Singapore Democrats

If Mr Lee really agrees to this debate, then he shall surely lose. All the lies will be exposed and the people will learn of the truth. Or he could just give irrelevant answers as the government is so fond of doing when responding to our citizens. Or he could try to sue Dr. Chee again for defamation. Or he could ignore it and ask the newspapers to publish an article about this and the people will think SDP has nothing better to do. Anything can happen...

CSJ knows that PAP has many reasons NOT to accede to this request for a debate. Let me list a few.

a. PAP has nothing to gain from a debate with a party that [b]deliberately breaks the laws to achieve its ends.[/b] Even after CSJ agrees to debating guidelines if a debate were to happen, but what are the assurances against him breaking those as well?

b. PAP has no reason to give SDP any advantage over the other opposition parties, least of all a party that has repeated [b]failed at the polls[/b].

c. CSJ's track record does not indicate that he [b]wants or is able to conduct a debate on a cordial basis[/b]. (refer to taunts in facebook exchange with GY)

As CSJ composed the letter above, I am quite confident that he already expects a non-affirmative reply. He has already preemptively prepared a few letters or postings to raise hue and cry that PAP does not practise what it preaches, to allow him some airspace.

Coincidentally, today I received an email from REACH that there will be a online discussion on the issues brought up in the rally with Mrs Josephine Teo and Mr Robin Hu, Vice-Chairman and Member of REACH Panel on 22 August 2009. That is sufficient evidence of what CSJ refers to as the government wanting to be "more active in engaging Singaporeans online." Or perhaps CSJ will find the representation too low for his taste.

After CSJ had achieved his theatrics, he would still not get his debate with the PM or even a minister. In that case, I suggest that he frees himself on 22 Aug and queues up like everyone else to pose issues for discussion with this particular PAP politician, albeit one not as senior as he would yearn for.

BTW, the topic is: [i]Are you inspired by PM's speech? Did the PM’s speech give you a positive outlook of the future? What are your views of the issues raised?[/i]

I know, it's not the most inspiring topic. One point though, the discussion will apparently be in Chinese. So I hope CSJ's Chinese measures up.

PS. Robox, like I said, surely not someone on his knees. But I realise that PM's picture used here resembles a person praying. Is that a coincidence?

[color=red]If Mr Lee really agrees to this debate, then he shall surely lose. All the lies will be exposed and the people will learn of the truth.[/color]

vipersonic, that is a very big "IF" you have used. You have answered your own question whether the debate will happen, even though I have a different set of reasons why it will not take place(see my other comment posting).

As such you need not be concerned about CSJ getting sued for defamation. Also, there will not be a debate because CSJ does not expect a debate in the first place. I suspect that he already expects to be be ignored by the ruling party, as much as he was during his TBT antics.

He is just merely going through his tired routine.

As much as I hate to say this, many of your comments are beginning to amount to harassment, while in the same breath accusing Dr Chee of taunting your gods.

Yes, your gods. If you could only compare the reverence you obviously have for them, contrasted with the obvious contempt that you hold Dr Chee in.

You may say that your comments are directed towards hoping that Dr Chee would do 'the right thing' in order to have a broad appeal. Well, that would be more believable if we could also sense the goodwill that usually accompanies such a hope.

I can tell you this right now, even at the risk of tooting my own horn: being a poli sci grad is one thing, but I am also a very shrewd political strategist. From a strategic point of view, SDP, like all other opposition political parties, have not reached a point where they even have that so-important critical mass of support after which their support base takes on a life of its own. It's only after that point that the party would have to go 'mainstream' to appeal that to the new breadth of support.

Besides [b]what is so radical about writing a damn letter[/b]? Has no human being ever written a letter before, that this is now tantamount to terrorism?

Or is this just not being reverential enough of Lee Hsien Loong?

I wouldn't lose sleep even if Dr Chee got sued. He has already been bankrupted, has a policy of not paying his extortioners, and cannot be made even more bankrupt than he already is even if 67 more lawsuits came his way after this.

So instead of jumping the gun, why don't we all wait and just see how this all pans out. There is such a thing as the long term effects of actions taken at any one point, you know.

