his simple life

 

While ninety-five per cent, if not hundred, of Singapore’s ruling regime live in relative luxury and own at least one private property, the freedom prize-winning Dr Chee Soon Juan lives in a three-room flat in one of the oldest housing estates in the country and drives a nineteen-year-old Nissan sedan car.

 

(source)

 

Dr Chee, given his circumstances as an embattled activist for democracy in a country that is ruled by a vicious empire which is no different, in principle, to any contemporary autocracy in the Middle East; does not draw any salary, apart from the earnings he gets from selling his books to individuals and bookshops as well as the occasional foreign university research fellowship. One wonders how he manages to keep his house in order with his homemaker wife and three young children.

 

I used to be one of the many Singaporeans who find him profoundly odd and a nutcase. But not anymore. If ever there was a cause worth fighting for, it is the cause of freedom.

 

REAL FREEDOM.

 

I salute you, Dr Chee.

 

And thanks to Yahoo News for this piece of precious reporting.

 

*******

 

when will the singapore government (PAP) stop its bullying??

 

Our Great Leader, the Holy Prime Minister, successor to the Holy Father of our beloved Lee Dynasty – all praise and honour to Him – exposes his real nature last Sunday when he issued a legal letter to the editors of sociopolitical website, TR Emeritus (TRE), commanding them to withdraw an article which apparently accused the government of partiality (cronyism), when it appointed Our Great First Lady as head of the Asian investment firm, Temasek Holdings.

 

PM Lee sends lawyer’s letter to editors of TR Emeritus

 

The Great Leader, in the letter, reminded TRE of the government’s (the People’s Action Party) terrible and awesome powers, as was demonstrated by the numerous defamation suits it waged against international newspapers and periodicals, such as the Far Eastern Economic Review, and won.

 

And so our Great Leader warned TRE that a similar fate would await them unless they withdraw the article and post an apology on the website.

 

This is Singapore, my motherland and my home. An autocracy which masquerades as a democracy only in theory. Our people has no power at all in deciding how the country is run. Isn’t this what democracy is all about – power of the people? Although I do not suspect any foul play during vote counts, it does not take a rocket scientist to realise how disparate the arena is during election campaigns, with the ruling regime having an obvious advantage over the opposition by constantly fiddling with electoral boundaries as well as having more press and media coverage.

 

TRE has withdrawn the article although it has yet to post an apology, as our Alex Au had done in his blog, Yawning Bread, when a very insecure Minister decided to play the defamation game on him over some rumours about his moral indiscretions. Competent and intelligent as he is, the minister does not realise he is digging his own grave, at least in the eyes of netizens, by using the law to bully Yawning Bread into silence.

 

Dear PAP, if you are innocent, just say so – and debunk the allegations once and for all by speaking the truth. There is no need to emotionally and psychologically abuse and bully Singaporeans into withdrawing their comments. Where is civil discourse in all of this? Why the need to use the law to threaten and frighten us?

 

WHEN WILL THE RULING REGIME STOP ITS BULLYING TACTICS?? When will the PAP stop its thuggish ways on its people like a hysterical parent brandishing a chopper over mischievous children?

 

The Holy Father, peace be upon Him, claimed in the past that any political accusation against the government taints their reputation and as such a legal victory, via defamation suit, would always be the right thing to do as it vindicates the ruling regime. Besides, this is politics. Shouldn’t we be unscrupulous against our political “enemies”?

 

Our Holy Father thinks he is Cao Cao living in ancient China.

 

On the contrary, the megalomaniacal antics of the PAP has time and again allows itself to be exposed to the world as a strangely first world country with third world ethics.

 

Mature individuals pay attention to constructive criticism and simply ignore unwarranted and unjustified ones. One does not see the governments in the US or UK lash out against all the rude and critical comments made of them by the many newspapers and tabloids.

 

Human beings have the right to say anything they want, even if such speech is irresponsible and rude. This is life.

 

And it takes a mature and self-secure government to accept it.

 

*******

 

a shrewd political move?

 

Some have lauded the recent expulsion of the Hougang MP by the Workers’ Party (WP) as a brave and shrewd political move. They have “taken, boldy, the moral high ground”, to quote Nominated Member of Parliament (NMP) Eugene Tan, the assistant professor of law at the Singapore Management University.

