OPINION: Ten Reasons Why Dr Chee Soon Juan May Win the Bukit Batok By Election, by Gilbert Goh

Ten reasons why Dr Chee Soon Juan may win the Bukit Batok by-election:-

1. A changed man

Dr Chee has rejuvenated himself over the past decade changing from a unpopular activist regenade to a sober serious-looking politician.

Singaporeans prefer someone who is calm and stable to be in politics and he has rightfully transformed himself miraculously over the past ten years.

Gone is the tough-looking countenance of a hard-nosed activist as he went in and out of jail several times fighting for better human rights for our unappreciative Singaporeans.

The masses who flocked to his GE 2015 election rallies and long queues for his signature are testimony of his new-found popular success.

2. A straight-talking politician in Parliament

Singaporeans will be guaranteed a tough straight-talker in Dr Chee if he is elected into Parliament.

One who never refuses to speak his mind even if it jeopardises his own standing, he will certainly be the right person to speak out for the average Singaporean.

Many people are not too happy with the current  performance of the elected Workers’ Party MPs in Parliament and they want to see someone who can debate articulately for them especially on unpopular policies that affect them.

Dr Chee may be the person we all are looking for…

3. Frustrated with 2rd PAP MP extra-marital nonsense

Singaporeans are shocked at the second PAP MP extra-marital affair that brought about the by-election.

Gone are the whiter-than-white image of the average PAP MPs and Bukit Batok residents may simply vote with their feet in protest.

Much time and money are lost in the process as the Election Department need to prepare for the folly of a wayward politician.

More importantly, there is a loss of confidence in the selection process of the ruling party as the illicit affair was allowed to carry on during and after the recent general election for close to six months.

No one blew the whistle until the husband threatened to complain to the ruling party.

Though an affair is tough to prevent as the grassroots needs to work closely with the MPs, a tougher protocol needs to be in place to prevent such extra-marital shame from happening again.

A third extra-marital incident will surely bring down the reputation of the PAP MPs though the second by-election has certainly damaged the image of the party by a few knots.

Residents at Bukit Batok may simply vote against the ruling party as a show of displeasure with the second extra-marital affair and more significantly its selection process.

4. By-election effect

The ruling party suffered a serious defeat at the first by-election at Punggol East in 2013.

People felt safe to vote in the opposition as the ruling party is already in power and there is no danger of a freak election result.

Though voters may generally be unhappy with the incumbent, they do not feel confident that the opposition can form a credible government which probably resulted in a landslide win for the ruling party in GE 2015.

However, a by-election does not bring forth such unpredictability and residents at Bukit Batok may simply do the impossible by giving Dr Chee a vote of confidence.

5. Renowned international speaker

Dr Chee is also a renowned international speaker and has far more exposure than anyone else from the opposition camp.

Most of his talks are full and well attended abroad as overseas participants want to pick the brain of the best opposition leader.

Thousands also attended the recent SDP rallies and many simply wanted to hear him speak.

Parliamentary speeches will never be the same again if Dr Chee is elected as a Member of Parliament as he is both gifted and eloquent in his delivery.

Ministers may dread it if he ever gets elected…he won’t take no for an answer.

6. Twenty over years in politics

No-one has stayed in politics as long as Dr Chee.

It must be at least an arduous 25 years and probably the longest unelected politician as well in Singapore.

It is a tough journey as his earlier years represent more of a activist role and the transition must be difficult.

Severely persecuted as a hard-nosed activist, he went in and out of prison frequently as his Western ethics went very much unappreciated by the average Singaporean.

He protested outside Parliament and even went on a hunger strike.

However, the transition over the past decade has transformed Dr Chee into a softer person whom Singaporeans are able to appreciate.

The personal transformation will surely touch some voters in Bukit Batok…

7. Second most prominent party in Singapore opposition

Dr Chee has managed to transform SDP into the second most prominent party in Singapore – no easy feat as no-one is in Parliament yet.

It's the daily grind over the past decade that touches many Singaporeans as the recent election results have been discouraging at best.

The unrewarded result must yield some dividends eventually and let's hope that the Bukit Batok by-election is the icing on the cake for the opposition incumbent.

8. Emergence of a second opposition party in Parliament

Singaporeans are starting to feel uncomfortable with just two parties in Parliament – the emergence of a third political party may be what they are waiting for.

SDP may fill in the missing gap on issues that WP want to abstain from.

