Singapore Democrats

Shakespeare's "Othello" tells of one who, too used to war (he was a decorated war hero, bearing the scars besides the medals) is unused to peace-time living, the very fruits secured by his prowess at war.

He therefore precipated then murdered, by strangling, his own Venetian virgin wife, whose sixteen year old innocence would even "blush at a touch".

Now, if indeed ISD were sent to "harass" these persons, who only want to realise a more idealistic Singapore than the PAP's somewhat pragmatically compromised but basically similar ideals, isn't somewhat a similar Othellian tragedy in the making?

The tragic difference might be that in the case of LKY, recently declassified documents seem to have shown that, unlike Othello, he had not fought a real war with Lim Chin Siong and others. They might have been shadows only, not really dangerous enemies.

If so, that explains very well why he seems to be still fighting very obvious undangerous "enemies" like Vincent Cheng, Toh Soh Lung, and now Rachel Zeng.

Since no one in his/her right mind would make a remark as silly and inane as that made by "jbharding", the conclusion is clear:

The person behind this moniker must have done so deliberately in order to provoke an over-reaction from supporters, in the hopes of then using any random or unintended outburst as an excuse to demonize us further.

I cannot even begin to describe how contemptible this is.

Then again maybe we should all collectively give a big laugh at such foolishness, which surely must be the sign of a regime growing desperate and careless.

Well, did you ask Shadrake to think twice? You state, "But since MDA did not publicly state the status of the book, it is clear that it has not been banned." Very naive to be charitable.

My personal experience is that MDA does not always state whether a book has been banned or not.

In the case of our book, Escape from Paradise, the trouble started when Helen Yeo (Mrs Yeo Cheow Tong) had Philip Jeyaretnam contact Kinokuniya to remove the book from its shelves. We had said nothing defamatory about her, but she was afraid we would shed light on a certain fact - something we did not do.

Subsequently, the 25 copies (always checked out with a waiting list) were removed from the National Library. Only one copy remained of our book on "restricted" distribution.

MDA did not then, nor has ever, to our knowledge, revealed that Escape from Paradise had or has been banned. Given the problems with Shadrake's book, you, or somebody must have known that something was wrong. Under the circumstances, unless Shadrake is seeking to become a martyr, why was he so foolish as to set foot in Singapore.

You state, "Funny how people can assume that I did not ask him to think twice." There is no clarity there as that statement begs the question, and hides the fact of whether or not you warned Shadrake.

I am not attempting to stir up anything here - it is just that what went down seems very strange to me - especially with my experiences with Escape from Paradise.
John Harding

It’s good to hear that Shadrake came here because he wanted to. In fact, we hear that he was well prepared mentally, apparently only setting foot here “after extensive consultation with famed legal scholar Francis Seow”. (quote from TR; and what a choice of word : “famed”)

If so, then he should be mentally prepared to face the legal and financial consequence – “legal” because of the probable prosecution by the authorities, and “financial” because he would be happily reaping huge returns from the international and media attention he would get for himself and his book.

With an ex-AG to advise him, Shadrake would have done his sums (ie. mainly profits) well, even if there were minor inconveniences of being stuck in Singapore, a hefty fine or a lonely sojourn at the eastern end of the island.

(He could start a new book on the death sentences in Msia while in prison. Then the books would be banned there, and they can be sold here. Of course, he can should also a book launch, in KL)

He would also have meticulously checked that the possible offences he infringed would not attract the attention of our infamous rotan. I am not sure his ends justify such a whipping treatment. (.....pun intended)

As for Rachel, she is obviously not an ISD agent. (Not that I am privy to any insider information to confirm it...haha).

But what she intentionally wants us to know in passing is the pauperized state of her pocket and bank account. She is proudly tell us that in fighting for the various nebulous causes in her political stable, she is willing to pay a personal financial price.

Should we be sympathetic to both?..... nah!

