Singapore Democrats

I look forward to hearing BryanT's reply to this.

BryanT, steer clear off this thread and all other topics you know nothing about.

Political health warning – read only if willing to tolerate divergent views (and be “informed” of others' opinions).

I still opine that CD (not civil defence) as a means to achieving the ends of greater democratisation is self-defeating - the so-called democracy itself would be hobbled the moment it crosses the startline.

The reliance on defiance and exploitation of illegal means (even if non-violent) to achieve one's aims are the exact proverbial “psychological wheelchair” that will handicap the end-result. Of course, one can choose to be blind to this eventually, for the sake of political expediency.

More aptly, the image for CD should be of one strapped to a wheelchair, swinging a sledge-hammer. Exhilaratingly theatrical, conducive to some sympathy, perhaps exciting to watch, but hardly constructive and best kept at a good safety distance (from the swinging hammer). It is the form of politics that almost all Singaporeans rightfully and correctly shun and should not hesitate to continue to do so.

It is indeed true that changes are often initiated by a few; the collective inertia for the masses to overcome is high. But the few (of the few) who eventually succeed are those who are invariably supported by the masses right from the beginning. The masses must identify with the causes and correspondingly, the few must be in tuned (and informed) of what the masses desire and what the masses see as reasonable means to attain these. Otherwise, the actions of the “informed” few will not only fizzle out eventually, but be shunted repeatedly. We can then question whether or what they were really “informed” of .

There are indeed many instances whereby a few have indeed led their people to better futures. But we must remind ourselves of those prominent cases where the few were able to win the masses over, led them successfully, but ended up on the dubious end of history. Lenin, Hitler, Mao and perhaps even Suharto, come to mind.

BryanT: "But we must remind ourselves of those prominent cases where the few were able to win the masses over, led them successfully, but ended up on the dubious end of history. Lenin, Hitler, Mao and perhaps even Suharto, come to mind."

We must also remind ourselves of those who won the masses over and ended up on right side of history. Martin Luther King, Mahatma Gandhi, Kim Dae Jung, Lech Walesa, Shih Ming Teh, Vaclav Havel, Shih Ming-teh, Nelson Mandela, Benigno Aquino and several more come to mind.

Anyway your closing point quotes Lenin, Hitler, Mao and Suharto as bad examples. That helps to reinforce Dr Chee's point that if you resort to violence, things will always end in tragedy.

"I still opine that CD (not civil defence) as a means to achieving the ends of greater democratisation is self-defeating"

It surprises me that you still stubbornly and naively believe in dogmas and superstitions unsupported by evidence. You are truly a leader of the Dark Age, and can contribute nothing to the scientific, factual and evidence-based article by SDP, and hence the betterment of the people.

There are, in fact, two things, science and opinion; the former begets knowledge, the latter ignorance. - Hippocrates, the father of medical practise

BryanT says:

"The reliance on defiance and exploitation of illegal means (even if non-violent) to achieve one's aims are the exact proverbial “psychological wheelchair” that will handicap the end-result. Of course, one can choose to be blind to this eventually, for the sake of political expediency."

Er one could say that your reliance on nit-picking on what is said in the article and you choose to be blind to the merits CD for the sake of being negative is exactly the same sentiment as you said about the SDP.

Oh I guess another case of BryanT's hypocrisy.

Seelan, if you are saying that I have inadvertently reinforced CSJ's point that violence is repugnant, then you are absolutely right. But it was never a point of contention.

If it needed CSJ (or yourself) to remind us, then we should be grateful.

However, my view was on CD, and the hypothesis goes this way:

If CD + violence is wrong,
and we agree that violence is no good,
that does not imply that CD is good. QED!

Also, I would like SDP, yourself or even CSJ to tell us based on the uprising initiated by those historical characters cited (Martin Luther King, Mahatma Gandhi, Kim Dae Jung, Lech Walesa, Shih Ming Teh, Vaclav Havel, Shih Ming-teh, Nelson Mandela, Benigno Aquino), how many were able to avoid any incidences of violence throughout their campaigns which may have started with peaceful intents.

My belief is that even if the activists had wanted the CD to be non-violent, it almost inevitability ended in bloodshed. Even if the small group of "informed" ones wanted it to be non-violent, when the masses are eventually involved, the control can't be total (and since they would never be as "informed").

Also, violence, if ever perpetrated by the authorities in South Africa, American, or the Philippines, is still, at last, .....violence. And violence begets violence.

CD begets CD, and who is to decide which is justifiable? Who is to say the "uninformed" can't initiate CD?

BTW, you broke a promise. I won't try to remind you what it is.

Are you saying that Gandhi is a violent man while the British police is peaceful?

So the ones holding and shooting guns are peaceful while the ones not, are violent?

If that is so, since SDP is following the example of Gandhi, does that mean SDP is violent? If that is the case, should ISD arrest SDP?

Once you start your argument with a self-contradiction, you can deduce whatever rubbish you want. That is what BryanT is doing.

