Singapore Democrats

I thought we always welcome foreign investment? The Singapore pledge says we have to build a Democratic society for the good of our countrymen and what is wrong with getting a little help from friends?

Dr Chee's sticking to Principles is Pure Beauty.

Hi Dr. Chee,
Kudos to you for your honesty and principle.
We are with you even though not in pshyical sense but united in spirit from all over the world.

The price you pay is heavy but the rewards will be great by God's grace in the distant future.
You have make the inroad for the next generations to reclaim, What is rightfull theirs in this land.

We know the the truth the MSM is always spinning their news in such way to please the lap dogs.
who bank roll their hidden agenda.

The one who called you ganster,a psychopath and traitor, who walk in the corridor of power will one day have to face all the misdeeds for the abuse they have committed to innocent people.(through their own generation). Who will bear the burden of their fore-fathers.History has proven it will always it repeat itself.Justice and truth will always prevail at the end.

Cheers and hang on there

Dr Chee,

Many Singaporeans do not understand why you do what you do because they are only concern about themselves and would never, never put themselves in your shoes. The amount of sacrifice you have out in to yourself & family, most would never have done for the country. Because they cannot envisage themselves doing it, they think that you are a fool, idiot & crazy. Why waste your time on this country? Just emigrate. Thank you for being the light for people to follow.

Re: "It is certainly not that I was evading her questions because I am being paid by a foreigner to ruin Singapore. Think about it: Who would want to pay me to ruin what?"

Yes, WHO would want you, Dr Chee, to 'ruin' Singapore if ruining Singapore means that you work against the interests of Singapore, or more specifically MY interests and the interests of other Singaporeans?

I would NOT vote for you if that there were to be case.

This report by the LHZB reporter - not that it is in any way an isolated opinion or an isolated smear campaign by the PAP establishment - only cements their own xenophobia.

And there is a very good, and incidentally an opportunistic reason for their xenophobia. They know only too well that the political oppression inflicted on ALL Singaporeans by the PAP government has resulted in a deskilling and a loss of capabilities in Singaporeans; any contact with foreigners who are better equipped than Singaporeans are with those capabilities can only result in increased capabilities in whom they don't want those capabilities developed.

Two words: SOUR GRAPES!

Yew Lun Tian wrote in her facebook:

"Rumours have long been flying around about Dr Chee being bankrolled by foreign money.
I feel it is valid to put this to Dr Chee because such rumours may affect his credibility as a politician.

For eg, if George Bush had received money from weapons company, wouldn't American voters want to know that before deciding if they want to support his Iraq war?

If Dr Chee did not receive foreign money, then this is a great opportunity for him to dispel this rumour in front of a national audience.
If he did receive foreign money, he could have used this opportunity to explain why he think there's nothing wrong in doing so."

Interestingly, she chose the word "bankrolled" and one can quite clearly summised thet she had the intention of entrapment, knowing full well that the word itself is loaded.

In her transcript, assuming it is accurate, she chose to put her question this way:

"Q: If you don't mind me asking you a very rude question, but it's something my readers want to know. The perception is that you are bankrolled, funded, by overseas money. Would you like to use this chance to tell them..."

If you put forward a question like this how would one be expected to answer. Let me put it this way: if Dr Chee had be working for say an overseas institution, just like LKY holding directorship in Overseas banks, should Chee answer yes to been "Bankrolled" by overseas agent. I mean if I decided to run for politics and I worked for say an MNC, let's say Google for example, as a programner or contractor so should I be considered to be bankrolled by overseas agent. Would she be implying that I have become an agent of Google to take over the world?

The question itself is clearly quite evasive. So clearly deserve an evasive answer.

Now did she try to qualify her question? Let's see her transcript further:

Q: Is it ok if I write that you live in Toa Payoh..?
A: Yeah it's ok. I live very simply. Life choices, I've made my choice.

Q: Do you mind me asking how many room flat?
A: That's ah ah ah... But it's a very humble... It is no secret, it is a three-room flat. I make very simple life choice. We don't live glamorously. We get by. But the important thing is we put the resources into the cause I fight for.

Q: People may find it hard to think you can keep a family, just on books.
A: Whatever I can live on. Sometimes we get help, I mean not help lah. People, relatives and so on and so forth. It does get into a, a...

Q: So people are wrong to say you've been getting money?
A: I don't know, where do you get this. People keep saying. I don't..

Q: If they are wrong, then I can write that they are wrong. I'll say they are wrong.
A: No, I mean, I've always write as an academic, you get research, you apply for research grants. I've gone overseas. I've got some awards for writing. Had stints overseas where fellowships that kind of thing. These things all helped a bit. I write research grants that kind of thing.

Q: Research on democracy?
A: er, other things lah. Not just, different areas as well.

Q: Which areas? Psychology?
A: Sometimes they are all related, human behavior, different things.

Now at some point Chee says that he has applied for overseas grant. True but that constitute being bankrolled?

Further she pressed on with weird line of questioning asking about subject matter, from persumably writings funded by overseas agent. See how she pick up the word "Democracy" clearly to tar Chee as that word itself is loaded. Question why pick on those subject?