Everytime I met Rachel during SDP's get-together, I always wonder how can such a pettite sweet little girl...to me Rachel is still a 'little sweet girl' because my daughter Endra is 34 years old and a mother of a sweet cutey girl and my grand-daughter.

In the face of accusation and speculation by others... and the world has many of these invertebrate creatures, just do what is within our heart and conscience; we know the 'light of day' will prevail.

Alan Shadrake is a courageous man, never bowed to injustice. MDA is acting without justice to detain Alan. S'pore is not a police state, is it?
What is true democracy of expression? What is human rights?

PAP the absolute dictator does everything under their whims and fancies and are unable to tolerate the truth of events unfolding against them... hence "Once A Jolly Hangman" is banned for no better reason than Alan wrote the truth of judicial injustice in S'pore..Hang the unknown and insignificant, 'free' the who's who under pressure and connection... So this is called justice S'pore style and true to the title "(once) a Jolly Hangman" to my whims and fancies of the government !!

Dear Bryan T, I do not need your sympathy. It is quite obvious that my sarcasm has been lost on you. That is ok because I have noted that you are very fond of nit-picking to the extent that you often twist the intent of the words/ phrases used by people commenting on this site.

Anyway John Harding, my due respect to you for your great work which I have read so much about. However I do not think that I need to talk publicly about all the conversations that have taken place between the publisher, writer and organiser.

All I can say is that at the end of the day, everyone agreed that the launch should take place with or without the books. When the article came out on the Straits Times in the morning of the launch saying that the book has not been banned, we decided to bring in some books.

We did discussed upon the pros and cons of the situation, of what might or might not happen if Alan is to set foot in Singapore. Alan was brave enough to make the decision to come and I really applaud him for that.

Once again, why must we withdraw into our shells of comfortable protection if we have actually done nothing wrong at all?

Honestly, if MDA has banned the book, it is their responsibility to inform the general public with a statement or a notice on their website. If the book is indeed banned, why then did they declare that the book has not been banned when asked by the Straits Times? If I am not wrong, the book should be available in Lee Kong Chian Reference Library soon.

Hmmm...

Why would one ISD operative blow the whistle on her colleague?

Bryant's mentality is the tragic outcome of years of PAP materialistic pragmatism. It is inconceivable to him that persons can have high ideals for which they are willing to be altruistic and sacrifice much. And so Shadrake, even Rachel, must have underlying motives of making money out of these incidents they deliberately caused.

Reminds me of Goh Chok Tong's remark "At the end of the day, it's the pay check that matters" when arguing for high pay to motivate honourable "top talents". And there was a top Singapore diplomat addressing school principals (whose job is to morally educate our young) who said, stating the principle our diplomatic service assumes in international relations, "Morality happens only on Sundays. We work from Mondays to Saturdays", again implying that selfish materialism was the underlying motivation.

Etc., etc.

Tai Wei: "Morality happens only on Sundays." Lol! Poor hypocrites. No wonder, Singapore "charities" and "religious" organizations are so corrupted.


Title Once a jolly hangman : Singapore justice in the dock / Alan Shadrake.
Author Shadrake, Alan.
Publisher Petaling Jaya, Selangor : Strategic Information and Research Development Centre, 2010.
Physical Description xvi, 219 p., [12] p. of plates : ill. ; 23 cm.
Other Contributors Strategic Info Research Development.
Search by Subjects Justice, Administration of Singapore.
Law Political aspects Singapore.
Singapore Politics and government.
Where to find it
Branch Location Date Call Number Status
Lee Kong Chian Reference Library RSING 23-06-10 English 347.5957 SHA In Process
Lee Kong Chian Reference Library RSING 23-06-10 English 347.5957 SHA In Process

Ah so, the plot thickens.

First, Chip Goodyear, the multimillionaire ex-CEO of Aussie mining giant BHP Billiton (2003 revenue US$10.6 billion) is fingered as a shadowy CIA operative. Based on some extremely dodgy 'evidence', John Harding reckons the spooky Chip was sent by his masters to wrest control of wealthy Temasek from our cack-handed management failure, Ho Ching.