Stupid said: "My belief is that even if the activists had wanted the CD to be non-violent, it almost inevitability ended in bloodshed. Even if the small group of "informed" ones wanted it to be non-violent, when the masses are eventually involved, the control can't be total."

Eh Stupid, ever heard of the HK protest or Malaysian protest? Any bloodshed? If police don't get violent, people don't get violent, understand? Bloodshed almost always start with authorities, understand? Ever heard of agent provocateurs?

By the way, how come whenever Stupid appear that Boring Accountant disappear and vice-versa?

BryanT is again spraining his tongue in comment number 3.

First off, allow me to assure BryanT I am indeed tolerant of divergent views.

However in this comment, BryanT spends the first four paragraphs glorifying his conclusions using the wheelchair metaphor rather than explaining how he arrived at them.

Unfortunately, neither do the final two paragraphs add much value to his argument.

BryanT asserts we must have mass support before success is possible. That is correct. But in order to get mass support, a leader must take the stand and use his powers of persuasion as well as his deeds to sway the masses. Such a leader must invariably press on with his cause even when faced with intense criticism from his detractors. That is precisely what Martin Luther King Jr did, and that is also what Dr Chee is doing. BryanT has dismissed Dr Chee's endeavour even before giving it a fair chance.

Just as Martin Luther King was in tune with his comrades' desire for equality and end to racial segregation, so Dr Chee is in my opinion also in tune with Singaporeans' desire for a fairer and more just society. Of course the elites will claim that society is fair, as the PAP has provided well for them. But how about the working class? How about those whose income, jobs, security, and rights have been taken away? Is BryanT speaking for them when he insinuates that Dr Chee is not in tune with their desires?

BryanT's examples of Lenin, Hitler, Mao are biased. Unlike Dr Chee and Martin Luther King Jr, these people did not base their ideology on a rock solid foundation of non-violent action, equality and respect for human rights. Lenin fought for the workers, but imprisoned them by robbing them of the power to produce and innovate. Hilter advocated violence as a means to an end, and he believed some humans to be inferior to others, in contradiction to the principles of justice and equality of all humans. Mao too fought for the peasant class, but he allowed them to run amok and he condoned the use of violence as well.

The masses will be won over if they recognize the rightness of the cause Dr Chee is fighting. The verdict is still out whether Dr Chee will eventually succeed. In this case, BryanT is merely speaking for his own prejudices and not basing his arguments on reason and logic.

E-Jay

I am posting here two comments by BryanT taken from two seperate posts in the following discussion thread:

http://www.yoursdp.org/index.php/news/singapore/3274-going-to-jail-is-least-of-chee-siok-chins-concerns

Re: "Thanks to a more conscious and globally-aware population and alternative voices, the ruling party is much more apprehensive in taking steps to curb dissension. It is not a vote-winner (and rather stupid) to be too "rough"...Taking overt oppressive steps in this changed political environment are VOTE-LOSERS, and I am sure the ruling party is very conscious of these. I suppose the “light-touches” will be become more the norm in future."

The pertinent questions to ask are:

1. How did Singapore's population become 'more conscious and globally-aware'?

2. While it's true that 'alternative voices' have always existed, these voices have not only grown in terms of their collective intellectual capacity, but the decibel levels of their voices have also been steadily rising. How did this come about?

By magic? Did this phenomenon suddenly and almost imperceptibly descend upon Singaporeans from the sky? (I hope we have all outgrown fairy tales at this age.)

And, puh-leez, don't tell us that it is the Internet. The internet is merely an inanimate tool; PEOPLE need to work this tool and the internet is only as effective as the people, such as the SDP, who use it to advance their causes.

3. Who were the catalysts for exposing the criminal law-breaking proclivities of the PAP and the ensuing discussions on CD if not the SDP, the only leading edge political party in Singapore?

4. Is it even remotely possible that the great embarrassment cause by the exposure of the PAP's criminality is the reason that 'the ruling party is much more apprehensive in taking steps to curb dissension'?

5. Is it even remotely possible that the criminals in the PAP now realize that taking 'overt oppressive steps in this changed political environment are VOTE-LOSERS' because the 'changed political environment' indicates that SDP's CD initiatives not only enjoy wider support than its detractors dare to believe, but the support is entirely due to the realization that the SDP's cause is a righteous one?

Only those who suffer from a chronic state of denial clouded by their spitefulness towards one person and one person alone, Dr Chee, would NOT answer the #4 and #5 in the affirmative.

6. Why then would we - those who can think long-term - be surprised that 'the ruling party is very conscious of these' or that 'the “light-touches” will be become more the norm in future'?

I would even go further and speculate that the SDP's recent acquittals on three cases were the direct result of CD for one reason and one reason only: the SDP's CD campaign has exposed the true insidious nature of the PAP's criminal tendencies and their illegal governance.

And who wins?

Sure, the most direct winners are the SDP.

But ulimately, it is ALL Singaporeans who win from a political environment that has lightened up and will continue to do so - no magic involved here?

Specifically, it is the previously mercilessly extinguished left flank of politics in Singapore (and those who benefit from the ideologies of the left) who will win because the SDP will have to be allowed to do its work as a political party unhindered by the PAP's criminal actions.