 

The expulsion was carried out in response to a very immature Singaporean society which still holds on to very quaint ideas of public civil service and its supposed moral standards. The media cannot seem to keep their partisan hands off the poor gentleman and his personal life. It was also his mistake to remain silent amid the media silliness…he should either reaffirm his innocence, if he is, or come out in the open and confess to his indiscretions and apologise to the residents of Hougang.

 

The latter would indeed place him on the moral high ground. I will applaud him for the moral courage and the strength in humility to be transparent to the people.

 

UNLIKE the schemes of the ruling regime…which only “appears” CLEAN because they are craftier and more skilled in covering up their tracks. I always believe in the adage that there can be no senseless smoke without fire…and the disparity is so obvious for any discerning individual – the media is so quick to pick up on any rumour of moral indiscretion on the part of the political opposition but if it comes to the ruling party, ALL IS SILENT.

 

Of course, the testicle-squeezing silence can be attributed to the classic Singaporean fear of being legally sued by the ruling regime if there is any sign of criticism (think of Joshua Benjamin Jeyaretnam, Chee Soon Juan and Alan Shadrake). The capacity to sue has nothing to do with moral innocence but with resources and power, full stop.

 

We are not fooled, though. Until the day when the Internet is cruelly and senselessly censored and squashed (thank goodness for twinkles of humanity in our current PM) by the powers that be, netizens in Singapore would always be the watchdog against a government that is constantly suppressing our civil rights to free speech and expression.

 

Are Singaporeans so naive as to think that the PAP (People’s Action Party) is really that CLEAN and FREE of moral indiscretions? Have you ever wonder why the people of Singapore are in the dark when it comes to the families of the ruling regime, apart from the Lees? We are hardly acquainted with the kin of most of our parliamentarians, let alone MPs and those on the ground.

 

A very good strategy, if you ask me. If the public knows next to nothing about the personal life of their leaders, there is no way we could hold them to account for any moral indiscretion, if they exist.

 

Contrary to propaganda, the truth is really out there. In the worldwide web.

 

While there is still hope for a liberal society, and a fairly liberal internet, please traverse far and wide for the truth.

 

Before even the Internet is unjustly censored.

 

*******

 

can we really look toward a multi-party government?

 

Singapore is as small a nation as it is young, a 46-year-old full stop on a world map, not counting the years between its official founding in 1819 by a Sir Stamford Raffles of the East India Company and its separation from the Malayan Peninsula in August 1965.

 

The first generation of Singaporeans lived through the labour pains of a seedling nation to the turbulent years of its adolescence and has since appreciated the competence in which the founding men of the PAP wield their iron fists adorned in velvet gloves.

 

They knew it would take the cunning genius of a Lee Kuan Yew to reign in a diverse immigrant country and lead it to where it is today – a multinational corporation with over seven million workers.

 

The younger generations, with me among them, will never understand the complexities our ancestors faced and thus may never see beyond the bias we already have of a perceived one-party autocracy. We blame the PAP for its control of the media and the press. We bemoan our legal system which still uses an archaic and barbarous form of criminal punishment. We wonder when will our society stop stigmatising the LGBT community. We wish we could have more liberties in expressing ourselves and speaking our minds.

 

And so we root for the political opposition like the Workers’ Party, the Singapore Democratic Party, the Reform Party and the Singapore People’s Party. We cheer for our champions in the likes of Chen Sao Mao, Low Thia Kiang, Chiam See Tong, Kenneth Jeyaratnam, and even the Freedom Prize-winning self-professed liberal democrat, Chee Soon Juan.

 

They loom large before us as our patron saints of political and civil liberty, and we listened, enraptured, by their rhetoric. We get drunk over the preachers who scream the loudest, we shriek alongside some of them when they conquered Aljunied GRC last year. But the chimera of the reel world aside, when the banal and mundane sets in, we start to witness how the scraps start to fall from the rusty junkyard that they really are.

 

If these blokes cannot even keep their houses in order and their respective parties united, can we trust them to lead the country? Tsk, tsk. If you want to play with fire, you should prepare the extinguishers. Will democracy – the power of the people – be nothing but a dream we erect like sandcastles on the beach?