Next, the seductive Mata Hari of Singapore, Rachel Zeng (whom we all know is an ISD agent in the tradition of the notorious Chua sisters), is sent to deliver Alan Shadrake, the veteran cold war investigative reporter, into the arms of the Singapore authorities who are beside themselves with rage at his unflattering revelations.

With the looming general election the FAP are desperate to flaunt their no-nonsense attitude and any publicity will do since it's the spin doctor's maxim that there is no such thing as bad publicity. Thus they really, really needed to have the world recoil in disgust at the charge of contempt of court levelled at Shadrake for writing a book -- in addition to the tacit contempt at the compulsory sentence of whipping for the Swiss graffiti artist and the universal revulsion at the mandatory death sentence passed on a teenage drug mule.

Alan Shadrake is of course the poor dumb sucker who falls for the girlish Zeng charm because there really is no fool like an old fool (as we are daily reminded by the MM).

I can hardly wait for the other shoe to drop. Then shall it finally be revealed that Dr. Chee Soon Juan has all along been a top-rank ISD sleeper cunningly embedded into political society to act as a lightning rod for dangerous dissidents. And did you know that the SDP is in fact a set-up, a honey-trap to gather the opposition into a single killing field?

Nothing like a good conspiracy theory is there? Now, where did I put my tin-foil hat?

Honestly everyone can say whatever they want about me, it does not really matter. There is nothing to lose here because I have nothing to begin with. If I am indeed working working for the ISD, then perhaps they should start explaining why I have not gotten a paycheck from them.

Anyway, I care more about the causes and campaigns that I am working on to be distracted by all these little allegations. Such allegations will never put my spirit down, thanks for trying.

BTW, I am hardly seductive or girlish and am not interested in working towards being so. Thanks g_e for assuming that I am even though I believe that g_e does not know me in person at all.

It is however an insult to Alan Shadrake he is being called "the poor dumb sucker who falls for the girlish Zeng charm because there really is no fool like an old fool". I know that alot of other men think with their brains down south but excuse me, Alan Shadrake thinks more with his brain up north.

The book launch was not initiated by me in the first place. I merely volunteered to co-ordinate things on the behalf of Singapore Anti-Death Penalty Campaign. It was all for a cause that I strongly believe in.

It hasn't been easy and I am not doing what I do for the sake of fame.

Sorry if anyone assumes so. That is shallow thinking on your part if I may be allowed an opinion here.

g_e, your defense of Chip Goodyear is interesting. I just had a comment on my website by one Zachary Goodyear, who claims to be a relative of Chip. He explained to me (no kidding) the Charles "Chip" Waterhouse Goodyear IV is the son of Charles Waterhouse Goodyear IV. Brilliant!

We will now add g_e's version of the Goodyear affair to Zachary's in our collection.

Rachel states that her pockets are empty. Who knows?

She also stated, "By the way, ISD wasn't interested in him. Ministry of Law and MDA were. He was told immediately when the books were taken off the shelves" How does she know that ISD wasn't interested in him? Hmmm.

I don't think MDA has its own police force (yet), so they would have referred the matter to the police or ISA.

Now Shadrake faces what, at 75, could be a life sentence - not to mention bankruptcy. As they say, the game wasn't worth the candle.

To think that it was alright for Shadrake to enter Singapore was daft - or worse.

Now for some helpful advice: Shadrake has a lousy publisher, as they have not made his book easily available. On Amazon, there is only one title by Shadrake - Yellow Pimpernels, a paperback published way way back in 1976. Why didn't his publisher see to it that his book was properly distributed? (No, I am not suggesting that his publishers are ISD agents - but incompetent, yes).

Is Rachel Zeng an unindicted co-conspirater to criminal defamation; is she protected as an ISD agent; or is she just another pretty face?