For example, WP was decidedly silent on the passing of the population white paper three years ago and it was up to the activists who took the issue up at speakers’ corner triggering a large turnout for the event.

SDP is also seen to be more vocal on human rights issues which have irked many Singaporeans lately (Benjamin Lim’s suicide and Dominique Lee’s national-service death).

Singaporeans will surely welcome the more intense debate on issues if a second political opposition party enters Parliament.

9. Forgiven and forgotten

The ruling party and critics have always brought up the past in which the former SDP Sec-Gen Chiam See Tong was ousted by Dr Chee in a party power tussle.

But that was almost 15 years ago and much has evolved within the party during that time.

The ruling party will surely bring this up again to smear the name of Dr Chee and hope to knock back his rising popularity.

Nevertheless, what he has achieved over the past decade will negate any ill feelings created from the past.

10. Never-say-die character

Many are also amazed at the up-and-down chronology of the top-notched opposition leader who doesn't seem to give up.

After the recent landslide PAP win, many opposition leaders have taken a backseat more to lick their wounds than anything else.

However, Dr Chee never surrendered and continued with his 140-km personal walk for a better Singapore – just barely few months after the dismal election result.

It spoke volume of the staunch personality of the incumbent who is steadfast in his goal and ideals.

He has also given up much to be a politician as he has a doctorate in psychology. Surely, some foreign university would hire him as a lecturer and he could bring his family over for a better lifestyle but yet he stays on.

Let’s hope the voters in Bukit Batok give him a ticket to a dream seat in Parliament –

Singaporeans need him and he needs that opportunity to serve us.

Written by: Gilbert Goh

- See more at: http://www.transitioning.org/2016/03/19/ten-reasons-why-dr-chee-soon-juan-may-win-the-bukit-batok-by-election/#sthash.JOcTFAJ4.dpuf

[By Gilbert Goh and used here with his kind written permission.]

Dr Chee Soon Juan and Dr Kieran James @ old SDP Headquarters off Upper Thomson Road, February 2011

Dr James Gomez (far right) speaks @ SDP general election night function, Quality Hotel, May 2011

History in the Making: Dr Chee Soon Juan speaks @ SDP general election night function, May 2011, while Dr Vincent Wijeysingha watches BG George Yeo accept defeat in Aljunied GRC on the big screen.

Dr Chee Soon Juan speaks to the SDP crowd on election night 2011 while Dr Vincent Wijeysingha looks at the camera.

These anti-PAP sentiments were expressed by activists in Toa Payoh (before the graffiti was hastily removed by authorities).

NEW INTERVIEW: My interview with 14-year-old Renarda Yoch & 17-year-old Yap Puay Tong (4/3/2010)

Mr Yap Puay Tong (age 17) and Mr Renarda Yoch (name changed) (age 14) (opposition supporters and activists)

Desmond Lim and Kieran James

By Dr Kieran James: On the author’s last full-day in Singapore on his March 2010 research trip (4 March 2010), he was scheduled to interview 17-year-old Junior College 1 student Yap Puay Tong and 14-year-old Secondary 3 student Renarda Yoch (name changed) in the distant HDB housing estates of Tampines at 4pm and nearby Bedok one hour later. The train trip involved him leaving the familiar environs of the inner-city and the tourist precinct to travel north-east on the Eastern MRT Line into the world of Singapore’s socially-engineered HDB estates where the percentages of each official ethnic group in each precinct and tower block are monitored and controlled to prevent the development of ethnic enclaves. The interviewer spent a half-hour in Tampines watching literally thousands of commuters stream through the MRT station gates and into the Tampines Town Centre. His first impression was that young Renarda had forgotten the appointment or been too shy to commit his views to the public record. The interviewer preceded on to Bedok and, expecting no further interviews for the day, enjoyed a can of Guinness and some Hainanese chicken-rice at the Bedok Hawker Centre. Guinness is freely available in nearly all the island’s hawker centres so clearly the PAP is not anti-everything! At Bedok MRT Renarda suddenly arrived and explained that the pair had decided to interview together at Bedok and that Puay Tong was coming on the next train. When Puay Tong arrived, we withdrew to McDonald’s in Bedok Town Centre for a group interview.