Period!

Stupid also said: "Even if the small group of "informed" ones wanted it to be non-violent, when the masses are eventually involved, the control can't be total."

That's exactly why, in functioning democracies, protests - especially the large ones - have police personnel accompanying them: to maintain public order even while granting the citizens the right to protest.

It's called finding the right balance in priorities, an ability that is indeed very elusive in Singapore's criminal legislators and law enforcers.

PROBLEM: There are an entire slew of unjust laws, and unjust laws are usually also unconstitutional. Clearly, the unjust laws that the SDP is seeking to change are those that hamper its ability to function normally as a political party in a multi-party polity. (Or why grant them and other political parties the legal status of a political parties in the first place?)

SOLUTION: Unconstitutional laws need to be challenged, and there are only two ways to do this:

a) the parliamentary route; or,

b) the equally lawful extra-parliamentary route by way of a constitutional court challenge.

THE PARLIAMENTARY ROUTE

The problem with taking the parliamentary route is already well known: you need to have 50% plus one vote in Parliament to effect a change in legislation that the criminal law-breakers in the PAP have put into place. With the criminal PAP having rigged the electoral system to ensure that this can never happen for the opposition parties as well as ex-opposition parties, the parliamentary route for change in legislation can be ruled out.

THE EXTRA-PARLIAMENTARY ROUTE

There are two ways that this can be happen:

a) If a Singaporean sues the government by issuing a constitutional challenge in court. However, this means that the legal costs have to be borne by the litigant and with the legal costs deliberately made so prohibitive – so that Singaporeans cannot afford to seek redress for any injustice – this alternative can also be ruled out. (I read once in Yawningbread that if LGBTs issued a constitutional challenge to knock down S 377a, it would cost the litigant/s $20 000 per day of hearing; such challenges are very unlikely to last just one day.)

b) Deliberately court arrest by breaking those laws – that are themselves the result of the PAP’s breaking of constitutional laws – so that the same court challenge as in a) above can be issued: civil disobedience.

What choice would a rational individual make given the above scenario?

Footnote:

Ex-opposition parties are the political party equivalent of ex-gays. In exactly the same way that I would not pin my hopes for LGBT rights on Shawn Tay’s circle of ex-gays at COOS, I would not be holding my breath that those ex-opposition parties will initiate or effect much-needed change in Singapore. My hopes rest with the SDP and CD.

In an effort to give courage to the feint of heart who appear from time to time on these pages, and who seem to fear the pain of change more than they welcome the arduous journey toward inalienable rights, and to more fully justify the necessity of the use of civil disobedience in Singapore's struggle to win, above all else, equal dignity and universal human rights, Dr. Martin Luther King's grand 'I Have Been to the Mountaintop' speech, delivered on April 3, 1968, in Memphis, Tennessee, says it for the ages...

"Let us rise up tonight with a greater readiness. Let us stand with a greater determination. And let us move on in these powerful days, these days of challenge to make America what it ought to be. We have an opportunity to make America a better nation. And I want to thank God, once more, for allowing me to be here with you.

"You know, several years ago, I was in New York City autographing the first book that I had written. And while sitting there autographing books, a demented black woman came up. The only question I heard from her was, "Are you Martin Luther King?"

"And I was looking down writing, and I said yes. And the next minute I felt something beating on my chest. Before I knew it I had been stabbed by this demented woman. I was rushed to Harlem Hospital. It was a dark Saturday afternoon. And that blade had gone through, and the X-rays revealed that the tip of the blade was on the edge of my aorta, the main artery. And once that's punctured, you drown in your own blood--that's the end of you.

"It came out in the New York Times the next morning, that if I had sneezed, I would have died. Well, about four days later, they allowed me, after the operation, after my chest had been opened, and the blade had been taken out, to move around in the wheel chair in the hospital. They allowed me to read some of the mail that came in, and from all over the states, and the world, kind letters came in. I read a few, but one of them I will never forget. I had received one from the President and the Vice-President. I've forgotten what those telegrams said. I'd received a visit and a letter from the Governor of New York, but I've forgotten what the letter said. But there was another letter that came from a little girl, a young girl who was a student at the White Plains High School. And I looked at that letter, and I'll never forget it. It said simply, "Dear Dr. King: I am a ninth-grade student at the Whites Plains High School." She said, "While it should not matter, I would like to mention that I am a white girl. I read in the paper of your misfortune, and of your suffering. And I read that if you had sneezed, you would have died. And I'm simply writing you to say that I'm so happy that you didn't sneeze."

