Singapore Democrats

I suppose a collective bellow is due here: “here we go again!” This solicitous relationship with the foreign media reminds me of the 1970s sitcom called coincidentally “Here we go again!” In fact, the convoluted relationships of the sitcom bear some resemblance to this ongoing saga of the Singaporean oppositionist. Go figure!

The purportedly intent of this undertaking is to beguile American listeners and to induce the political and business not to “collaborate with the Singapore Government on trade at the expense of democracy and human rights.”

We must not forget that America is the embodiment of capitalism. As we see often enough, its democratic principles (or whatever pretensions to that effect) are secondary to its capitalist and hegemonic aims. The case of Iraq is like an apt illustration.

Anyway, the “main man” himself (Obama) has recently reminded all us that “Singapore has been an outstanding friend and ally of the United States for many, many years... And on behalf of the American people, we want to say thank you to the people of Singapore for being such outstanding friends.”

Also, I suspect that Americans who would listen to a “serious” radio-talk show is a rare and dying breed, least of all when the topic is about an diminutive oppositionist from a faraway and inconsequential land babbling about his political travails. Saying the impact would be limited would be an understatement.

I think it is better that SDP directs its resources on more fruitful and local ventures.

Hello, as for the Iraq war, MM Lee strongly support it (watch Charlie Rose) who was the big ideal of requesting for more American engagement in Asia inorder to balance the power play in Asia? It was the Ruling Party again. And we really wonder why? go figure

Chanced across btan's comments from a TR article here (see below). Hope he would not mind me pasting them here since it describes the american philosophy very well.

In my previous previous dealing with Americans, they have repetitively shown themselves to be more "form, noise and show". I suppose they won't mind a Singaporean opportunist joining them for a show too.
-------------
"It’s naive to think US would bother to help democratise Singapore when one of its greatest allies, Saudi Arabia is one of the most oppressive government in the world. Women don’t even have basic rights.

USA will ally with anyone who is friendly to its caused, as in the case of Singapore, and does not care if it is a autocracy or democracy.

Singapore served US interest as a petrol and supply station for its naval fleet between pacific and indian ocean. US will only change Singapore if the government is hostile to it. As in the case of Iraq after their invasion of Kuwait.

Note that the Taliban and Saddam Hussein used to be their allies against communists which later backfired on them."

[quote]Who listens to serious talk radio shows?[/quote]
I do. Singapore has no such talk shows.

TeeTee,

Your master LKY go on Charlie Rose show, you say nothing. Dr Chee go on radio show, he is an opportunist.

Wahlau eh, can you please be a little less blatant? You're giving even Pappy dogs a bad name.

@ BryanT:

Who listens to serious talk radio shows? If you have ever spent any length of time in the US you wouldn't be asking such a damn fool question. American TV is pretty dire and an awful lot of intelligent Americans, thoughtful people, movers and shakers, do not bother with it. Their preference is radio where you can listen to a serious discussion while doing something else at the same time and call in to interact if you wish.

The US National Public Radio talk shows have a daily audience of 21 million and people tune in for serious news and analysis in the same way the British (including cabinet members and MPs - ask Thatcher, Blair and Brown) look to BBC Radio 4 for an authoritative voice.

In 2003, the widow of McDonald's founder bequeathed over US$225m to NPR in her will — the largest monetary gift ever to a cultural institution. Does that make radio important and significant enough for you?

Just because Singapore radio stations broadcast boring juvenile pap (that word covers both the crap party line and worthless, oversimplified ideas) does not mean the rest of the world follows suit, y'know. I think your nose was put out of joint by the announcement of Dr. Chee's appearance on US radio on the eve of APEC - which kinda pisses on your master's rah-rah parade doesn't it?

Now stop spouting utter bollocks like:

[b][i][quote]"Also, I suspect that Americans who would listen to a “serious” radio-talk show is a rare and dying breed..."[/quote][/i][/b]
and kindly do your homework before letting fly with your superior XO ignorance. We've not been at all impressed so far.

Hi BryanT,

I think you are confusing the American government with the people.

The American government, in which my article was directed at, is this way. They are a practical bunch. As such, if we were to depend on them to democratise our nation, as the Singaporean saying goes : Wait Long Long!

As for the American people, it would be good if some of them can champion our cause. It definitely will lend the opposition some of the elusive credibility that many here claimed to they lacked.

Ultimately, we still have to wake up our own people if we truly wish to have a free and fair democratic country. We must WANT it for us to HAVE it.