 

The lesser of two evils will get my vote. And it is no surprise who the devil would be.

 

*******

 

thank the gods for singapore

 

The significant number of Singaporeans who are dissatisfied with our current government, which is really just the People’s Action Party (PAP), should ask themselves what they are really disgruntled about.

 

Many rant about the inefficient public transport (think of the recent Singapore Mass Rapid Transit fracas) and healthcare systems in our country but do not have the relevant experiences overseas to make such value judgements. Many grumble about the high costs of living but never stop to think how much costlier it is to live in Japan, London and New York. It is erroneous to make comparisons with “cheaper” places like some of our neighbours in Southeast Asia as costs of living are rather relative to the quality of living as well. Many nag on and on about the salaries of our public ministers, even after the proposed paycuts, when they do not realise how morally upright and efficient our government is when compared to governments all over the world. And why is that so? We do not believe in having a populist leadership where any joe blow can run for the top post in the land (think of the US) – political leadership has to be from among the best of the best, the cream of the crop – and such can only be acquired by good salaries.

 

Of course, service and loyalty to the country is paramount – but one has to be pragmatic about it – if a highly competent and intelligent individual can make more money and have the social privacy for his family along with it by being a CEO of a multinational company, why not? There is so much at stake by being a public servant and if the lure of a high salary compensates, why not?

 

Others murmur about the lack of social welfare but do not know how much taxation welfare countries impose on their citizens. Some moan about the prices of cars in Singapore but seem to be ignorant about the social consequences of having highly congested streets (it is already relatively crowded) in a very tiny city as Singapore.

 

And the list goes on and on.

 

Human beings can be very colour-blind, often assuming a greener pasture on the other side, when they do not have all the facts. And Singaporeans especially so, with our notorious “kiasu” and “kiasee” mentalities that make us a very selfish people.

 

It is time we stop throwing stones at our government and wonder where all this resentment comes from in the first place.

 

Besides, I cannot fathom, for the life of me, how an uncouth individual like Low Thia Kiang can be a prime minister of Singapore.

 

Eeeehh.

 

*******

 

PAP not open to change

 

Open to being persuaded? I’m not about to believe it until I see ten simple things — none of which costs much money, so they aren’t questions of budget prioritisation:

1. Repeal Section 377A of the Penal Code, apply non-discriminatory rating standards for heterosexual and homosexual media content;

2. Scrap mandatory death penalty, moratorium on all death penalty;

3. Repeal laws that permit detention without trial, i.e. the Internal Security Act and the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act;

4. Loosen up laws on public speaking and gathering — no licences needed for indoor speaking (even foreigners) whatever the topic, liberal granting of licences for outdoor gatherings and speaking;

5. Scrap all licensing for indoor arts performances; liberal granting of licences for outdoor performances and installations;

6. Scrap Sections 33 and 35 of the Films Act (political films and blank cheque given to minister to ban any film);

7. Scrap all licensing provisions for new media content;

8. Scrap newspaper/magazine licensing regime and the Newspaper and Printing Presses Act;

9. Redefine ‘contempt of court’ to a very narrow meaning that covers only disruption of court proceedings and flouting of judges’ orders;

10. Reduce ministerial salaries by at least half.

- Alex Au (Singapore political commentator, author & human rights activist)

 

The above is taken from the article entitled On a High Horse called Truth and Right, PAP lost in a changing world in Yawning Bread blog.

 

*******

 

nailbiting finish

 

It was a nail-biting finish, a race of which the eventual winner grazed the tape by the sheer chance that he was pushed at the starting blocks, by the “invisible” hands of the gods.

 

Without which he would most probably succumb to the wrath of the rabble, the mob, the people; for they have been rooting for the first runner-up – the REAL choice of the people.

 

Nevertheless it often seemed that such races are rigged, pawns in the hands of a conniving chess master, the holy sovereign who dictates the players who will grace his game of cat and mouse, cards and dice.

 

Nevertheless, these are but speculation on the ground, which are often without justification. But then again, they sometimes have an echo of truth. Half-truth, maybe.