"And I want to say tonight, I want to say that I am happy that I didn't sneeze. Because if I had sneezed, I wouldn't have been around here in 1960, when students all over the South started sitting-in at lunch counters. And I knew that as they were sitting in, they were really standing up for the best in the American dream. And taking the whole nation back to those great wells of democracy which were dug deep by the Founding Fathers in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. If I had sneezed, I wouldn't have been around in 1962, when Negroes in Albany, Georgia, decided to straighten their backs up. And whenever men and women straighten their backs up, they are going somewhere, because a man can't ride your back unless it is bent. If I had sneezed, I wouldn't have been here in 1963, when the black people of Birmingham, Alabama, aroused the conscience of this nation, and brought into being the Civil Rights Bill. If I had sneezed, I wouldn't have had a chance later that year, in August, to try to tell America about a dream that I had had. If I had sneezed, I wouldn't have been down in Selma, Alabama, to see the great movement there. If I had sneezed, I wouldn't have been in Memphis to see a community rally around those brothers and sisters who are suffering. I'm so happy that I didn't sneeze.

"And they were telling me, now it doesn't matter now. It really doesn't matter what happens now. I left Atlanta this morning, and as we got started on the plane, there were six of us, the pilot said over the public address system, "We are sorry for the delay, but we have Dr. Martin Luther King on the plane. And to be sure that all of the bags were checked, and to be sure that nothing would be wrong with the plane, we had to check out everything carefully. And we've had the plane protected and guarded all night."

"And then I got into Memphis. And some began to say that threats, or talk about the threats that were out. What would happen to me from some of our sick white brothers?

Well, I don't know what will happen now. We've got some difficult days ahead. But it doesn't matter with me now. Because I've been to the mountaintop. And I don't mind. Like anybody, I would like to live a long life. Longevity has its place. But I'm not concerned about that now. I just want to do God's will. And He's allowed me to go up to the mountain. And I've looked over. And I've seen the promised land. I may not get there with you. But I want you to know tonight, that we, as a people will get to the promised land. And I'm happy, tonight. I'm not worried about anything. I'm not fearing any man. Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord."

In the article, Dr Chee writes, “The unbelievers [of CD] say that the method is wrong, the skeptics say that the time is not yet at hand.”

Save in a tiny handful of individuals, both sentiments reveal a commonality: that such statements are driven by fear, a chronic fear that resides in all Singaporeans and is symptomatic of a larger pathology.

That larger pathology, as I have previously mentioned, is called internalized oppression which in this case is a reference to the political oppression in Singapore.

What internalized oppression is bears repeating, and I quote myself in Yawningbread; the comparison to internalized oppression is of crucial importance to demonstrate the seriousness of this pathological condition:

[Quote]

As LGBTs, we are only too familiar with a specific type of internalized oppression that we are all invariably impacted by, namely internalized homophobia or internalized transphobia.

For the benefit of your readers who may be unfamiliar with what the term means, internalized homophobia or internalized transphobia, say, occurs when LGBT’s *believe* the false messages we hear about ourselves (from being inundated by those messages) and frequently go on to *express* those false messages in both word and deed. (This is to be distinguished from what is actually true about ourselves, which varies from individual LGBT to individual.)

Similarly, as Singaporeans, we are all impacted by another type of internalized oppression resulting from our political oppression by the PAP government. For want of any yet-to-be-coined term to describe this type of internalized oppression, I shall just call it by the generic “internalized oppression”.

[Unquote]

Just a few days ago, this website ran a quote by Aung San Suu Kyi and I paraphrase her here: “The most insidious fear is that which masquerades as wisdom…”

Indeed, the BryanTs of Singapore often give broad clues about their pathological condition quite shamelessly whenever they pass off their comments as wise and even virtuous.

Dr Chee acknowledges one such ‘gem of wisdom’ this in his article: “Most Singaporeans, when asked about CD, respond that it is not for Singapore, a society where order is prized over law.”

I contend that it is fear speaking when people make a statements such as the preceding one: It is none other than the fear of incurring Lee Kuan Yew’s wrath, a mentally ill man who is known for flying off in an uncontrollable rage and proceeds to behave like a bull in a china shop.

It is he that those cowering in fear are pandering to whether they wish to admit it or not.

Another gem of distinction is this one attributed to Beb Goldacre and mentioned by Alex Au in a recent article. It is a gem precisely because it dominates much of what passes for political discourse in Singapore. Incidentally, it dominates the political discourse on CD as well, as well as the discourse on the SDP for advocating it. (Perhaps an FAQ under one of the tabs in this website needs to be considered.)

"zombie argument" should be adopted into our poiltical vocabulary.

http://yawningbread.wordpress.com/2009/12/14/london-day-4/#more-402

zombie arguments (defn.): arguments which survive to be raised again, for eternity, no matter how many times they are shot down.” People who engage in this are not engaging in science, whether about global warming or about homosexuality [Robox: "or CD or the SDP]; they are just pressing an ideology.

wat a load of rubbish.. start of new year only, yet, throwing thrash all around...

always compare ourselves with other countries.. ever wondered how brave, inttelligent and charismatic the other (countries') political parties are?

not to mention deep pockets, huge support (by natural means) and clear directions...

yuan-debunenna..

Ngejay, thanks for your comments. I will respond to your views, since they approach some semblance of logic, and are not based on being derogatory to drive their points across. I am happy to hear of your tolerance of divergent views, which we note is not common in this website among some commenters. But let's get to the (non-derogatory) points.