I know not what effect, if any, Dr Chee's participation in the radio talk show will have, but every little thing helped.

My sincere suggestion to SDP is still focus on the upcoming elections and win the hearts of a specific group of voters, namely, that of an SMC or GRC. And to help with that chance, form an alliance with the other opposition parties to provide a common brand for the voters to choose from.

[i][quote]"In my previous previous dealing with Americans, they have repetitively shown themselves to be more "form, noise and show". I suppose they won't mind a Singaporean opportunist joining them for a show too."[/quote][/i]
Well I suppose they won't. After all they've allowed a Singaporean opportunist named Lee Kuan Yew into their country to participate in a businessmen's back-slapper show in NY just last week, haven't they?

Hmm, wonder why someone of Lee's self-importance would bother with people who have repetitively shown themselves to be more "form, noise and show"??? Does that mean that Lee is a kindred spirit chock-full of BS, smoke and lies too?

Is it a case of birds of a feather? What does your spider-sense tell you, BryanT?

Hello, have you heard this non-interference policy? on our local media

It is always good to make friends.

I heard the talk show on "The Lionel Show" but I was quite disappointed that Dr Chee didn't appear on the Ron Reagan.

While the points were quite well presented, there is one subject matter which I find Dr Chee is still quite hazy on and failed to elaborate on. While it is easy to critize economics policies, but there are no easy way out. The world is split into the haves in the North and the have-nots in the South. Unfortunately, capitalism and exploitation is the primary products of democracy led by US and its European counterparts, and the biggest culprit of them all is nonetheless USA - the least transparent, most protectionalist and primary culprit for world climate deterioration among the economic powerhouse. And hey, guess who is also the biggest loudhailer of liberalism - USA. So even if Obama brings the issue to the APEC table, which is suicidal considering US predicament now, it'll be nothing more than pure bullshit.

Oh by the way, why do we need President Obama to fight for the rights of Asian people? I think people are generally not stupid, and I keep stressing over and over again - STOP TALKING AS IF SINGAPOREANS ARE HOODWINKED AND AIR HEADED TO NOT KNOW OUR RIGHTS AND WE NEED SOME THIRD PARTIES TO TEACH THEM TO US. It's just different priorities!

In fact, I think Asians are very clever. Why all the talk about this right and that right, as long as money can be made, Asians just cannot be bothered with the elusive democracy.. unless their very rice bowl is threatened by a corrupted Government - my tencents worth.

There is a considerable audience for talk radio in the US. Unfortunately for Dr. Chee, Air America is not a radio station that many people listen to. Mostly, it is a radio station for the far left fringe, i.e. mostly nut jobs. Air America filed for bankruptcy protection and had to shut down many of its stations for a lack of listeners. According to the article, Dr Chee is NOT appearing on National Public Radio which has a wider audience. So, to g_e, BryanT is somewhat accurate in this case. The "movers and shakers" who do listen to talk radio like NPR do not listen to Air America in any significant numbers. But kudos to Dr Chee for making the effort. Hopefully, something good may result.

[quote][i]"Air America is not a radio station that many people listen to. Mostly, it is a radio station for the far left fringe, i.e. mostly nut jobs."[/i][/quote]

Well thank you for setting us right on that. I'm sure nobodies like Robert F. Kennedy Jr. (yeah, that family...), Arianna Huffington (Huffington vs Schwarzenegger for Governor of California 2003 ring any bells for you?), Ron Reagan (son of you know who...) amongst many others such as Democrat Senator Al Franken who gave up his 3-year AA slot to run for the Senate - you know, the assorted [i][b]nut jobs[/b][/i] who provide Air America programming - will be thrilled to discover that they are by your measure on the [i][b]'far left fringe'[/b][/i] of American politics. Heh! Will Fidel Castro be eagerly tuning in to AA to listen to Dr. Chee, do you think?

And thank you too for pointing out the bleeding obvious that [i]'Dr Chee is NOT appearing on National Public Radio'.[/i] Did someone say he was?

Mr. T made the sweeping and totally fatuous assertion that [i]'Americans who would listen to a “serious” radio-talk show is [sic] a rare and dying breed'[/i] and deservedly had his testicles gently kicked for a glaring untruth. He was by no stretch of the imagination [i]'somewhat accurate in this case'[/i]. That is all. Please do pay attention at the back of the class, BoredAccountant/BryanT.