 

As expected, the venerable Dr Tony Tan became the President-elect of Singapore. As expected, the gentleman doctor came in a close second. And as expected, the tag team of prime time hooligans came in third and fourth – with the Chinese-educated mumbler an incompetent fourth.

 

One does not need to be a rocket scientist to predict the results of the recent Presidential Election – any taxicab driver would tell you the same thing. That is the state of our political scene. Singaporeans don’t want rabble rousers and Martin Luther wannabes. The ordinary decent citizen in all of us are appalled at the way Tan Jee Say portrayed himself in his campaign, a thug through and through. Pig-headed, he kept trying to redefine the role of the Presidency and as such created the infrastructure for his own downfall.

 

Come on Jee Say. Singapore is NEITHER the United States NOR the United Kingdom. And I sincerely desire that it will NEVER be. We are intelligent enough not to be moved or manipulated by empty rhetoric. And although much of the blogosphere may support your liberal cause, I am but one of the thousands in Singapore who prefer stability, security and serenity in our lives. Freedom of expression? Freedom of speech?

 

At what price?

 

No strikes please. No protests please. No random mugging on the streets at night please. No rampant recreational drug use, please. No picketing please. No scientology please.

 

And as someone who is naively disgusted with politicking of any kind, I was appalled when I discovered that Jee Say was actually part of Kin Lian’s team before deciding to go for the prize himself. Hmm.

 

Anyhow, I was wondering about the outcome if these two clowns did not enter the race in the first place. As a “statistician”, Kin Lian should have known his chances even before attempting to make a fool of himself in the public square. A miniscule 4% of the votes? Holy Mother of Zeus and Jesus and all the saints of myth! Just give some of it to Dr Cheng Bock – and he would have slammed the conceited former Mathematics professor to the ground.

 

Really…I prefer a Nathanesque presidency. A Wee Kim Wee one will also do. My image of a President in Singapore is someone who is grandfatherly, compassionate, kind, impartial to party politics, people-pleasing, people-loving, etc. So what if it would be a “powerless” role? Perhaps there is more than meets the eye with Jee Say. Does he want some political power for himself?

 

Sigh.

 

Although I was mentally prepared to crown Dr Tony Tan as President, my heart jumped when rumours abound that at the 80% mark of the vote count, my dear Dr Cheng Bock was leading. Humble and wise Dr Cheng Bock. Kind and old Dr Cheng Bock. This is what a Singaporean President should be, in my eyes, at least. You want a revolutionary? Then fight out in the General Election!

 

Either way, Singapore will be in reliable hands. At least Dr Tony can hold his own in the international arena. Yes, he is calm and collected, thoughtful and gracious in speech. Relatively articulate as well.

 

So let us not look back but strive forward and support our President-elect, Dr Tony Tan, as he embarked on his journey as Head of the Republic of Singapore.

 

*******

 

 

polling day

 

Today is Polling Day and I will be heading down to the polling station assigned to me to cast my vote at the ballot box.

 

As all of our children are too young to stay at home by themselves, we would be bringing them along to the station. We have already decided to do so first thing in the morning – as soon as the polling station opens at 8am.

 

We would then head to the nearby coffeeshop for breakfast.

 

Who shall I vote for?

 

It will be Dr Tan Cheng Bock, the gentleman diplomat. The ideal President of Singapore, in my opinion.

 

And finally, I’ve persuaded my wife to vote for the same, after watching the final broadcasts of the four candidates last night. As usual, I couldn’t endure Kin Lian’s speech for the whole ten minutes, so riddled with phonetic errors and mispronunciations. As for Jee Say’s, it seemed that his Rafflesian background did him no good in the area of philosophy, debate and argumentation.

 

Besides, he was an economist or some financial honcho anyway. Such blokes are never known for their astute reasoning and intellectual prowess. I wonder what made his crony Nicole Seah from the opposition comment that he is a “brilliant thinker”.

 

If he is a “brilliant thinker”, then Lee Kuan Yew is god.

 

My parents would be rooting for Dr Tony Tan. As would most educated and reasonable folks from that generation.

 

Either way, Singapore would be in good hands.

 

*******

 

pray to vote for the right president

 

If you think that I would agree with the title of this post, you are dead wrong.