First, on the issue of mass support and giving CSJ a fair chance. SDP has spent many years conducting its form of CD activities. People know what the SDP is about and what it does - its reputation is essentially pegged to its outdoor protests and remonstrations. With this long track-record, SDP would be (deliberately) blind if it does not see that people has not given it any semblance of support for some of the causes it pursues, or the mode by which it pursues them. The people has seen the messages that SDP has repeated, often enough. Some would even empathise when they see the party members jailed. But the public reaction to SDP's CD actions thus far speaks for itself. The party has had it “fair chances” that it often creates for itself, and the people have spoken (.... or rather, not spoken for or aligned themselves to its causes).

I know CSJ is a very patient and persistent man, and will continue to pursue this avenue for a while to come. The issue is : is this the correct alley? I believe it leads to a political cul-de-sac or cliff. Which also lead to my next point about the “informed” one, the Pied Pipers.

I used the analogies of Lenin, Hitler and Mao to illustrate the possible fallacy of the “informed” few since it was the central idea in CSJ's article. I had already agreed with Seelan that violence is repugnant, but reminded him that there was no contention in the first place. The analogies were to show how the masses can be “awakened” by the few “informed” ones flashing their populist ideas, but eventually led to those proverbial cliffs. To say that U-turns were then needed would be an understatement.

Also, SDP can continue to believe that it has a more “informed” group of people within the party than the rest of society, but I think publicly, a level of political humility would be not undue. Do not be so blatant (even if perchance it were true).

Actually, many regard them simply as a peddlers of ideas. Snake-oil peddlers are also quite informed about their products, but at last, they are lonely voices (and a dying trade) in the modern market place. Others peddle goods which we may be interested in, but when we look at the peddlers' hard-sell, we are turned off and simply walk away.

My concern is that SDP continues to taint the political landscape by propounding its idea that breaking the law is acceptable. It tries to paint the picture that outlets for expression are so limited that there is no choice but for people to do it on the streets. It masks the fact that SDP's challenge is not that it is unable to get its views out (which all of us already know), but that most people are disinterested in those views.

Finally, my thanks for your concern the possibility of my tongue getting sprained. Physiologically, it was the fingers which did most of the physical work, and even those are not near approaching any strain (not to say sprain).

juzONEsingh: So should we compare or not compare with other countries?

The world's happiest countries

http://www.relax.com.sg/relax/media/303506/Happiest_countries.html

BryanT:

If the law wants you to eat shit everyday, would you "taint" the "political landscape" by breaking the law, or will you "taint" yourself, your body , your soul and spirit by eating the shit?

Even the tycoon Tang breaks the law by buying a kidney for his body.

http://www.asiaone.com/Health/News/Story/A1Story20100110-190778.html

Firstly BryanT I don't what nonsense you're talking about breaking promises. This is not a dating site, so please.

And regarding your last comment:

"My concern is that SDP continues to taint the political landscape by propounding its idea that breaking the law is acceptable."

It does not taint the political landscape, it is actually employing another available method for political awareness and change. It does propound the idea of breaking the law - but only the laws that are unjust. Something that political parties and activists continue to do all over the globe.

"It tries to paint the picture that outlets for expression are so limited that there is no choice but for people to do it on the streets."

Yes the outlets for expression are that very limited. There is the internet, but as it has been written about and proven the world over, online activity alone is hardly enough - it must translate into public action to effect change.

"It masks the fact that SDP's challenge is not that it is unable to get its views out (which all of us already know), but that most people are disinterested in those views."

I was personally there to witness the recent selling of SDP's The New Democrat and sales were swift and better than every other issue before. Dozens of people also came forward to party members and notably Dr Chee to express their interest and support. So there you go again, assuming through your tinted lens without any substantiation whatsoever.

And to close, if people are not interested in the views of the SDP, why is the SDP's website the highest read political party site in Singapore?

Re: "My concern is that SDP continues to taint the political landscape by propounding its idea that breaking the law is acceptable." - Stupid Fool BryanT Who Cannot See The Big Picture No Matter How Much Resources Are Spent To Help Him Do So; What A Complete Waste Of Time And Energy!

I wonder why people who shower themselves with accolades like "The Informed" cannot see this one simple fact: the greater wrong lies with those who have the power and abuse it AND NOT with those who are powerless and have to go to such great extents to 'prove' that they have done no wrong.

I'll tell you why: this is Chinese Legalism at work again, the philosophy that the criminals in the PAP government have adopted while telling the whole world that it is actually Confucianism that Singapore has adopted - and even that, in complete defiance of the multicultural reality that is Singapore - as a basis for law and politics in Singapore.

Subscribing to Chinese Legalism requires you to always be subject to those who have power - and who can NEVER be trusted to use those powers judiciously - and constantly having to prove to them that you are not an essentially bad person.

It's racism, pure and simple when Chinese racists like BryanT are allowed to ride roughshod over Indian and Malay Singaporeans when we don't share one bit in this cultural and philosophical dysfunction that comes under the guise a monopoly on wisdom and virtue that can ONLY derive from Chinese feudal culture.