Yes, I do consider Arianna Huffington, Ron Reagan, etc. as part of the far left fringe. Just because an individual has some famous parents or relatives or is friendly with members of the Democratic Party does not make them influential with the American public. After all, I was referring to influence with the general US public and not the left wing fringe or narrow minded star gazers like g_e. When Al Franken ran for the office of Senator of Minnesota his positions moderated. Regardless, just because you have some high profile names on Air America does not change the fact that their politics and message is aimed at the far left fringe. Celebrities and high profile politicians can be part of the political extreme. Would you consider Rush Limbaugh a main stream moderate? After all, he is far more popular than any of the people you mentioned.

As for Arianna Huffington, she received 0.55% of the vote in the election for California governor; hardly a heavy weight. By the way, a porn star also ran in that election / recall of Gray Davis. Is that porn star also an important political figure? Unless of course in your infinite wisdom, you consider 0.55% of the vote as being main stream and popular.

Maybe if you spent more time examining their political ideology and looking up the numbers than merely throwing names around, you would realize that.

Also, my point about Dr Chee was in response to your rant about NPR having a large audience. BryanT is off the mark when he claims that no one listens to the radio. I do not defend that statement. But his assertion that Dr Chee's interview may not reach that many Americans is correct, even if his premise is wrong, given that Air America's audience is tiny (after all they did have to file for bankruptcy protection). So, even if you are correct that NPR is widely popular (which is hardly the case given that the US has around 220 million adults versus 12 million listeners), Dr Chee did not appear on NPR. Again, the simple point is that Dr Chee appeared on a radio station with a small audience. So g_e, please take a breath, consider the facts lest you sound like an uneducated boob who enjoys throwing names around without getting the facts right. Maybe that is why you do need to sit in the front of the class, people like you need all the special attention from the teachers.

"Also, I [b]suspect[/b] that Americans who would listen to a “serious” radio-talk show is a rare and dying breed".

I [b]suspect[/b] that my [b]suspicions[/b] about Americans' listening habit has been made into a claim. Fancy that! Perhaps those sitting at the front of the class are hallucinating.

My mistake, NPR audience is 21 million according to g_e. Thought I would correct that myself before g_e goes on a self righteous rant again. Still, as a percentage of the adult population in the US, that number is hardly significant.

Also, if American tv is so "dire", why do so many of the "movers and shakers" and other members of the intelligentsia appear on tv? Why did the Obama Administration get so worked up over Fox News? Maybe it is the ability of tv to reach and influence many more Americans.

Again, I am not claiming that radio is becoming irrelevant, but it is not the potent force that g_e seems to think it is.

Hmm, I see. So anyone left of Franco and right of Bush would be considered 'far left fringe nut jobs' according to your political view, huh? Oh-kay dude. You're entitled to your views but don't expect everyone to share them, will you?

For the highly-educated, broad-minded, na-boob which you insinuate you are, you seem to be remarkably adept at missing the wood for the straw. Let's see what you're whingeing on about.

First, you continue to rave on about the audience figures and popularity or otherwise of AirAmerica and NPR. Please do show us where on this entire page (apart from your own posts, that is) those points are in dispute? Did anyone say AA had a huge following? Was it necessary to bore us yet again with the news that [i]"Dr Chee did not appear on NPR"[/i]?

Second, you might consider NPR's audience of 21 million (2008 figures), 10% of the US adult population, insignificant but given the huge diversity of American society not to mention its size and competing media, others would beg to differ. But I'm sure that we're ingnorant savages and you know best, of course.

Third, remember this line Mr. FarRightWing BoredAccountant? [i]"Also, I suspect that Americans who would listen to a “serious” radio-talk show is a rare and dying breed..."[/i]? That is what this argument is basically about and that was why the example of NPR was put forward to rebut a dishonesty.

For reasons of your own, you chose to leap in with a crude attempt to put down and belittle Dr. Chee's US radio appearances with, [i]"Unfortunately for Dr. Chee, Air America is not a radio station that many people listen to. Mostly, it is a radio station for the far left fringe, i.e. mostly nut jobs."[/i] If you'd left it at the first sentence we wouldn't be having this conversation but you couldn't resist adding the gratuitous remark. Nice try, but quite irrelevant to the topic.

It's interesting to know exactly where you're coming from though. Arianna Huffington received 0.55% of the vote, therefore she's unworthy. Dr. Chee received no votes at all this time around, so presumably he's also a complete waste of time?

Good heavens, a porn star had the temerity to stand for public office! How dare she, the brazen hussy would have been stoned in Singapore. Well, I'm sure Vladimir Luxuria (transgender ex-European Parliament MP), Georgina Beyer (NZ transgender MP) and Ilona Staller (porn-star and Italian politician) would love to hear your explanation as to why their lifestyle makes them a less important species. Heh. It's a good job the rest of the world doesn't share your notion of what constitutes inclusiveness.