The late Patrick Lee Song Juan (SDA)

Renarda (14-years-old at the date of the interview but turning 15 in calendar year 2010) is in secondary school while Puay Tong is in Junior College or JC, an elitist system of junior colleges designed to provide the most intellectually competent secondary-school leavers with an academic and social pathway to university. Renarda comes across as an intelligent, thoughtful, and articulate 14-year-old. He has decided that the official Establishment ideology, as taught in school textbooks, is not the reality of Singapore’s history as he understands it. As Renarda says, ‘[t]he PAP was gerrymandering. The GRC system, it’s a mockery of our system. In school we have to talk about democracy. It’s all a show’. Renarda said that he attended two opposition rallies, five years apart at the same venue, accompanied by his father. At the time of the first rally he was a PAP supporter, as was Puay Tong in his younger primary school days (Primary 5). At the second rally Renarda realized that the WP people there were normal patriotic Singaporeans. If his recollections are correct, these two rallies must have been at the 2001 and 2006 GEs when Renarda would have been aged only eleven and six respectively. Renarda declares himself now as someone wanting to exercise his democratic rights, learn about his country, and work towards social and political change. Like Puay Tong, he takes his responsibilities as a Singaporean citizen seriously and believes he owes it to his country to work towards creating a more just and democratic society. Similarly, Puay Tong states that: ‘I am 100% Singaporean that was born here [and] that would like to see changes for my country’. Renarda comments that he has not decided on which opposition party to support but that he attended SDP’s 30^th Anniversary Dinner on 27 February 2010 because, in his words, ‘30^th birthdays do not happen every day’. Renarda declares his total respect and support for Dr Chee and for the Facebook activist community which includes the SDP Youth and the RP’s Alex Tan (formerly of the SPP). Both Renarda and Puay Tong are active in making political posts on Facebook along with their other non-political ‘teenager’ posts. Puay Tong is a dedicated football supporter of Borussia Dortmund.

Yaw Shin Leong (ex-WP) and Kieran James

For his part, Puay Tong rejects the conformist Singaporean ideology and system and especially the pressures to work hard and conform placed upon students by the school system. He states that: ‘I believe that the education system needs flexibility. ... Our education system needs a reform to suit individual interests rather than everyone keep[s] studying by the books’. Puay Tong reminisces about a Secondary 4 school teacher, Mr Wee, who observing Puay Tong’s interest in opposition politics encouraged him further in that direction and took him to RP open houses. Puay Tong was reprimanded in school for distributing RP political flyers within the school grounds, a practice which the Ministry of Education (MOE) bans. Furthermore, he has been accused by his less politically aware classmates of being ‘non-Singaporean’ because of his rejection of the dominant ideology. His then teacher, Mr Wee, suggested that he ‘read other party’s beliefs so I can see which ideology suits me the most’.

Puay Tong intelligently critiques the PAP Government’s ideological line that ‘we must pay high salaries so that MPs do not become corrupt’ by arguing, firstly, that the PAP MPs we have now are only those that can be persuaded to join politics and hence they are a ‘reserves team’ at best. Secondly, Puay Tong argues that if high salaries are paid to avoid corruption then that must means that the current crop of MPs is naturally corrupt. He rails against the Singaporean PM’s salary which is many times higher than the salary of the American President.

The interviewer left the two-hour interview recharged, motivated, and encouraged by the political talk and this euphoria could not be attributed to the caffeine offered by his jumbo-size Coca-Cola. It was not even due to the remnants of the Guinness. The interviewer was impressed by these young men’s enthusiasm and devotion to opposition politics, and especially their desires to exercise fully the rights of their Singaporean citizenships and to work towards meaningful social and political change in their country. There was a maturity and reflection evident in their analyses which suggested that they have the ability to stay on the opposition side for the long-term and win over many people, through the power of logical and passionate argument, to the opposition side. They clearly saw the PAP’s authoritarianism as belonging to a feudal past and being out of step with the rest of the world and with the true needs of modern Singaporeans who do not lack goods on the shelves but who feel constrained and restricted in regards free speech and the exercise of other civil rights. Puay Tong’s philosophy can be well summarized by the following quote:

“I value honesty in politics, honesty to the people, what are you doing and why. Finance and stats [statistics] must be available. This is our country and we want to know. This is your basic duty to let people know what you are trying to do” [group interview, 4 March 2010].

Renarda adds, alluding to the foreign worker issue: ‘My ideology is, I quote Alex Tan [RP Youth], you must create a Singapore for Singaporeans’.