The plot thickens.

Dear Rachel, you should have read my comment with tongue well buried in cheek especially the bit about Shadrake being a sucker. I thought the irony obvious since anyone who spent time reporting from behind the Iron Curtain as he did would hardly be likely to be anybody's fool. It follows that any decision to tweak the tiger's tail would have been quite carefully arrived at after due diligence by the author himself, no?

Frankly I think the authorities were fervently praying that Shadrake would stay away and not force their hand. Once he defiantly and publicly waved his book in their face on their turf they had to respond or risk being seen as weak. Their cherished track record of zero tolerance towards the slightest criticism left them no other option.

The remark about old fools and MM stands though. If you read His Lordship's latest drivel about present-day Malaysians being less intelligent than before (does a nation's IQ decline in the space of 20 years?) and the need to import an 'Intellectual Class' from China because he feels Singaporeans do not measure up, I think you too might suspect the man of rapidly losing his remaining few marbles.

Perhaps g_e may not know you personally, but he does think you have more testicular fortitude than many. Illegitimi non carborundum.

"Is Rachel Zeng an ISD agent, herself, and was she luring Shadrake into Singapore where the ISD could get their hands on him?"
"Rachel states that her pockets are empty. Who knows?"
"How does she know that ISD wasn't interested in him? Hmmm."
"Is Rachel Zeng an unindicted co-conspirater to criminal defamation; is she protected as an ISD agent; or is she just another pretty face?"

John Harding, you seem to be bent on muck-spreading at the expense of Rachel Zeng. You have not presented a single shred of evidence to justify your innuendo but that has not stopped you from speculating wildly and hinting darkly at ulterior motives.

Since we're into the realm of playing silly buggers, would it be fair to wonder if you might yourself be in the pay of the CIA? Perhaps you have been tasked with ensuring that no opposition arises in Singapore to challenge the incumbent? After all, they do bend over backwards to support the projection of US power in the region and a resurgent opposition might not be quite so accommodating.

Seeing as Shadrake has rocked the political boat and landed in hot water with Rachel's help by your insinuation, one would expect any CIA agent worth his salt to seize the chance to discredit her and by association, the SDP whose Young Democrats are supportive of her, right? Well, I'm sure one conspiracy theory is as good as any other. So John Harding, what is your real agenda, hmmm?

The plot does indeed thicken.

Apologies there g_e, I do get very sensitive when people talk about female activists taking the role of being seductive and girlish to carry out their work to the point where I looked at your comment a tad too seriously.

I get that alot and it does annoy me quite abit that there exists a gender imbalance in the local activism scene and sometimes females are viewed as ornaments by non-activists. They do stand out in their groups like a sore thumb and they get scrutinised from top to toe from their appearance to the way they carry themselves (by males and females alike).

John Harding, why don't you write to Alan Shadrake asking if he agrees with what you have said there. I cannot wait to hear about his response to you.

Indeed the both of you have written books that the government does not want us to read. However your personalities and the decisions that the both of you make are different to the extreme. Perhaps instead of pinning it down to putting the blame on me with your lovely imagination of a writer's, why don't you respect his decision to challenge the authorities in person instead.

Alan said to the press today:

"I'm not a wimp, I'm not a coward. I want to have my day in court... I'm not running away. If I run away, it means I'm guilty."

"I'm not trying to be a martyr, but in the process of writing this book, I learned about the injustices and the families of the victims and that turned me into an activist."

The plot on our side has not thicken. We have been rather open about our opinions so far. As everyone can clearly see, I have also been put in the open for attacks, criticisms and certain uncalled for remarks in some websites.

As for you Harding, your arrogance and failure to recognise the need for us to challenge the authorities, or at the very least respect our decisions to do so, have stumbled my long time respect for you. No doubt I still do look forward to holding a copy of your book one day but I will never look at the name of one of the co-authors the same as before again.