 

In fact, I am all contrarian to this erroneous proposition that presupposes an excuse NOT to think and NOT to weigh and grapple with the issues.

 

Many a time when such a statement is offered among christians, what is subtly meant is to ask whether the candidate is a “christian”. This would ensure, perhaps only in theory, that the candidate would propose ideas and policies that are in line with his religious convictions.

 

That is precisely the problem with yankee politics – what evangelicals in the US want is a “christian” president, a “christian” government who will lead the nation to “follow god”, as though that is the moral thing to do. One who is acquainted with history will bemoan the fact that nations who claimed to ”followed god” often behave the most immorally towards other nations.

 

In our local context, christians would be praying for the right candidate to be our next President. And many are wondering among themselves if Dr Tony Tan is a “christian”. And what about Tan Jee Say - rumours abound that he IS a “christian” – otherwise why all this talk about “moral authority” and “absolute conscience” (whatever that means)?

 

But of course, we all know that Dr Tan Cheng Bock IS a “christian” – a Roman Catholic to be more specific – which I reckon will not go too well with the evangelical wing in Singapore. But Catholics have a GOOD track record in the public square. They are often very accepting towards other religious views and are known to be devoted to secularism as a political ideology. Most of the time, anyway.

 

Religious views aside, what is vital for us as citizens of Singapore is NOT to pray, but to THINK carefully and weigh the relevant issues such as the country’s stability, economy, multi-racial and multi-religious social fabric, etc before heading to the polling station tomorrow.

 

Christians cannot vote for somebody JUST BECAUSE he or she is a christian! Chee Soon Juan is one example of a lunatic who happens to be christian.

 

And if the recent polls are anything to go by, online Singaporeans seem to prefer a President who questions the government more often. This would favour Jee Say and Kin Lian.

 

But after all is said and done, my bet would be on Dr Tony Tan who would clinched the presidency - although my heart goes with the medical doctor. The wiser generation among us would select someone with a GOOD track record of political leadership and experience as well as someone with the decorum and dignity to pull it off.

 

Jee Say is but hot air and white noise. Although he is now trying to allay the fears that he might be too confrontational and hence impede the political process, if public appearance is all we can go by, for now; nothing he says can soothe me into believing that he is all for cooperation. I have seen people like him. Once a boss, always a boss. A former CEO like him would want to hold the reins, would want to get things done HIS way.

 

Cooperation? A load of chicken droppings.

 

Besides, he kept trying to reinvent the constitution by claiming for the presidency powers that are not to be! The President of Singapore is a position NEVER MEANT to act as a “check and balance” to the main government. In fact, he is the unifying figure OF THE GOVERNMENT. He is also not THE VOICE for the PEOPLE, as the ah seng Kin Lian would want the Presidency to be.

 

Singaporeans is making a very grave mistake if either of these two thugs are elected into the presidency.

 

Besides, I cannot imagine my President speaking in very poorly articulated English while dining with international heads of state!

 

My wife, I think, would root for Dr Tony Tan while I myself might vote for Dr Cheng Bock. Both will do fine for Singapore, in my books. We need experienced, wise and sensible people, not brash gangsters.

 

*******

 

 

about kin lian & jee say

 

An interesting discussion among the four local presidential candidates was aired recently at 8pm on Channel News Asia. It was moderated by the channel’s managing director and former chief editor, Debra Soon.

 

The interview panel included the ambassador-at-large at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Special Advisor at the Institute of Policy Studies, Professor Tommy Koh; and Janadas Devan, the Director of the same institute.

 

Impressions only, Dr Tony Tan cut a much more competent and dignified figure than the other three with Dr Tan Cheng Bock holding his own as an experienced and wise figure in the Singapore politcal scene. Kin Lian was at his incompetent best, fumbling with his words due to his obvious language impediment, filtered through rather incredulously with that impish grin of his. As for Jee Say, he was bullish at usual, crossing swords on one occasion with the interviewers over the interpretation of the role of the president.

 

For so many years, the President of Singapore has been viewed by many as a unifying figurehead of sorts, a wise and congenial grandfather to the people (with the Prime Minister as the stern father and executioner). Although he has certain powers accorded to him, many do not view his role as a “check and balance” to the government.