Not everything is about instant rewards.

There was no taunting in Dr Chee's exchange with George Yeo. Only pointed questions, all posed without pretentious homage.

Yeo's reply that SDP writes to PAP is only an officious way of saying no.

It's like your being told that your application for a job has been put in the KIV file after being rejected at the interview.

[color=red]"Besides what is so radical about writing a damn letter?"[/color]

Robox, sorry to cause you agitations first thing in the morning.

No, there is nothing radical about writing letters. I have my share of letters fired off to the LTA, NEA and even ST Forum, as anyone in the throes of a mid-life crisis would. What's important is the intent behind what is written. I have already explained above my analysis of CSJ's scheme, so I would not bored anyone with a repetition. I really thought he can be more imaginative.

Many years ago as a rookie, my erstwhile superior told me to "always begin with the end in mind". That is what I tell my people: don't throw potshots because some will bounce back.

And no, I have not much reverence for any political figures and is dead-set against ever becoming a member of a political party. Don't burn me a political party membership card among the incense paper after my demise, because I will "return to sender".

[color=red]"As much as I hate to say this, many of your comments are beginning to amount to harassment"[/color]

Robox, I feel the need to address the above point as well.

I write here not because I have a secret agenda. I though there is value to contribute to discussions here at the SDP website because I sincerely think it has much of potential, not least because it's leader is a very intelligent person. I have said my piece about how this forte is not exploited towards a feasible way to affect the ruling party, so I will not reiterate here.

My observation is that the views from vocal readers who bother to write in are not diverse. After a while, it's like a person talking to his own hand.... not very useful.

BTW, interesting to know that you are a poli-sci grad. I was not in the arts-stream and fortunately (or unfortunately) was not required to write long essays during my uni days. That accounts for my ineloquent words and oft poor reasoning.

Hi BryanT,

I am a PAP Voter. Who are you to speculate and answer for GY, LSL or PAP? Every citizen have their own view and believe, you need not have to force your view and believe on other citizen. Why can't GY, LSL or PAP give us thier honest opinion? Is it so dificult that they can't handle that you have to do it for them. Afterall, PAP Voter wants to hear their view that is, direct from the horses mouth and not you putting words into the horses mouth. by doing that you make them look very stupid indeed. Yes you can post your view, but that is your view and is up to readers to value it or not. Not to forget that I am also a PAP Voter but I don't go all out to carry balls up to my head. What is right is right I want no fight to that.

[color=red]"I don't go all out to carry balls up to my head."[/color]

PAP Voter, no, I do not intend to speak up on behalf of GY and LHL. Obviously they are paid well enough to do so themselves. Besides I am sure they are more than competent to do so.

I don't think I am capable of making them look stupid, although once in a while some of the ruling party members may do so themselves without much prompting (eg. table tennis saga).

In case you have not read my other posts, I am not an adherent to the ruling party. I will make unflattering remarks about them where warranted. So there are no testicles that I feel obliged to juggle. In fact, my eyes roll sometimes based on what I hear from some ministers occasionally. But that is another story.

Okay, okay, okay. I admit I did get quite agitated after reading two similar sounding posts from BryanT and blew my top.

But I still maintain that he is actually very sincere in his views.

He's brainwashed. But sincere.

And really, who am I to be harsh with someone who met with the same 'accident' as I of being born Singaporean? Being brainwashed is part of being born Singaporean.

I can tell that he's pretty new to the alternative news sources in cyberspace - he didn't know what 'sockpuppeting' and 'PAP IB' were - and I did sense that he was undergoing a paradigm shift, which is always a difficult transition for anyone to make.

So BryanT, I don't mean stop pointing out what you see as wrong about what the SDP is doing, and bring a different perspective. But you also do have to understand that there is a high likelihood that we also have heard it all before.

And what PAP Voter said is also correct, don't try to speak for Dr Chee's opponents; let them represent themselves and we will all be the judge.

Thank you for your kind reply.

PAP Voter, I forget to add - I assume that you are really a PAP voter, but NOT that that is important.