I repeat: the greater wrong lies with those who have the power and abuse it AND NOT with those who are powerless and have to go to such great extents to 'prove' that they have done no wrong.

This is a follow up to BryanT's response to my comment.

How many years exactly has SDP spent on civil disobedience? How many years did Martin Luther King Jr persevere before he finally got results? Ghandi? Shih Ming Teh? Nelson Mandela? If these great luminaries took a long time, why should you expect quick results from SDP? Is it fair?

With a tight grip on the mainstream media, the govt can portray the impression that there is little support for SDP or that Dr Chee's ideas are badly flawed.

In reality, there is a growing number of Singaporeans who are leaning more towards SDP and Dr Chee because they found he makes sense and his ideology is on firm ground.

Since the MSM refuses to provide SDP this kind of coverage to reflect the ground reality of increased support over the years, this growing group of Singaporeans have to no choice but to exploit the domain of cyberspace.

You seem to be ignoring all these, and only concentrating on what the MSM and the govt is trying to portray about SDP and about the opposition as a whole.

Your continued reference to Lenin, Hitler and other snake oil peddlers is still missing my point that we should support Dr Chee because his reasoning is sound and based on the proven tenets of non-violent action. Here, you have in fact dismissed Dr Chee as a snake oil peddler without examining his thinking, and used the apparent lack of public appreciation to justify your stand. As you can see, from the previous paragraphs, I have pointed out the flaw in your argument.

Lastly, I fear you may be spraining your tongue because it is a muscle to be used during chewing and swallowing of nutrients, not for the regurgitation or garbage.

dei, quantum, by all means, compare.. otherwise, we would have nothing to live for, if we do not seek improvements...

anyways, cant u all juz tahan??? look, the old man's gotta die sooner than my son going to a primary school.. and the old man's son even faster, gonna step down before my son can even learn to walk!

so, juz tahan, once they all gone, its time to change ur cards (like playing RISK game) and whack them jialat jialat..

if i have my way, i will stay low, get my brightest members to join the ruling party to infiltrate them.. climb up the ladder...

then when its time, we whack from both internal and external.. logic? its very realistic, you know...

juzONEsingh:

Do know the facts before you even start calculating:-

1) The oldest human that ever lived has a record of 122 years and 164 days, a woman born in France.(record 1997AD)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeanne_Calment

2) You have the world's leading edge best doctors , surgeons, scientists at Biopolis , A*Star that can give the best medical attention, and on 24/7 hour standby, for the slightest mosquito bite.

3) Immortality is only 20 years away says scientist

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/6217676/Immortality-only-20-years-away-says-scientist.html

u all ar, very poor tacticians, only know how to make noise, focus on present... tsk tsk tsk...

store power, wait till coast is clear, then YOU LEFT, I RIGHT, and whack the ruling party, give them a run for their $...

now, chances are slim, so we tahan.. wat Tak Boleh Tahan, wat crap seh...

so wat if Tak Boleh Tahan? u tink the ruling party will give way to u? crap...

this battle is a losing battle.. now we lay wounded and prep for next battle in the next decade after we attended the old man's funeral... dealth @ 2013, wanna bet?

How does CD, of the non-violent breed, work? Thanks to CSJ's article which prodded my curiosity, and after some reading on the internet, I have formulated a hypothesis.

The OBJECTIVE of CD are two-fold – one is to awaken or achieve a turn around in public attitudes towards certain issues; secondly, they aim to get the powers-that-be to respond to certain demands. Alignment of the masses to the propounded causes is critical. The plan is that by popular pressure, the authorities are to be pushed into a position where it feels obliged to make concessions.

The STRATEGY to affect the population in the first place, and then the authorities, requires publicity. The acts of hunger strikes and immolating by those involved (called “agitators” henceforth), chaining themselves to parliamentary gates, or even non-payment of taxes (as what Mr Thoreau did) are some of the media stunts that serve these aims. Refusing to pay fines and choosing to be jailed is just part of the act. Hopefully, the theatricals from being manhandled or arrested by the security forces would also draw wider support or sympathy. A cooperative mass-media would also be desirable.

The CHALLENGE comes when these isolated acts do not achieve the desired publicity effects. The agitators would then decide that escalation is necessary, even if the theme of non-violence is maintained. There is a need to provoke the authorities to react more “spectacularly” and it would be appreciated if the international media were present to capture police brutality in action. Swinging truncheons, water-jets, tear-gas canisters and rubber bullets help paint the picture of suppression, oppression and victimisation. Better still if a few bloodied heads, or even a martyr or two, can be had. Self-restraint or good discipline by the security forces is highly undesirable.

The ISSUE is this : although CD actions may set out to be non-violent, its objectives are usually achieved only when there is substantive (read “violent”) reactions from the authorities. The agitators will proclaim that their acts involves no violence, but the reality is that their objectives are reliant on there being so.

The REALITY must be also recognised by the local CD wannabes – the science of handling CD has matured over the years and a police force worth it's salt can easily master these skills. I don't doubt that ours has already done so, even if a bit clumsy still. Perhaps more practice will do them good.