Roderick Chia, Kieran James, Jarrod Luo (ex-SDP)

Puay Tong and Renarda are no ‘rebels without a cause’ but mature individuals who have actively questioned the version of the truth contained in the school textbooks and have decided that they prefer Dr Chee’s version of the Singaporean story to the official Establishment narrative. Renarda states that: ‘PAP think they are the saviours of Singapore, the textbooks read that way. ... The standard mentality of our generation is that the PAP brought us to greatness’. Both Renarda and Puay Tong reject the textbook claims that Dr Chee is ‘an infamous politician’, Lim Chin Siong was a ‘left-wing communist who threatened our security’, and Harry Lee was the politician who played the major role in independence. Renarda claims that, in fact, it was David Marshall, Lim Chin Siong, and Lim Yew Hock who played the major roles in the independence struggle although Renarda is quick to point out that Lim Yew Hock was a ‘compromise politician’ who, as Puay Tong reminds us, instituted the persecution of the Barisan Socialis. Renarda states that: ‘There is always the idea in school that Barisan Socialis and Lim Chin Siong and Chia Thye Poh are evil’. In fact, the PAP was able to create a world-first for combining ‘creating docile bodies’ (Foucault) with ‘maximizing the rate of profit’ (Marx) when dissident Chia Thye Poh, when shifted to resort island Sentosa whilst still under house arrest, was forced to work each day on the mainland so that he could, in Renarda Yoch’s words, ‘pay rent for his own jail’.  

Renarda states that he is proud to live in Hougang SMC and that his family has told him that Low Thia Khiang is a distant relative (grand aunty’s husband). Puay Tong’s father was a member of Barisan Socialis so each has a strong and respectable oppositional lineage. As has been illustrated, both these young Singaporeans have knowledge of past activism within Singapore dating back to the independence era. Renarda is willing to positively acknowledge the contributions made by PAP politicians George Yeo, Ong Teng Cheong, and Goh Keng Swee, pointing out that these three represent politicians from ‘three different generations’, much as Patrick Lee Song Juan applauds PAP MP Lily Neo’s compassionate championing of the cause of the Singaporean poor in and out of the Parliament.

Dr Chee Soon Juan and Kieran James

Puay Tong and Renarda are concerned that the MSM will make Harry Lee a ‘saviour, some kind of cult hero’ (Renarda’s words) after his death, much like what has happened in North Korea. Using teenager terminology, which is nonetheless appropriate, Puay Tong suggests the official ideology will turn Harry Lee into a ‘Spiderman’ or a ‘Superman’ able to leap tall buildings in a single bound. Within the dominant ideology he is already three-quarters there. ‘Very likely he will die with his boots on’ adds Renarda.

The Slovenian post-communist philosopher Slavoj Žižek (2008, pp. 259-60) has argued that although the secret police in the communist German Democratic Republic (GDR) or East Germany numbered 100,000, or four times higher than under the Nazis, this did not amount to, simplistically, four times the level of repression. Žižek (2008, pp. 259-60) argues that the East Germans under Nazism were morally depraved and hence needed much less of a secret police to restrain their instinctual pushes for freedom. By contrast, communism retained an emancipatory Marxist-Leninist aspect even in East Germany. Therefore, communism restrained the impulses for freedom whilst simultaneously creating and encouraging many of those same impulses. In the same way, the PAP’s determined and relentless 40-year push for excellent English education in Singaporean schools and a demanding school syllabus are the very factors that have directly created young and politically aware intellectuals such as Puay Tong and Renarda! One is reminded of Mikhail Gorbachev who was so committed to pursuing his objectives of glasnost and perestroika for the Soviet Union that he gave further power and encouragement to forces that ultimately undermined and eliminated his own Government. Has the PAP engineered its own eventual redundancy? For many young Singaporeans, even amongst that vast majority who are not as politically aware as Puay Tong and Renarda, authoritarian states tend to be looked down upon. The senior Lee’s new public affection for the post-Maoist China of Deng Xiaoping and his successors is unlikely to sway many younger English-educated Singaporeans who probably prefer Obama and the freedoms (real and imagined) of the west. The demise of Suharto in Indonesia, Marcos in the Philippines, the LDP in Japan, the Kuomintang in Taiwan, and the recent regime change in South Korea suggests that Asian history may well be on Puay Tong and Renarda’s side.