I voted for the PAP too in 2001 when CSJ was running in my GRC. That was after I researched deeper into the SDP before I walked into the polling station.

Hi BryanT,

Nice to know that you are not a PAP balls carrier because they are to many already. So sorry, if I have misunderstood your postings.

Yes. Another debate. I doubt that either of the Lees will agree though. LKY will prohibit his son from doing it and LHL knows that he will not be able to walk away from the debate with his head held high.

BryanT,

Where did you do your research? Of course, not in the Hansard and the Budget!

[color=red]"don't try to speak for Dr Chee's opponents"[/color]

Robox, initially, I was going to agree with you that, indeed, there is no need to speak for CSJ's opponents. Besides the fact that nobody has passed me any sockpuppet glove to don in the first place.

Then I reconsidered : Why must we perceived that the Singapore political arena as comprising "opponents" busily ..... opposing?

As you said previously, the parties should be out winning opinions of the people. Instead, I constantly detect a mild sense of schizophrenia which translates to the tendency to play to the gallery. Remember what I said about a self-perceived victimisation. I certainly hope it's not done with an eye towards seeking sympathy.

One may be opposed to some of the ways SDP carries itself, but he need not be opposed to the party.

I concede that I have changed my perceptional change of the opposition over the years. It was previously characterised by people such as Ling HD and JBJ, what I call the combative and limelight-hogging school. My empathy for the opposition has increased with LTK, CST and even Sylvia. Some would call this group docile, but I disagree. They get my virtual vote because they think through before they talk.

I will leave you to guess where I place CSJ.

I wouldn't waste time on BryanT. He's a court jester. His job is to distract while at the same time glorify his masters and put down Dr Chee and the SDP (but not WP). And he's not doing it as subtly as he thinks.

Really dont understand you pussies bickering about who's who gonna do what!

Basically it’s what everybody really want to know, I want my money back! We have been paying these guy good money to run the country and what have they really done for us? Will it really make a difference if we had a weaker government? Or if we were back to being a state of Malaysia? What difference will it make for the poor?

Yeo couldn’t even give a straight answer to his salary questions, Why?

Such dishonesty!

[color=red]"He's a court jester. His job is to distract while at the same time glorify his masters and put down Dr Chee and the SDP (but not WP). And he's not doing it as subtly as he thinks."[/color]

Cleared eyed, sorry that I wasted your time in having you read my comments. However, I can't see how to make them more inconspicuous.

As I have stated before, I am not into the arts, whether to enjoy or perform. So all the good intents to make me court jesters and puppeteers are appreciated but are unlikely to come to fruition. But I won't mind inadvertently bringing some joy to this website if you guys consider yourself entertained by my humble words. That's the least I can do.

As to whether I am subtle; why should anyone need to be when he has nothing to hide.

Back to my drift (no, no... not car drifting), let me ask you guys this : how many of you sincerely think that the ruling party will grant CSJ a debate, online or otherwise? And how many think that CSJ believes he will get one?

5 facts about Kim Dae Jung

FOLLOWING are five facts about the leader born on Jan. 6, 1924, according to official records although the exact date of birth remains uncertain.

* Nobel Peace Prize winner in 2000 for helping to arrange the unprecedented summit of leaders on the divided Korean peninsula. Then President Kim met the North's leader, Kim Jong Il, for a summit on June 15, 2000.

* Elected president in December 1997. His victory marked the first time in South Korea that power had shifted from a ruling party president to a president from the opposition. He served from 1998 to 2003.

* A key figure in South Korea's struggle for democracy.

Survived several assassination attempts. Was sentenced to death in 1980 on charges of treason. The sentence was commuted to life in prison and then to 20 years before it was suspended in 1982.

* Was kidnapped by South Korean secret agents at a Tokyo hotel in August 1973.

* He suffered six years imprisonment, three years of exile and 10 years under house arrest and surveillance because he refused to cooperate with South Korea's military rulers. -- REUTERS
Close window


Cheated death to win presidency

SEOUL - SOUTH Korean democracy campaigner Kim Dae Jung survived assassination bids, a death sentence, prison and exile under army-backed governments and went on to win the presidency and the Nobel peace prize.