Lastly I have this quote from an article by Sheena Duncan writing at The Black Sash : (There is a) dilemma for those who wish to use civil disobedience as a strategy for opposition to unjust laws and for forcing change. The justification has to be carefully thought through. If one wishes to preserve the idea of Law one has to be most cautious in strategies which can lead to its destruction. The means do shape the ends and wanton disregard of the law may mean government lawlessness perpetuated into a new future.

Is what this article saying true or false?

http://singaporerebel.blogspot.com/2009/12/lee-kuan-yew-had-suggested-instigating.html

“Once social change begins, it cannot be reversed. You cannot uneducate the person who has learned to read. You cannot humiliate the person who feels pride. You cannot oppress the people who are not afraid anymore. We have seen the future, and the future is ours.” - César Estrada Chávez

'How does CD, of the non-violent breed, work? Thanks to CSJ's article which prodded my curiosity, and after some reading on the internet, I have formulated a hypothesis.'

What do you mean, 'How does it work'? You cannot be serious! Are you admitting to us that you didn't know a sausage about civil disobedience till this post but had no qualms about writing 3 long-winded, tedious messages to give long-suffering readers the benefit of your superior ignorance??? For pity's sake man, have you no shame?

So all that preposterous prose about 'wheelchairs...swinging a sledge-hammer...few were able to win the masses over...CD, it almost inevitability ended in bloodshed...violence begets violence... I believe it leads to a political cul-de-sac or cliff...Snake-oil peddlers...SDP continues to taint the political landscape...' barf, vomit, puke... is just exactly that: rubbish - the ravings of a clueless cretin, izzit?

Well thanks for wasting our time and bandwidth, Dumbo. Now can you take your hypothesis and shove it back where it belongs using both hands? What a disgraceful turn of affairs.

I thought SDP mentioned "No confrontation, please".

Well... CD "Civil disobedience" already occured now.

I wonder where/what are the standpoint in this exchanges?

Anyone??

Civil Disobedience NOW is the wrong tactic because the people are not hungry enough yet. Or more correctly, people are not starving yet. When the people have nothing else to lose, you don't need any urgings, people will go to the streets.

Now, many people still feel they still have things to lose, that is why they appear "apathetic". Even the most vehement haters of PAP will hush if their names are exposed.

The fears generated from operation coldstore still resonate till today, unfortunately.

All the other places, people rose up because it's lose lose for them. Those blacks in US in the 60s, they have been suffering from discriminations and even worse, killings from racists for generations, if they do not rise up, they will continue to suffer.

In Singapore, we are prisoners but the prison is made of gold (maybe false gold) so that is why the prisoners are unwilling to escape.

Just like in the movie Matrix, there are some who are not willing to leave because they felt the real world to have more suffering than the virtual world. Ignorance is bliss is their motto, as is the motto of many Singaporeans, I feel.

If we never had any opposition members in parliament for the past 40 years, then I would say, yes, civil disobedience is the way to go. However, there are opposition members in parliament, despite the dirty tricks played by PAP. It's not easy but it is doable.

I also think the opposition did badly not totally because of PAP. Sometimes members of opposition shoot themselves in the foot by opening their mouth and criticising other opposition members.

Like it or not, voters view opposition as a single group, although in reality they are a very divergent group of personalities. Many disbelievers still think opposition groups are based on personalities.

During the end of Han Dynasty, the warlord Cao Cao was able to gobble up various warlords one by one, simply because none of them were united. Each was looking out only for himself. It was only by the alliance of Liu Bei and Sun Quan that Cao Cao was stopped at the famous Battle of Red Cliff.

PAP is now like Cao Cao, cunning but seen as capabale. PAP's red cliff will come but only if oppositions act together to repel PAP's hegemony.

To be honest, I have little faith in the opposition partie(s)winning in any constituency.

SG Citizen are used with PAP model as aingle identity for many decades.

We must have the same as PAP model, single identity from opposition party to strike "all-out-of war" to make an impact against PAP party.

To this point, it is useless discussing/debating on civil disobedience possibility.

Till then, PAP still holding on in the winning stake.

I'm sorry, I may have sounds like PAP supporter but strangely this is what I feel, hence cannot rule out PAP winning chances.

btan,

Freedom NOW! won't work here because Singaporeans are too comfortable and don't want to rock the boat? Come, come, even a cursory glance around the region will show that up for the facile argument that it is.

Did you notice the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) of Japan was swept aside on 30th August 2009 after 54 years of virtually unbroken conservative rule? Now who would you say enjoys the better quality of life, Japanese or Singaporeans? Yet the Japanese, a deeply conservative people, comfortable in their gilded cage, rose up and crushed several generations of political careers, including those of at least one former Prime Minister. “I believe that everyone felt great rage towards the Government,” said Yukio Hatoyama, the opposition DPJ’s leader. Citizens weren't worried in the least that power was now in the hands of a party in which the young, women, and trades unions have a far greater say than at any time before.