Don't assume I fail to recognize the need for you to challenge the authorities - I do. All I challenge is the decision to bring Shadrake to Singapore, and just how that decision was made, and by whom.

The only party I have criticized in Singapore is the Reform Party.

The fact that I disagree with Shadrake's statement, "If I run away it means I am guilty." This is not so, and does not make sense. Still, my opinion of his statement does not mean that I am against Shadrake. I am for Shadrake, and am sorry to see him in this predictable predicament. I am also disappointed that his publisher did not get his book on Amazon. The whole thing could have been better managed - with more reason less emotion.

Finally, am I a CIA agent? - I wish! I could have always used a second salary.

Do not assume? Well say that to yourself.

This article would not have been possible in the first place without your assumptions.

You may disagree with Alan, that is fine and I am sure he disagrees with you too.

Well you are also free to feel sorry for Alan but Alan certainly does not feel sorry for himself. He drowns not in self pity of his situation and in fact he takes it with strength.

If you have an issue with his publisher, write to them, don't whine just whine about it here.

Oh by the way,

"Finally, am I a CIA agent? - I wish! I could have always used a second salary."

Sounds familiar isn't it?

HOW DO WE KNOW THAT YOU ARE NOT?

Hahaha anyway, good morning!

Dear Rachel,
interestingly and suddenly jbharding appear from nowhere!john harding yes,jb? sound like my name.
dear rachel,what u did is brave & u are accountable to no one,especially this jbharding but politely u answer to his posting & got interrogated.
if i am you i shall stand independent & not to be pull into such cheap pot shot & the becoming of 'thicker plot'indeed as jbharding would like u to believe & working liken CIA Agent,somehow more complicated than our ISD...certainly u are not an ISD 'personnel'for i do have knowledge how they operate.jbharding on the other have produced together with his wife?some interesting books for the reading but now i have totally no respect for this guy & surely while he has source of investigating all sorts of complicated CIA,FBI & ISD 'proof'of the wrong doing of this government, so what, he is such a coward to be hiding 'over there'& not like u, CSJ or even Mr Shadrake that will stand to face the music in your conviction..& is perfectly all right to be an activist so long u are within your rights and so far you are doing well..if i were u, i shall ignore this jbharding and now interesting with 'CIA''FBI'coming along your way & into this blog, the plot really thicken but i guess i know who is behind this thickening plot & the wayang just begin....

Dear SDP,
From time to time I visit your blog & update myself with interesting articles,comments & update about matter concerning Singapore from a very different perspective and enjoy reading at times, amusing.
Recently I notice in this blog a posting from a jbharding and claiming to be John Harding, apparently a co-author from the book,'escape from paradise'?
Regardless the truth of this identity,allow me the privy to forwarn SDP (out of goodwill)to be involve with this particular posting(jbharding)as what you have been doing is 'aboveboard'& you are standing by your belief and great conviction to fight for greater & good cause for Singapore; Singaporeans.
If jbharding is indeed John Harding & the team therein from the book & the very explicit 'blog'that they are currently having,his intrusion to this site is the beggining of thicker plot indeed & getting involve with a 'radical'such like him shall only invite trouble from certain authority.
The approach so far as I have read is rather 'negative'& to some extent in bad taste.Being a visitor (& from other place)& to be rudely probing to name calling Rachael as an ISD mode is a double edge sword liken to 'test'the ground of his revenge for reasons as stated in his book & using this domain to wage war on tactical level...if he is convinced & in good manner of wanting to comment & 'upgrade' the cause of activists'movement in Singapore,he is welcome to do so & visit this land,hold the 'flag'& to march together & by posting & seemingly trying to get involve is more than surface of matter..Watch Out! do not allow personal agenda swimming into this domain which if unwantingly getting the authority to witness your 'informer' to infiltrate, then is sad to say for the great innocence of not your intend,the mode is being planted by foreign agent.Watch Out for this man for he cometh as sheep in wolve skin.

