to understand the position of the Government prior to my posting the new subject “Should Government interfere in Union Members’ Rights ?” ; but I find it difficult to understand the change in position adopted by the Government – who preferred to take a hands off approach during the tussle between the SIA Management and the Pilots Union, and also the other Unions representing the Flight Crews and Ground Staff, and yet will now interfere in the INTERNAL disputes of the Pilots Union by the heavy comments from the Acting Minister of Manpower.
While one can easily identify and support the Government on larger national issues affecting the CountryÂ’s Security and Independence, this does not mean that one has to agree with the Government of the Ruling Party when Policies with negative Political Repercussions to Singaporeans are being made by the Ruling Political Party holding the seat of Power.
We have to separate the issues here, one concerns Government Policies affecting Singapore and Singaporeans security, and the other concerns Political Policies in favor of the Political Party sitting as the Government, which affect Political Process in Singapore and the Rights of Singaporeans.
Not agreeing with the Politics practiced by the Ruling Political Party does not mean that we cannot support those policies that have been made for the interest of Singapore.
Not supporting the Politics of the Ruling Party does not mean that we are disloyal to the Government of Singapore, or Singapore itself.
While in the SAF, I overheard the statement that “I may not respect you as a Person, but I still will respect you for the Rank that you hold.”
“I may not agree with the Command Order that you have decided, but your Rank will require me to execute that Command Order to the Best of My Ability, and if anything goes badly wrong, the Command Order will have to be reviewed against the Operating Circumstances that have resulted in my failure to execute that Command Order.”
"Pray to God that in the SAF, your Rank AND Political Connections will not get you the maximum protection from Higher Authorities, while my Lower Rank serves me as a scapegoat. "
Without belaboring the points, I am certain that CX and CenturionMBT will be quite aware of the many Political Policies that the Ruling Party has made for their own benefit, while holding the seat of power in Government, to the detriment of the Politics in Singapore.
It is surprising that the following comment becomes the ultimate challenge when patience runs out or intolerance surfaces –
“And yes, Atobe, why since you are so interested in politics, why don't you be a politician rather than spend your time and talents in this little forum where nobody actually notices ? “
This unfortunate remark epitomise the typical intolerance and impatience of the Ruling Party towards dissenting views. There are more ways than one to be in Politics. In the Singapore context, prudence dictate one's decision in weighing the circumstances that necessitate action.
Does such goading remarks serves any purpose in this discussion ? Will this not hinder and cloud the mind to probe further the articles raised ?
To CenturionMBT, my sincere appreciation for the unsolicited admiration, but as a little man with no big political ambition, my contribution in this not so ‘little forum’ is to learn from responses and reactions such as yours and CX.
With insights and alternative views from CX and yourself, to the various issues posted, we are already participating in Politics; and any intelligent Politicians will benefit from the remarks made here.
This is not too far fetched, as the Government was conscious of the comments on the various Internet Forums that arose concerning the expenditure involved in bringing Mrs LKY back from London.
Perhaps the Opposition Politicians will do well to drop into sgForums and engage us in friendly debate, and take up some pointers from this Forum.
In any case, my position could easily be proven wrong by both of you.
To quote from the thread “More Media Companies or Less ?” and from the writer of the article – ‘Big Brother is watching, make no mistake….. ‘ posted on 22 November 2003 – 04.11am
The most important aspect of freedom...... is the freedom to be wrong. And it's that freedom that Singapore needs to cultivate. -
such a chim forum....
-
argh... flogging dead horse lah...
same points over and over and over... -
Extract from the book “Proudly Singaporean” – quote from the “Manual of the Warrior of Light”
A warrior of light is reliable.
He makes a few mistakes, he sometimes thinks he is more important than he really is, but he does not lie.
When people gather around the fire, he talks to his friends, male and female; He knows that his words are stored in the memory of the Universe, like a testimony of what he thinks.
And the warrior asks himself, “Why do I talk so much, when I am incapable of carrying out everything I say?”
His heart replies: “When you defend your ideas in public, you then have to make an effort to live accordingly.”
It is because he believes that he is what he says he is, that the warrior ends up becoming precisely that.
----------------------------------------------
"Flogging a dead horse" - hardly, the horse is still not quite dead as seen from its strength to inspire new energy in those who are unaware of its existence. -
Yet we have a rude shock when we both found out we
B-u-l-l-s-h-i-t.
are the third highest paid workers in the world. Our
PAP Government has just told us that we draw higher
salaries than even Australia and USA! Our unemployment
problem is due to the Singapore Citizen's fault.
Our Salaries are just too high.
If I were a Singaporean, this would make me burrown down with shame, all this political rubbish. But you all should relax and suck it up like I am doing, suck it up and be the stronger man with power in the end. Things are bound to change, have faith in that, afterall it took England 700 years to be fully democratic, America less than a 100 I should think. Unless some drunkerd would speed up the process by wiping out the MP's and their lines.... take note... lines...entire lines.
You people who talk about being dogs won't change anything, as our conspirator friends in X-files say "One man cannot fight the future", yes you are minority. Furthermore, our unique views that PAP bull-shits sometimes are only a minority view. The majority of the populace will continue to vote for PAP because there is no other alternative, and because of the basic human nature of sticking with what has always worked. We are talking more than 30 years of sticking with what has worked, it is not easy to change. Reminds me of the game Tropico. -
i dunno leh
i think since i this yr 21 liao can vote liao
if next election really put LHL there i might not vote for PAP