Mr Kim, who died on Tuesday, said in 2006 he had no regrets about his turbulent life and had never compromised his principles.

'I underwent many ordeals in my life but I never strayed from principles and never compromised with injustice, even at the risk of my life,' he said.

As president from 1998-2003, he described his biggest achievement as the landmark summit with North Korean leader Kim Jong Il in 2000 that paved the way for reconciliation and earned him a Nobel prize later that year.

Born on December 3, 1925 in a small village on an island off the south-west coast, Mr Kim graduated from a prestigious commercial high school in 1943.

He went into business operating a shipping company but was captured and almost executed by communists during the 1950-53 Korean War before escaping.

After the war he decided to enter politics in response to the increasingly dictatorial rule of founding president Syngman Rhee, who was forced out of office in 1960.

After two unsuccessful bids Mr Kim was elected to parliament in 1961. But three days later the assembly was dissolved following a military coup led by Major General Park Chung Hee.

Mr Park, Mr Kim's nemesis for almost two decades, presided over dramatic economic development accompanied by increasing human rights abuses and dictatorial behaviour.

Mr Kim was again elected to parliament in 1963 and began to emerge as a junior leader in the opposition.

A fiery orator, he became a presidential candidate in 1971 and almost defeated the incumbent Mr Park despite obstructionist tactics and vote-rigging.

Soon afterwards Mr Kim was almost killed in an apparent assassination attempt disguised as a road accident, which left him a permanent limp.

In 1972 Mr Park declared the Yushin (renovation) dictatorship and made himself president for life.

Mr Kim strenuously campaigned against Mr Park in the United States and Japan. In August 1973 he was kidnapped by Korean CIA agents from a Tokyo hotel.

He was about to be dumped in the sea but swift action by Washington and Tokyo saved his life. He was returned to Seoul but put under house arrest a week later.

Despite being banned from political activities, Mr Kim in March 1976 joined other democracy fighters in leading a wave of demonstrations. He was jailed but released under house arrest in 1978.

When Mr Park was assassinated by the head of the Korean CIA in October 1979,

But after just seven months a military group led by Major General Chun Doo Hwan seized power.

Mr Kim was thrown into prison in May 1980 on charges of treason and subsequently sentenced to death by a martial law court.

Following strong US pressure the sentence was commuted to life imprisonment in exchange for a visit by Chun to the White House in 1981.

In December 1982 Mr Kim was released and allowed to fly into exile in the United States. He returned home in early 1985 and was immediately placed under house arrest, but his presence invigorated the pro-democracy movement.

Waves of protests forced the military government to accept democratic reform in June 1987 and Mr Kim and many other political leaders were reinstated.

Committing what he later called the 'greatest mistake in my life,' Mr Kim ran in the presidential election that year but split the opposition vote with another top pro-democracy leader Kim Young Sam.

Chun's former military classmate Roh Tae Woo became president but did not attempt to roll back democracy. Mr Kim ran again in the 1992 election but lost to Kim Young Sam, who had joined the ruling party.

In the December 1997 election he finally won the presidency, taking office the following year as the nation was mired in a financial crisis. It was forced to turn to the International Monetary Fund for a US$57 billion bailout.

Under Mr Kim's leadership, South Korea pulled itself out of the crisis and launched major economic reforms and restructuring.

His life-long vision for peace led him to pursue reconciliation with communist North Korea. The landmark summit was marred by controversy after it emerged that his government arranged for a business group to pay the North US$500 million as an inducement to hold it.

But Mr Kim never wavered on the need for reconciliation. 'This is the best way to end the national tragedy and make a reunified motherland,' he said in his final speech in office.

In domestic politics, too, he believed in forgiveness. One of his first acts as president was to pardon Chun Doo Hwan, who had been convicted of treason and corruption after leaving office. -- AFP
Close window

I suspect BryanT is paid to do it, handsomely - time well profitably spent. :)

At the risk of getting on you guys' sensitive nerves, but for the benefit of those who abstain from the (running dog) MSM, here is something on the ex-SDP Sec Gen:

"[i]Potong Pasir MP Chiam See Tong had also said PM Lee's message was very important and relevant. 'It is what that keeps the peace here,' he added.[/i]"

He is getting on in age and health is catching up on him. Anyone with any suggestion on his replacement at "cut sand" constituency?