Also why is funding on those subject areas constituted as being "Bankrolled"?

If she was so concerned that Chee been "bankrolled" by overseas organisation to the detriment of Singapore why don't she just asked direct questions?

Why don't she just ask "Are you been paid by blah blah intelligence agencies, to push this blah blah blah policy in Singapore?"

Or why don't she just ask who paid to help you write this book or that book?

So why is she being so evasive?

Talk about pot and kettle.

Further evidence about evasiveness from Yew.

For someone who claims to be an "objective" journalist, her reasoning for asking the kind of question of Chee itself brings doubt about her real intention.

The crux of her reasoning for that line of question is that (a) Chee is a local politician; (b) has the potential to run for office; (c) so if he stood for election must therefore let electorate know his "bankrolled" background.

Her reason for (a) is valid. So we can give her a thumb up for being "objective" there.

Reason (b) is invalidated by the fact that she should know fully well that Chee is bankrupt so can't run for office for the next election. So why pick on his person circumstance for making a living even if it was from overseas as an example something sinister?

Comparing Chee to Bush circumstances is to totally miss the mark or worst still by avoiding the context of the two personalities and lumping the two as analogies can only be construed as being evasive herself. If not a case of flawed comparative reasoning.

If her defence was that Chee been the SG of SDP could "influence" Singapore politics through his party members and Chee being "bankrolled" by overseas means that those overseas influencer manipulate Singapore Politics by proxy, then why did she not put the question to Chee as an SG rather than his personal circumstance. Why not ask a direct question like "Did your Party receive funding from overseas?"

She didn't. Why is she so evasive couching her question with weasly tenious links to subject matters of Chee's writing using loaded words like "Democracies"?

If her reasoning that she was not aware of Chee Bankrupt status and implication for running for office, then she is really a crap journalist.

Reason (c) In a way, this reasoning is invalidated by (b) but even if you put aside (b), the way the question is asked suggest that she seemed more to entrap Chee than a genuine line of questioning.

For example, a truly "objective" would have approached Chee with some smoking gun evidence. For example, if she had evidence of links with overseas, putting aside her exact definition of "Bankrolled", she could have asked Chee this way, for example,: "I have a quote from blah blah overseas agent that blah blah has been paying you to write books about democracy, can you clarify if this statement is true?". Now that would have been what I call an truly "objective" journalism. At least she has something direct to ask and if Chee chose to avoid answering that question it is a more believable case of evasion.

Otherwise, asking evasive questions and then claiming respondent answers to those questions itself raise in my mind a case pot and kettle. Not what I call "objective" journalism.

On her point:

"Without much fuss or deliberation, my direct superior gave me approval to do this interview".

This statement was used as defence that she was not directed to do the interview. True, she may not have been asked by her superior to interview Chee but that does not negate the fact that she might not have let her superior, direct or otherwise, present the articles to cast Chee "bankrolled" bogey.

If she let her superior dictate what to be included in her article, she defence of not being directed (i.e. censor or embellish) can only be viewed as half truth, right? Case of being evasive?

If her argument was that she had to have her article (censored or embellished) by her superior than as an "objective" she should have use her journalistic intellect to make sure she didn't present materials she was not sure about. After all she needn't have gone for that "bankroll" line of questionings so when she presented her transcript to her superior she would not need to be put in an awkward position.Further evidence about evasiveness from Yew.

For someone who claims to be an "objective" journalist, her reasoning for asking the kind of question of Chee itself brings doubt about her real intention.

The crux of her reasoning for that line of question is that (a) Chee is a local politician; (b) has the potential to run for office; (c) so if he stood for election must therefore let electorate know his "bankrolled" background.

Her reason for (a) is valid. So we can give her a thumb up for being "objective" there.

Reason (b) is invalidated by the fact that she should know fully well that Chee is bankrupt so can't run for office for the next election. So why pick on his person circumstance for making a living even if it was from overseas as an example something sinister?

Comparing Chee to Bush circumstances is to totally miss the mark or worst still by avoiding the context of the two personalities and lumping the two as analogies can only be construed as being evasive herself. If not a case of flawed comparative reasoning.

If her defence was that Chee been the SG of SDP could "influence" Singapore politics through his party members and Chee being "bankrolled" by overseas means that those overseas influencer manipulate Singapore Politics by proxy, then why did she not put the question to Chee as an SG rather than his personal circumstance. Why not ask a direct question like "Did your Party receive funding from overseas?"

She didn't. Why is she so evasive couching her question with weasly tenious links to subject matters of Chee's writing using loaded words like "Democracies"?

If her reasoning that she was not aware of Chee Bankrupt status and implication for running for office, then she is really a crap journalist.

Reason (c) In a way, this reasoning is invalidated by (b) but even if you put aside (b), the way the question is asked suggest that she seemed more to entrap Chee than a genuine line of questioning.