Oh dear, there I go again - it's so addictive throwing names around without getting the facts right, isn't it? Oh well, might as well be hanged for a sheep as for a senile 86-year old goat, as they say.

As a matter of interest I do remember Arianna Huffington well from when she was Arianna Stassinopoulos and a fixture on British radio, TV and the broadsheets. Very attractive, right-wing, highly intelligent and as articulate as you would wish of an Oxbridge grad.

She was also the long-time lover of Bernard Levin, famed Times columnist and scourge of dictators everywhere, in particular a certain Mr. Lee Kuan Yew of the phony democracy, Singapore. He so enraged the ahem, [i]mother[/i] of our nation that Lee offered to pay for a full-page ad in The Times to rebut Levin's stinging critique, to which the Times politely replied, "F-off" in the nicest possible way. Despite the extreme provocation though, Lee shied away from suing either Levin or the Times for defamation in a British court of law. We're all still reeling from his moment of uncharacteristic modesty.

But enough of this gay banter. As you profess to be an accountant and a boring one at that, may I suggest a change of career? How about something more exciting instead - like lion taming?
[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XMOmB1q8W4Y[/url]

Never did say that I wanted or expected anyone else to share my views. As a critic of the PAP, you surely would appreciate the right of expression. Also, never did claimed that I knew best. Just a personal assessment of the situation based on the facts. No need to get so hysterical g_e. You do not appear to be ignorant g_e, excitable and delusional, but not ignorant.

I think you are still missing the point g_e. The argument about the audience for Air America relates to the BryanT's conclusion that Dr Chee's interview on Air America may not be as effective as hoped. BryanT reached that conclusion with incorrect premises, but his ultimate conclusion is correct. I see you do not disagree with that conclusion then? Again, note that I disagreed with BryanT's premise the listeners to serious radio are a dying breed. But his conclusion is still correct despite his false premise.

Arianna Huffington is a nobody when it comes to influencing the American electorate. It does not mean that she is unworthy (however you define it), just inconsequential when it comes to influencing voters. If you read my reply carefully, you will notice that I never said she was unworthy. So please calm down and pay attention before you launch into a pugnacious and elitist tirade. "Straw man" fallacy, anyone? Dr Chee may not have won any votes, but he is influential in steering the national, political debate and perhaps influencing the voters. The same cannot be said for Arianna H.

With regards to the porn star, it was merely an example of how the 2003 election in California became a circus and how easy it is to run for governor. It is in response to your point that somehow Arianna Huffington was a heavy weight just because she ran against Arnold Schwarzenegger. That particular porn star ran in the election for publicity and never hitherto showed any political talent. So, the standards for letting candidates run in that election were quite low. Hence, just because Arianna H. ran, it does not necessarily mean anything (hence, my comment about your name throwing). Porn stars aren't lesser humans. Also, they have the same rights as everyone. But this does not mean that I should take a porn star seriously as a political leader. Convince me otherwise, and he/she has my vote.

Geez, g_e, you miss the target so much I feel like I should buy you a seeing eye dog. The name is BoredAccountant, not boring accountant. As in, I am an Accountant and I am bored. Nice try though. Distorting the name to try to sound clever. Still, you get an A for effort in trying to be amusing. Nah, I think I will give lion taming a miss and stick to being the amoral lawyer I have become.

[quote][i]'So g_e, please take a breath, consider the facts lest you sound like an uneducated boob...'

'You do not appear to be ignorant g_e, excitable and delusional, but not ignorant.'[/i][/quote]
You're awfully fickle, Mr. Bored Accountant/Morally-bankrupt Lawyer/Nut-eating Surrender-monkey/whatever. Do make up your mind which it is. Still, for what we are about to receive, may the lord make us truly thankful.

I'm afraid I find your response is of the tiresome 'You said - I didn't say' variety — which is a sure sign of someone on wobbly ground becoming defensive and, I have to point out, slightly hysterical. It's mildly amusing to jerk your illiberal chain but let's move along.

I'll tell you why I make an effort to reply to comments which attempt to disparage and belittle the effort put in by Dr. Chee and his people to raise their profile in the eyes of the world. It's the lifeline which saves folk like him, Aung San, Morgan Tsvangirai, Han Dongfang, et al - dissidents all - from the totalitarian meat-grinder that would disappear them in a trice if international eyes and ears were not watching and listening and taking notes.