 

In fact, the idea of another centre of power will be detrimental to the governance of Singapore! I don’t want a President who constantly cross swords with the cabinet.

 

This is the impression I receive from both Kin Lian and Jee Say. Contrary to what they say, they do not seem to be able to get it right when it comes to the role of the President. Dr Tan Cheng Bock was more honest than some when he commented that there are just certain things that the President cannot do.

 

Besides, at the time of the programme (which was recorded, obviously), Jee Say was having a rally at Toa Payoh Stadium. And it was said that he had a list of “guest speakers” who would be there to support him – and many were opposition party members. 

 

What INDEPENDENCE was he talking about? A self-defined independence from the PAP? A genuinely nonpartisan candidate would try NOT to associate himself with ANY political party, PAP or otherwise. Citizens who do not want to get the boat rocked, like me, would see his campaign as a conspiracy from the opposition to get a foothold on the government via the presidency.

 

And I will not allow that to happen. If I can help it.

 

My vote would be for either Dr Tony or Dr Cheng Bock. Hmm.

 

*******

 

presidential election

 

The campaign trail has started for our four presidential candidates, and it would be a race against time for these men to earn the trust and faith of their fellow citizens before the 27th of this month, the day we would be going to the ballot box.

 

Unlike the US, the President of Singapore is more like a constitutional monarch, having no real ministerial authority except the supposedly “custodial” responsibility of protecting our nation’s financial reserves as well as some veto responsibilities here and there.

 

Similar to the Queen, our President acts more as a unifying figure among Singaporeans, a figure head of sorts.

 

But of course, as with all politics, much goobledygook is made about the “importance” of the President in Singapore life.

 

Really. The real authority lies in the Prime Minister and his cabinet.

 

Anyway, who should I vote for? I am kind of apathetic towards the local political scene, where I suppose it has been a once bitten-twice shy proposition for me. Singapore is one teeny weeny nation – how many competent and trustworthy leaders can we get? Honestly, a multi-party governmental system is not the way to go for our country.

 

It will just make it worse. Contrary to what all the liberal wannabes in our midst say, freedom of speech and expression (as interpreted by the liberal democratic West) will ruin Singapore and allow anarchy free reign.

 

That will not be genuine freedom for me. There has to be a middle ground somewhere. While I do not want Singapore to go the way of the draconian theocracies of the Middle East or the oppressive communism of China; I do not wish for Singapore to be like the UK, France or even the US, where strikes, protests and public rioting is common, thereby disrupting the stable and quiet life of citizens who want to have no part to play in such uncivilised troublemaking.

 

Back to our local scene. So far, all of the opposition parties that we have are useless. They are empty vessels that make white noise, nothing more. Can they really build a nation the way Lee Kuan Yew did, from “third world to the first”? Do they really have the interests of our country, our people at heart? Or do they have a liberal agenda up their sleeves, masquerading as alternative voices so as to play to the gallery of the common people who knows next to nothing about politics?

 

Hmm. Who shall I vote for?

 

For one thing, I am turned off by the poorly spoken English of Tan Kin Lian, and to a lesser degree, Tan Jee Say.

 

Besides, there is this vulgar air of “ah-seng-ism” about the former Tan, the way he wants to “challenge” the government by being the “voice of the people”. Sounds so propagandish, so unruly, so uncivilised, so crass. Perhaps as someone who is raised in an anglophone environment, I simply cannot stomach poor English speech and prose from a public figure.

 

The latter Tan, on the other hand, comes across as too young and too bullish for the post. He smells of the opposition, through and through, despite his claims that it is a nonpartisan race.

 

All in all, these two blokes do not make a dignified public figure head for me. I would feel ashamed if either of them is my president.

 

On the other hand, both Tony Tan and Tan Cheng Bock speak relatively well. Both have a quiet and dignified air about them which exudes confidence and humility. And both have a vast depth and breadth of experience in politics among themselves. This gives me security and makes me trust in them more than the former two louts.

 

I like Tony Tan for his experience and statesmanship. I like Tan Cheng Bock for his emphasis on multiculturalism.

 

Who shall I vote?

 

I’ll just wait and see.

 

*******