[color=red]"I suspect BryanT is paid to do it, handsomely"[/color]

quantum, let me lay your suspicion to rest about me being paid. Actually, if there is such a job, I will find it quite onerous.

Anyway, the equity market is a bit slow today mah, so got time to read and write.

Remember I mentioned "Mr Market does not pay minimum wages"? You misunderstood me; what I meant was that there is no "minimum" investment returns by sitting on your hands. Nobody owes us a (minimum) living.

Wow BryanT, you reply to almost each and every original article posted here, and several times as the first poster. You must have a lot of time on your hands.

[quote]Wow BryanT, you reply to almost each and every original article posted here, and several times as the first poster. You must have a lot of time on your hands.[/quote]
He is actually very busy, earning money by sabotaging this web site, distracting people from the real aim, goal, dream, purpose, objective.

The real objective is: To build a democratic society based upon justice and equality.
This is taken from the Singapore pledge, and I think should be the SDP party motto.

http://singaporeanskeptic.blogspot.com/2009/08/myth-of-asian-values-as-perpetuated-by.html

Tuesday, August 18, 2009
The myth of Asian Values (as perpetuated by our Gahmen).

"Only in Singapore, there is so many people like this skeptic that has so much grievance towards a good but not perfect govt system. If you could have channel your energy to a more progressive development rather than the welfare metality cause. In other progressive nation like Taiwan, Hong Kong, China, South Korea and Japan their society do not have many people with so much grievance towards the govt. The problem with Singapore is people like you spending to much energy complaining about the govt."-Anonymous

A recent comment in my blog highlights a common misconception among Singaporeans that the people in countries like South Korea, Taiwan and Hong Kong follow their government blindly; just like any good East Asian country.

This is a sad misconception that Skeptic suspects is one that has been perpetuated by the PAP- the idea that Confucian values are necessary for a country to succeed. This idea gained prominence in the 90s when Lee Kuan Yew started talking about 'Asian' values.

Let us compare the political development of the Asian Tigers-Singapore, Taiwan and South Korea. (I omitted Hong Kong as its political development was tied to its status as a British colony.)

From the late 50s/early 60s to the late 80s/early 90s, these three countries started off as authoritarian regimes. Taiwan experienced one party rule under the Kuomintang, South Korea was ruled by a succession of Generals (who invoked martial law) and Singapore was(and still is) under the PAP. The political climate in that era was one that prevented dissent and mass protests.

All that changed for South Korea and Taiwan in the early 90s when these countries experienced a series of political liberalisations/reform; moving away from single party rule.

How about Hong Kong? You would think that after 1997, people in Hong Kong would not be able to assemble freely to protest. Despite communist rule, the individual freedoms of the people were not suppressed. Surprisingly, Hong Kongers are still allowed to protest; sometimes even against China.

So where does that leave Singapore? Instead of liberalising the political environment, our PAP government have put more obstacles against political discourse/dissent. Now, even one person can be considered an unlawful assembly in Singapore.

While the people living in the three other countries have learned to be more vocal politically, Singaporeans have remained politically neutered.

Even economically we are left behind. While the three other countries are moving forward towards a consumer based economy (that is typical for a developed country), we are still stuck in the export-based model that has more in common with Vietnam and China.

So while the other East Asian Tigers have moved forward in the their development, we are still stuck in the past (early 1990s); clinging on to our 'Asian' model of governance.

When you see the pictures that our PM showed about how Singapore has improved, notice that he compared between the 1950s/1960s/1970s and now but he never compared between the late 1980s/early 1990s and now.

>> How come this was not mentioned in the National day rally by Hsien Loong?

http://www.straitstimes.com/Breaking%2BNews/Singapore/Story/STIStory_418240.html

Aug 18, 2009
Jailed for living in illegal tent
By Sujin Thomas

HOMELESS and unemployed, Noor Mohammad Yassin Ismail pitched a canvas tent at East Coast Park in May, 2007, and lived there for almost a month - without a lease or licence to do so.