Kieran James and Ravi Philemon

In terms of predictions for the 7 May 2011 GE, Puay Tong suggested that Tampines GRC would probably be won by the opposition (it’s a ‘good chance’) with East Coast GRC also being, in his words, ‘possible’. Puay Tong suggested Bishan-Toa Payoh GRC as a possible ‘fifty-fifty’, in his words, opposition gain. He regarded opposition-held Potong Pasir SMC, without Chiam See Tong in the contest, as also being no better than a ‘fifty-fifty’ proposition. Showing a strong grasp of grassroots issues, Puay Tong pointed to the unpopularity of the PAP’s Mah Bow Tan in Tampines GRC. After he (Mah) lost to Chiam in Potong Pasir SMC at GE 1984, Puay Tong recounts Mah’s nasty trick of rerouting Bus No. 147 so that it goes through Seng Kang rather than Potong Pasir. Petty slights at the local level such as this one tend to be perceived as highly irritating by the Singaporean electorate and memories fail to fade quickly. Renarda makes the strong concluding point that ‘all it needs [for an opposition breakthrough at the polls] is for Singaporeans to trust the opposition’. Puay Tong and Renarda’s predictions regarding GE 7 May 2011 proved to be extremely insightful. The only clear mistake was in expecting a ‘probable’ opposition win in Tampines GRC, although had a WP team or even a better known NSP team contested there the PAP may not have retained the constituency. The WP did well in East Coast GRC, slowly pegging back ground on the PAP so that, if the current percentage swing is maintained, the WP should secure the constituency at the next election. The WP scored 36.14% (37,873 out of 104,804) in East Coast GRC at GE 2006 but the Party secured a nine percentage-point swing in its favour at GE 2011, which increased its share of the vote to 45.17% (49,342 out of 109,237). These results reflect favourably on Eric Tan and his team.

Roderick Chia, Dexter Lee, Kieran James

After contesting at East Coast GRC, Glenda Han had to fly back to Hong Kong to continue her regular job there only one day after the 7 May 2011 poll. Her fly-in-fly-out campaigning, something that Monash University lecturer James Gomez also did from his base in Melbourne, Australia, was a new feature of the 2011 election campaign. Gomez told a Monash University postgraduate class, during a guest lecture (attended by the first-mentioned researcher at Caulfield campus on 31 March 2011), that he can very easily now fly to Singapore on a Friday, do a few campaign walkabouts and meet-the-people sessions, tape one or two three-minute Youtube video clips for the SDP website, and then return to Melbourne on the Sunday or Monday. The campaigning on the run tactics of Gomez and Han were not commented upon by the MSM in Singapore, as far as we are aware, perhaps because they do not follow the activities of opposition candidates when they are out of the country. The use of Youtube as a campaign tool dovetails well with the fly-in-fly-out campaigning and the latter might not be possible without the former. 

[By Dr Kieran James, University of Fiji, formerly at University of Southern Queensland, 2006-13.]

OPINION: "Just Another Day / Week / Month / Year in (PAP) Paradise", Parts I & II, by Jufrie Mohamed (SDP)

Part II (5 January 2014), by Jufrie Mahmood

My earlier postings on the actual cause for my ISD detention and the subsequent narration about how the divisional police screwed up a simple investigation process were meant not only to remove doubts about my sincere intentions in joining the opposition but also to demonstrate to the uninitiated that the PAP is not what it claims to be. 

Being accused of working in or with the ISD would definitely create doubts in the minds of Singaporeans, especially among non PAP camps, about your character and objectives. This is especially so for me since I am a long time activist in the opposition camp.

I shall explain as clearly as I can my reasons for saying this. Much of my thinking is influenced by my personal experiences and observations as well as from reading accounts given by ex detainees, some of whom I have personally met.

It is such a pity that the state security agency which is supposed to be appreciated and respected by the people for the work it should be doing to protect the county's security is instead feared by the very people whose security they are supposed to be protecting. In fact in many quarters the agency is much despised. It is not difficult to explain why the ISD is not trusted or earned the respect it deserves.

This state institution which is vital to the security and well being of the people is not seen to be impartial. It has been made to depart from its primary role. It is increasingly being seen as an institution that is preoccupied with serving the interest of the PAP against people who do not share the party’s views and approach in nation building. 

The ISD has been screwed up and turned into a political tool of the ruling party and subjected itself to the whims and fancies of only one man. Its past actions are seen to be skewed towards protecting the party’s interest and to guarantee its continued rule.