For example, a truly "objective" would have approached Chee with some smoking gun evidence. For example, if she had evidence of links with overseas, putting aside her exact definition of "Bankrolled", she could have asked Chee this way, for example,: "I have a quote from blah blah overseas agent that blah blah has been paying you to write books about democracy, can you clarify if this statement is true?". Now that would have been what I call an truly "objective" journalism. At least she has something direct to ask and if Chee chose to avoid answering that question it is a more believable case of evasion.

Otherwise, asking evasive questions and then claiming respondent answers to those questions itself raise in my mind a case pot and kettle. Not what I call "objective" journalism.

On her point:

"Without much fuss or deliberation, my direct superior gave me approval to do this interview".

This statement was used as defence that she was not directed to do the interview. True, she may not have been asked by her superior to interview Chee but that does not negate the fact that she might not have let her superior, direct or otherwise, present the articles to cast Chee "bankrolled" bogey.

If she let her superior dictate what to be included in her article, she defence of not being directed (i.e. censor or embellish) can only be viewed as half truth, right? Case of being evasive?

If her argument was that she had to have her article (censored or embellished) by her superior than as an "objective" she should have use her journalistic intellect to make sure she didn't present materials she was not sure about. After all she needn't have gone for that "bankroll" line of questionings so when she presented her transcript to her superior she would not need to be put in an awkward position.

PAP propaganda mouthpieces are masquerading as "mainstream media". Anyone who is aware of the Newspapers and Printing Presses Act (NPPA) would know that there is no way for any individuals or businesses to start and operate a newspaper without the PAP okaying it. Under NPPA, the PAP government even decides who should be appointed as editor. The SPH is headed by a former deputy prime minister and staffed by ex-ISD operatives.

The media scene is under the jackboot of the authoritarian regime whose supremo is still the undisputed octogenarian Lee Kuan Yew.

The SDP and other genuine oppositionists should avoid entertaining PAP poodles who go around as reporters/journalists.

It’s worth recalling here what the late Mr David Marshall, Singapore’s first chief minister said about the Straits Times. They are the “running dogs and poor prostitutes of the PAP”. That’s what Mr Marshall had to say about our so-called mainstream media.

One thing is for sure and she underestimated about Dr Chee, a certified neuropsychologist, was that Dr.Chee can easily 'catch' or 'read' her behaviour or response. Didn't she get it when Dr Chee said about studying human behaviour? (and she somewhat dismissed that word related upon her interview - trying to study a person who is already studying her) LoL

Despite knowing what will become of him by the media, Dr Chee still showed his trust with the MSM in the hope that perhaps this one time, maybe this one time, this reporter is trying to being honest. Only maybe, right?

Dear Dr Chee, no matter what, if the SPH is still under PAP, even if for another 8 years (God forbid), never trust them as yet. Even if the House of Parliament has 50% oppo sitting on it. Unless they manage to crush PAP's grip on media.

A snake will always be a cold blooded snake.

Lianhe Zaobao's Ms Yew Tun Lian did not so much conduct an interview as an interrogation of Dr. Chee from the sound of it. No one asks the SAME question SEVEN times, each time differently worded, without having an ulterior motive in the back of their head. Given that it is an open secret that all of SPH is riddled with ISD operatives (as is de rigueur for a police state in all but name), it is not at all unreasonable to assume that the devious Miss Yew is an agent cut from the same cloth as the notorious Chua sisters of ST fame.

It is pretty clear that she set out with one objective in mind, that is to trawl for and triumphantly brandish before an increasingly sceptical Singaporean audience the tiniest flaw that she could trick Dr. Chee into admitting. Her single-minded focus on his personal lifestyle, sources of funding, the nasty innuendo about foreign anti-Singapore fingers in the SDP pie, the sly use of pejorative language like 'bankrolled by...', speaks volumes of her agenda and training.

Fortunately Dr. Chee smelled a rat, a female one, and sidestepped the snares carefully laid in his path. Which left Miss Yew no other choice but to accuse him of being 'evasive' - which he actually was since he wouldn't take a bite of the poisoned cheese she generously offered him!

It has to be said that her article was about as innocent of guile as a puppy sitting next to a pile of poo. The subsequent backlash made her scramble for her Facebook get-out-of-jail card which only cemented suspicion of her motives in everyone's eyes. Poor Miss Yew is now tainted goods - for which person with a reputation to protect would ever grant her an interview with this example of her journalistic integrity in tatters before their very eyes?

We learn at least two lessons from this little episode.

(1) Nothing has changed vis-a-vis PAP's approach to SDP. It is still regarded as the former's most credible opponent and shouts of a new dawn in relations between the two are about as ludicrous today as they were decades ago.

(2) A nervous Lee still fears Dr. Chee enough to continue to strive to 'demolish' him, to use a favourite word of the old one. That really is something for him to be proud of, seeing as they've already driven him into bankruptcy, jailed him more times than he's had hot dinners and thrown everything but the kitchen sink at him.

And Dr. Chee is stil standing tall. Bravo!

By living in a 3 room HDB flat, Dr Chee has refused to play the Property Bubble Game. Singaporeans should take note of this Wisdom.

I believe Singaporeans are more worried about the Government funding and supporting FTs at the expense of Singapore born citizens.