He was discovered on June 26 of that year, after he was apprehended by park rangers.

In court on Tuesday, Noor was asked to produce his Identity Card or passport but he said that he had lost both items.

It prompted District Judge Mr Shaiffudin Saruwan to retort in jest: 'I suggest you use a bicycle chain to tie yourself to a tree or you may lose yourself as well.'

Pleading for leniency, Noor, who is tanned and skinny, said that he seldom ate, only doing so if friends gave him food.

He added that his mother is paralysed and looked after by a younger sibling, while an elder sister does not care about him.

He was fined $800 but could not afford to pay the fine so he was jailed four days instead. He could have been fined up to $2,000.

[color=red]"You must have a lot of time on your hands."[/color]

Seelan Palay, good evening.

When one is semi-retired, time is what one has monopoly of. So between flipping pages through my library books (currently "Chin Peng, My Side of History") and waiting for the equity markets to show signs of life, there is some time to spare reading and writing on the SDP websites.

I try to be courteous to people who pose questions to me or post points about me, cynical or otherwise.

Need to keep the mind active right? What better way then to engage the brothers here (and wait for CSJ to reply my queries to him)

[color=red]"He is actually very busy, earning money by [b]sabotaging[/b] this web site, distracting people from the real aim, goal, dream, purpose, objective."[/color]

quantum, I am not too delighted with your use of the S-word.

As I have replied to PAP-voter, the good thing is that the cyberspace has almost limitless capacity for everyone to share his/her views. If expressing contrarian views is tantamount to sabotaging this website, then this alternate media is handicapped. Is that not the accusation made about the MSM?

Perhaps we need an [b]alternate-alternate media[/b] to overcome this shortcomings? What a mess that would be!

[quote=BryanT]Need to keep the mind active right? What better way then to engage the brothers here (and wait for CSJ to reply my queries to him)[/quote]

If you would really like CSJ to reply to your queries, I'd suggest that you drop him an email. You could try the address in the contact section of this site.

[color=blue]All BryanT's posting seems to very persistent in his approach. I begin to suspect, he is trying to lure CSJ to debate with him instead, luckily his "trap" didnt work on him.

Like many have said, it is best to leave the debating to CSJ and LHL as both are party leaders.

As far as I can see, only people like CSJ are qualified in this arena.
[/color]

Seelan, thanks for the suggestion. I'll wait/see first.... no hurry, since he is a busy person.

[color=red]"I begin to suspect, he is trying to lure CSJ to debate with him instead, luckily his "trap" didnt work on him."[/color]

NissanViP, you are giving me too much credit to be able to hatch a scheme to try to lure CSJ. I am not that complicated and don't intend to be so. The only traps I deal with are "bull traps" and "bear traps".

My debating skills are terrible, so I'd concede to CSJ offhand.

But I would like to raise objection to your statement that the debate is best left to the political party leaders. I hope you are not saying that CSJ's stature is too high for anyone else to engage him.

Is that not the same accusation being made about the ruling party stand-offishness? If only the "top" people can debate among themselves, will that not cause more apathy among the "lowly" people (like myself)?

Related to NissanVIP's comments about debates. As I said, I would prefer to aim "lower" or at least start low.

I would suggest the SDP and its supporter take the opportunity to argue against the replies provided by the ministers in parliament in this website. I can see only Robox trying to do this (about Tharman's reply on Goodyear at 6am!). I thought that is the way to sway opinion and slay apathy.

There were some relevant questions posed in parliament, but I was not satisfied with some of the replies given and sometimes rejoice (quietly) when they fumble or trip over themselves. It reminds them of their vulnerability and would induce them to think deeper before they decide or utter further.

Anyway, I sincerely hope we do not adopt the attitude that since we are not happy with them, their system (or their salaries), we shut ourselves totally from them.

If you really no relation with any party just like me, you should have not be so persistent in your messages.

[color=red]I hope you are not saying that CSJ's stature is too high for anyone else to engage him. [/color] I leave this aside, not relevant.