This is unlike other developed democracies whose security agencies are largely known to be fiercely protective of their independence and would not hesitate to even act against leaders of their ruling parties should it become necessary.

If the ISD, which I suppose is manned by intelligent people, had been impartial in its actions, activists with alternative views like Lim Chin Siong, Chia Thye Poh, Dr. Lim Hock Siew, Dr. Poh Soo Kai, Said Zahari, just to name a few, would not have been detained or kept in detention for such a long period of time. In the first place the reasons given for their detention are now suspect and increasingly being questioned as more and more information is made available. Many ex detainees have issued statements and written books to tell their side of the story.

Whether or not a detainee is released does not depend entirely on whether he or she is any longer a ‘threat’ to the country's security. Clearly it was depended on the whims and fancies of one man. An example of this was aptly related by Dr Lim Hock Siew.

He said when his captors approached him after 9 years of detention they asked him “to show repentance otherwise Lee Kuan Yew will lose face.” 

His answer to this ridiculous demand was, “For me this is not a question of pride, it’s a question of principle.” He went on, “In the first place, if a person has to save his face by depriving somebody else of his fundamental rights, then that’s not a face worth saving.” For standing up to his principles he was kept under detention for another 11 years, making him the second longest ISD detainee after Chia Thye Poh. (Please go to Youtube for the full text of Dr Lim’s speech)

Many others have written essays (Fajar Generation) and books - people like Teo Soh Lung (Beyond the Blue Gate) and Francis Seow (To Catch A Tartar) – to tell side of the their story.

There have been many cases of mass detentions after the PAP came into power such as operation cold store (1963), journalists of Nanyang Siang Pau Shamsuddin Tung, Lee Mau Seng and two others (1971), Lee Eu Seng (1973) Berita Harian’s Hussein Jahidin and Azmi Mahmud (1976), alleged euro communists (1977) operation spectrum against so called Marxist conspirators, including Francis Seow (1987), alleged JI members from 2001 onwards. 

Detentions without trial like those mentioned above have struck fear in the psyche of Singaporeans and severely damaged the reputation of the ISD to the extent that if a person is identified as an ISD officer, chances are, people would probably avoid him. 

Within the Malay Muslim community the attitude towards the ISD is much worse. It is looked upon with lots of suspicion. Known ISD officers are ostracised. When they attend the community's social functions like wedding receptions etc, people who recognise them would probably avoid them. Retired ISD officers are known to keep very much to themselves.

Some members of the community would even go to the extend of saying that if their daughters’ suitors who happen to be ISD officers were to ask for their daughters’ hands in marriage their request would probably be rejected.

Without exaggeration, any insinuation that you are working with or for the ISD, your mere presence in any organisation would make people feel uncomfortable. The more so will it be if you are into opposition politics.
There is little doubt that the ISD keeps a close watch over opposition parties even though opposition parties in Singapore have shown themselve to be largely working for and in the interest of Singaporeans. This is another example which shows that the ISD serves the interests of the PAP to give it a further and an unfair advantage at the expense of Singaporeans who have alternative views.

As for the ordinary Police Force the situation is not much different. Its bias towards the PAP and its uneven handedness have always been an added cause for concern. This frustrates you to no end. As far as the SDP is concerned enforcement of the law have on many occasions been subjected to double standards. For example, applications for permits for functions, where applicable, have always put us on tenterhooks. Peaceful gatherings or protests have always invited strong police action. In many instances the police would over react. Compare this with the extraordinary restrain the police showed against the violent demonstration in Little India and you will know what I mean.

Overzealous officers out to score points with their masters have made it appear as though law enforcement officers in Singapore practise selective enforcement and are not subjected to the rule of law.

Like the incident I mentioned in an earlier posting, what the police should have done was to call me for an interview to determine who was the driver who drove the lorry on the date the offence was committed. Then cross check with the the people at the shop and proceed to identify the culprit. Very elementary.

There was no need to arrest and throw the lorry owner into the lock up. I am very sure if the lorry owner were to be connected to members of the ruling party the approach and treatment would have been much different.

(Please note that I had stepped down as Chairman of the SDP at the party conference last October due to health reasons and in favour of a capable, younger and more energetic member.