Sure Chee can be harassed and even jailed but he is spared the actual bodily harm that was the fate of PAP's earlier luckless opponents. That is only because he has a high public profile. Destroy that and he is toast. Now, I can understand a doppelgänger like the BryanT entity doing its utmost to undermine Chee and the SDP, but what is your excuse?

And finally. Thank you for the English lecture on the meaning of 'bored' vs 'boring'. Regrettably, you've seized upon the bleeding obvious as usual. How about exercising a little imagination for a change, Yoda?

If there was one point the clip went to great lengths to put across it was that accountancy is desperately boring, no? It does not say 'accountants are bored', it says unequivocally "accountants are dull and BORING". In case you missed it:

[i]'... but you see your report here says that you are an extremely dull person. You see, our experts describe you as an appallingly dull fellow, unimaginative, timid, lacking in initiative, spineless, easily dominated, no sense of humour, tedious company and irrepressibly drab and awful. And whereas in most professions these would be considerable drawbacks, in chartered accountancy they are a positive boon.'[/i]

There. You are by your own admission an accountant. Thus by definition you are a BORING accountant. Geddit? You could well be bored too, but that isn't the point. Doh, I can hardly believe I'm having to explain a joke to a lawyer in words of one syllable!

Wow, stop the presses! g_e found a youtube video that definitively proves that all accountants are boring. I did not know that someone did an authoritative and peer reviewed study on accountants and determined that all accountants are dull and boring so that you can unequivocably say that accountants = boring automatically. Glad I am no longer an accountant.

If you are going to "appeal to authority" to try to bolster your arguments, at least look for someone or some organization that is recognized to be authoritative. But then, I am not surprised at your feeble effort given that you used Arianna H. and Ron Reagan as examples of influential people.

You sure you aren't BryanT in disguise? The way you jump to conclusions and make grand and unsubstantiated pronouncements sure reminds me of him.

I know, before your post, I too thought that the distinction between bored and boring was obvious, but then you came along... Also, I do find that I repeat myself often in these postings. But I have no choice given that you cannot seem to grasp basic arguments and show little understanding of the principles of logic and reasoning. Alright, I admit it, I am now calling you ignorant on this narrow issue. I might actually take your criticisms more seriously if you bothered to respond to the arguments instead of making unsubstantiated remarks on the strength or weakness of my arguments. Just saying that my arguments are weak does not make it a fact. So, please enlighten me. I know your current classmates in primary school may argue that way but I was hoping that you can rise above it.

Did I not commend Dr Chee on his efforts? It is possible to support Dr Chee and point out that certain of his actions may not be as effective as thought or desired. It is called being intellectually honest and mature. Try it and maybe you might even come to enjoy it. Questioning the effectiveness of the interview does not diminish Dr Chee's profile. Is Dr Chee somehow less popular or visible by appearing on a radio station with a small audience? Worse case, Dr Chee did not enhance his standing but this does not mean that he was hurt by the interview. Dr Chee deserves supporters who will give him a sobering assessment of his admirable efforts and enterprise and not some hysterical zealot that you are unfortunately starting to sound like.

Erm, I hate to rain on your tirade Mr. Accountant but the "appeal to authority" is all in your fervid imagination and your handy copy of Practical Logic for Dummies. The video clip was (and still is) a well-loved satire, a classic sendup of the accountancy profession and above all, a fine J_O_K_E — hardly what anyone sane would cite as an authoritative reference. Shame you missed that bit though you do win the jackpot for substantiating Monty Python's assertion that accountants also [i]"...have no sense of humour...".[/i]

But you are quite correct in suspecting that you're repeating yourself to death. Suffering from Alzheimer's or a sorry lack of ammunition perhaps. Whatever your affliction, if you've managed to read thus far without moving your lips, maybe you could comment on how your gratuitous sneer that Dr. Chee would only be listened to by [i]"the far left fringe, i.e. mostly nut jobs"[/i] sits with your ungracious: [i]"Did I not commend Dr Chee on his efforts"[/i]? Doesn't that sound to you rather like a kiss on the cheek followed by a swift knife in the ribs in true BrutusT style?

BTW, I notice that you're becoming ever more agitated and shrill with each response. If it helps lower your blood pressure, I'll gladly concede your 'intellectually honest and mature' approach, your sober no-nonsense fashion sense, and that you're not a complete bore since some parts are still missing. There y'go, now you can safely wipe the angry tears away with your spreadsheet and be as cheerful as a Lim Swee Suay looking at his CPF statement.