You should have acknowledge that your view are different from others.

If CSJ to participate or engage with you, then it is as good as you trying to divert his concentration and preparation.

Simple right?

I am very sure Mr George Yeo or Mr Lee Hsien Loong would react the same as Mr Chee.

Like I said it is best to leave the debate to the politician regardless of their status unless you want to confess that you are a politician in diguised.

Obviously, when you dont get paid, you do not think by acting on behalf will benefit you.

I'm very sure you already know their salary, the world most expensive. (If I can replace them with FT, I will do so to cut cost)

As you already know how well they are paid (to be exact - Self-paid), they also can pay you handsomely to do the job.

You can try to twist your words? I can be as good as you.


ByranT quoted "I do not intend to speak up on behalf of GY and LHL. Obviously they are paid well enough to do so themselves. Besides I am sure they are more than competent to do so".

[color=red]"If you really no relation with any party just like me, you should have not be so persistent in your messages."

"If CSJ to participate or engage with you, then it is as good as you trying to divert his concentration and preparation."

"I am very sure Mr George Yeo or Mr Lee Hsien Loong would react the same as Mr Chee."

"You can try to twist your words? I can be as good as you."[/color]

NissanViP, thank you for engaging me in a discussion.

You said that if we do not have a relation with the political parties, we should not be so persistent in our messages. I humbly disagree. Many of us have conceded that many Singaporeans' tendency towards materialism have bred political apathy. I sincerely believe we need people to speak up for what they believe, be they in the areas of workers' plight, animal rights and freedom of expression. Affiliation to any political party is not material, and in fact, more often a liability.

And no, I am not trying to divert CSJ's concentration here. In fact, I think you have probably underestimated his ability to focus and single-mindedness in achieving what he wants. That is one characteristic why many around here admire him. I respect him for that too. But I think he would not begrudge us questioning his ideology and strategies occasionally. After all, he wants our votes and support.

You said that GY and LHL will react the same way as CSJ. There is some irony in this statement somewhere - hmmm, need to pin it down. But anyway, I think many of CSJ's followers will object to any insinuations that there are similarities between GY/LHL and CSJ.

I offer you my congratulations that you are able to twist your words. I can't; people sometimes say I am too direct. So I will NOT dispute your statement that you are better at doing the twist. Besides, I am too old and stiff for that.

I offer you my congratulations that you are able to twist your words. I can't; people sometimes say I am too direct. So I will NOT dispute your statement that you are better at doing the twist. Besides, I am too old and stiff for that.

NissanVIP: He is twisting his words in his reply to you again. Just an excuse that he is too old & stiff. I do not waste my time reading his comments & ignore him as from today onwards, just sian seeing his name over and over and over......again.....see pay sian!

singaporeanCA, also sorry to make you "see pay sian" to see my name.

Maybe you prefer the frequent "well done, Dr Chee!" and "SDP is a world class party" type of comments. Or the usual gripe against the ruling party, of which some are justifiable.

I'll be unfair to say that those comments are wrong or useless, but after a while, they get pretty repetitive, right?

Those are their (or your) opinion. These are mine. We read some, and we ignore some - that's the nature of the internet.

There is nothing wrong if Bryan T acts for pap.That shows pap is worried about SDP and not other opposition parties.I still think CSJ is the best opposition figure. I like his confrontational style when he shouted at Mr Goh. I think Mr Goh did not mind because this is politics but the old man could not take it resulting the suit.

tewniaseng, I do not want to postulate whether the ruling party is more "worried" about the SDP than the other parties. With its thin resources, the SDP should be spending time thinking what are the few right things it wants to do, then to worry about whether the PAP is worried.

One of the few WRONG things that SDP can do is to adopt what you call the "confrontational style". I doubt that it will advance SDP's causes and it would merely indicate a grave lack of imagination in devising a strategy going forward.

I thought CSJ subsequently clarified that he was NOT taunting GCT during that encounter in Marine Parade. As to whether GCT minded being shouted at, I suppose not, because he could cite it as yet an example of ungentlemanly display by another opposition member.

Of course, I think all politicians should be less "thin-skinned".