Look at Taiwan. In the 60s and 70s it was one of the Four Asian Tigers and developed into a prosperous, industrialized country with a strong and dynamic economy under the KMT. Prosperity and the good life didn't stop Taiwanese from replacing the KMT (who had governed them with an iron fist for 40 years) with the DPP in 2000, did it?

You'll see the same pattern with South Korea if you care to look. That is why I say your assumption that: "the people are not hungry enough yet. Or more correctly, people are not starving yet" is, to put it politely, flawed. It is foolish, not to mention dangerous, to take for granted that people ONLY rise up in revolt because their day-to-day living conditions become unbearable. LKY understands this and fears what he calls the 'sheer madness' of voters well enough:

'ONE freak election result is all it will take to wipe out Singapore’s success in building up the city state… This could happen if voters became bored and decided to give the ‘vociferous opposition’ a chance – out of ‘light-heartedness, fickleness or sheer madness...' (Straits Times, June 26, 2008).

And what is the basis for your premise that "voters view opposition as a single group"? Have you carried out a comprehensive survey or is that simply wild speculation? As a voter I'd be pretty insulted that you assume I am too stupid to tell the difference between the various alternative parties, you know.

Far from Civil Disobedience being futile, I would say it is the ONLY strategy that is likely to have any chance of success against an incumbent happy to use every dirty trick in the book to stay in power. It keeps him uncertain and off-balance; it forces him to be reactive, not proactive to your detriment. Observe how the 2006 greenhorn WP team in AMK (which the PM contemptuously dismissed as a 'suicide squad') shocked and humiliated LHL by refusing to lose their deposits? He wasn't expecting it.

No one is so stupid as to believe the PAP will be overthrown in the next election. But all it takes is a swing of 10-15% and the cracks in their facade will begin to show. Now that is eminently doable.

I think we don't need to spend much time debating on civil disobedience. Some of us will continue to utilize it as part of our political strategy and some of us won't.

But activities like disseminating alternative news and views, organising forums and other events will go on.

Seelan, on the contrary, I believe that CSJ opened up discussions on CD because it forms a central pillar of the party strategy. He is correct to continue this series of articles, even if his underlying intent is probably to 'socialise" Singaporeans to this disruptive approach.

Just letting CD "events .. go on" not only serves to ignore the skepticism out, but acerbates the disconnect the populace feels about SDP and its activities. I think (further) alienation is the apt word to describe the consequences.

Avoiding this issue also allows others the opportunity to draw the conclusion that SDP is plodding down this track because it is bankrupt of ideas on constructive methodologies.

The intent is not to 'socialise' the electorate. The intent is to EDUCATE them that non-violent civil disobedience is a perfectly legitimate form of protest when an incumbent govt so abuses the rule of law that it violates Singaporeans' constitutional rights. Notice that in every video clip that has ever been aired, the only aggressive behaviour we've seen has always come from the ruler's goon squads manhandling protestors and not vice versa.

Catherine Lim struck a painful nerve in 1994 when she wrote of 'The Great Affective Divide' and she sure as hell wasn't talking about the gaping division between the SDP and Singapore citizens. If anything, the lack of affection and warmth for the PAP that was clearly evident then has mushroomed into outright revulsion now.

Let's call a spade a spade. Only a govt so devoid of ideas that it has to resort to making the GDP numbers look good by flooding the nation with cheap, low-productivity labour would be terrified of letting even a lone protestor have his say.

When I mentioned that I think we don't need to spend much time debating on civil disobedience, I meant debating with you. This is because you will see and reply to everything with your tinted lens - no matter how sound our arguments are.

I reiterate that civil disobedience is something that political parties and activists continue to partake in all over the globe. But not everywhere in the globe you have a media as biased as in Singapore - which has a seemingly special interest in slandering the SDP.

And I too agree that its good that CSJ continues this series of articles, it will surely help people understand more about one of the many strategies of the SDP.

Interesting Logic from BryanT

BryanT says: "The ISSUE is this : although CD actions may set out to be non-violent, its objectives are usually achieved only when there is substantive (read “violent”) reactions from the authorities. The agitators will proclaim that their acts involves no violence, but the reality is that their objectives are reliant on there being so".

Going by BryanT logic, we can deduced that the reason he is commenting here is to pressure the SDP to stop CD. So if more people support SDP, is he going to go for substantive (read Violent) action?

BryanT:"The REALITY must be also recognised by the local CD wannabes – the science of handling CD has matured over the years and a police force worth it's salt can easily master these skills. I don't doubt that ours has already done so, even if a bit clumsy still. Perhaps more practice will do them good".

Hmm the "science" according to BryanT is read make up the law and expect a compliant judge to agree. A bit like BryanT making up nonsensical reasoning and then telling others he is making sensible reasoning. I guess more practice to spout nonsense will do him good.

In August 2006, thousands of HongKongers took to the streets to protest the introduction of the GST. No violence, np arrests and the HK police provided crowd control. Needless to say, the HK government caved in and decided not to introduce GST.

Does it mean that CD will only result in violence?