Rachel Zeng writes, "If you have an issue with his publisher, write to them, don't whine just whine about it here." She mis-characterizes my remark about Shadrake's publisher. My remark was an attempt to be helpful.

Rachel continues to indulge in "argumentum ad hominem" attacking me rather that addressing my remarks.

My whole point re Shadrakes publisher is intended to see that his book is more widely distributed and available on a world-wide basis. This is not whining.

jbegi in attacking me, hides his true identity. Therefore, he, not I is the coward. Like Rachel, jbegi carries on about the CIA. Since my father was a card-carrying member of the illegal American Communist Party, and my stepmother was called to Washington to testify before HUAC, the House UnAmerican Activities Committee, the CIA would NEVER hire me. Neither of them hid their names, and neither do I.

The SDP should always be vigilant. The Reform Party was co-founded by an alleged Tamil terrorist, Baldev Naidu, who is currently in custody and awaiting trial in the US. Naidu's good friend, Kenneth Jeyaretnam, still cannot bring himself to believe that Naidu is not what he appeared to be to the Reform Party.

http://www.straitstimes.com/BreakingNews/Singapore/Story/STIStory_561755.html

SINGAPORE must defend the integrity of its institutions of justice and law enforcement robustly, especially when attacked maliciously.

Such attacks undermine public confidence and trust earned over years, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs Wong Kan Seng said yesterday.

'If we do not do so and allow vicious falsehood to perversely masquerade itself as the truth, we will eventually lose our moral authority and with it, our effectiveness to achieve our mission to keep Singapore safe and secure,' he said.

He cited a 2008 household survey which found that the police force enjoyed the highest level of public confidence and trust, with a score of 7.6 out of 10 points.

The judiciary followed with 7.5 points and religious institutions with 7.4 points.

Mr Wong said the country was able to have tough laws against serious crime with the support of the Singapore public.

This ST damage-control article immediately raises one or two interesting questions, doesn't it?

[1] Why is it that other countries feel no need to rush to the defence of their judicial systems? How come they don't feel their moral authority threatened when someone criticises them in print? Does the Singapore government have something it is guilty and ashamed of that it wants swept under the carpet at all costs?

[2] I can't recall a single nation that has charged a dissident with defaming a SYSTEM, can you? The mind boggles at the very idea. Shall we next see a critic of Singapore's electoral system being dragged into court and accused of scandalising the GRC system?

[3] Would you trust the results of 'a household survey' cited by an authoritarian government not best known for the milk of human kindness? Children arrested by police for protesting with anime figures, school kids warned for T-shirts with white elephant pictures, licences needed simply to speak, assemble.........the list is endless. When you combine that with absolute control of the press, the article will be seen for exactly what it is: shameless propaganda.

[4] "the police force enjoyed the highest level of public confidence and trust, with a score of 7.6 out of 10 points." Same BS, different day. Would this be the same police force who are shown up time and again to be lying on the few occasions they are forced to testify in open court as in the G. Nair and CSJ trials? Would this be the same force whose silence over the questionable testimony given by their (criminal and subsequently jailed) arresting officer Rajkumar led to the hanging of Vignes Mourthi? How many points is any innocent person's life worth?

Mr. Deputy PM Wong Kan Seng, your government is beginning to feel the heat otherwise you would not be speaking up in place of the Law Minister. But then you're a day late and a dollar short, as they say. Cue the relic and use the remnants of his tattered credibility to defend the indefensible.

Re: "He cited a 2008 household survey which found that the police force enjoyed the highest level of public confidence and trust, with a score of 7.6 out of 10 points."

Now, isn't that an incomparable feat!

Yes. The survey was done with a disinformed sample, random or not, we will never know for the same reasons that we should not be trusting this survey: a grosss lack of transparency in The System.

I cahllenge Wong Kan Seng to conduct the same survey ONLY AFTER A SUSTAINED PUBLIC EDUCATION ON THE ISSUES with the same group of respondents.