I also wish to make a correction in the earlier posting. PERMUSI actually stands for Persatuan Muslimin Singapura or Singapore Muslim Society, not Singapore University Muslim Society)
 

Part I (3 January 2014) by Jufrie Mahmood

Typically the the word 'sorry' is not found in the PAP dictionary. Even if they have clearly made mistakes it's so bloody difficult for them to say 'sorry' and really mean it. This arrogance is aped by some civil servants and even by those tasked to keep the peace.

If you don't mind my friends I would like to relate to you another classic example of this arrogance which I personally experienced. I hope I am not boring you with all these classic gems. 

And I hope those in the PAP - especially their Malay MPs and die hard, unthinking supporters will also take the trouble to read to know some truth about the party they are so 'gila' about.

In the late 80's, years after my release from detention and prison and after becoming an active member of the WP, I, together with a couple of friends, set up a company to do contract work.

Apart from renovation and construction work we also secured lift installation contracts from Otis and Fujitect. Not many people knew that our company was given the contract by Otis to install the lifts at the new istana Darul Iman in Brunei. 

In Singapore, apart from lift installation Fujitect, the other lift company we wete dealing with, also awarded our company contracts for scaffolding erection inside the lift chambers as well as lifting of the lift motors into lift motor rooms. At one time we were employing as many as 40 workers, some of whom were rehabilitated drug addicts from the Lyod Lease Centre who were placed in the day release scheme.

Obviously we owned some vehicles which included several lorries. Companies then were allowed to use residential flats as registered business addresses. I had used my home as the company's registered address when we registered our company.

On one occasion due to some technical problems at the site in which I was taking charge we had finished quite late at night. After packing up we hurriedly carried our heavy equipment to the lorry which was parked quite a distance away due to the site's inaccessibily. The rush to the lorry late at night might have given the impression that we had done something wrong . Some bystanders were looking at us suspiciously. I was relieved that nothing untoward happened that night. I went to bed way after midnight. 

Unfortunately, the relief was short lived. At almost 6 the next morning, soon after finishing my subuh prayers, there was a loud knock on my main door. When I opened the door I was confronted by two men who identified themselves as police officers. They asked me whether I was the owner of a lorry no. xxxx. I said indeed I am the owner. Without further ado they asked me to accompany them to the Joo Chiat Police stn. They refused to answer any question. My wife was shell shocked. She was wondering what else her husband had done wrong. She was not allowed to come along.

Fortunately I was not handcuffed as it would have caused gross embarrassment to me. On reaching the station I was immediately thrown into the lock-up. I sat and waited for an explanation. At around 8 or 9 o'clock Asp Noordin whom I got to know during my ISD days, walked pass my cell and was surprised to see me there. He was the OC Crime at the station.

He asked me what was I doing in the cell. I said how would I know and asked him to check with his officers. He rushed to his office and returned a short while later.

He got his men to unlock the cell and drove me to a tyre and vehicle accessory shop along Joo Chiat Road. I was still dazed and didn't know what to expect.

Fortunately for me the moment the apek at the shop saw me he said, "Incik-incik lu punya driver lah Incik". My company had patronised his shop regularly for tyre change etc. In most instances I had accompanied my lorry driver to the shop when we needed to patch up or change vehicle tyres.

Asp Noordin heared from the apek that the person who had sold him some stolen sports rims was my lorry driver. He had used the lorry to deliver the stolen rims to the shop.

I was released soon after but no apology whatsoever was tendered for the wrongful arrest.Can you imagine what would have happened if the apek had a memory lapse or simply refused to tell the truth? God forbids. I was arrested and thrown in a lock-up just because I happened to be the lorry owner, the number plate of which was given to the police by the apek.

Having related the above what concerned me most was the wishy washy, unprofessional and idiotic way the police had handled the investigation. In one opposition rally at Bedok Stadium I had asked aloud, when referring to the case, "if this is the way the police conduct its investigations, if Lee Kuan Yew were to own a lorry and his driver were to commit a similar crime using his lorry would the police go and arrest the owner?"

That statement created a stir because they thought I was making up stories. I was told that Joo Chiat police station experienced a storm when the PAP leaders wanted to determine the truth and would have taken severe action against me if I had scandalised the police. Obviously they discovered that I was telling the truth but did not bother to say sorry. I have long given up waiting for those soothing words. 

Enough for now guys. Some other juicy stories some other time. Have a good rest.

[These posts were first posted on Facebook, 3 and 5 January 2014. They are reproduced here with Jufrie's kind written permission.]

NEWS: Launch of SDP's Malay policy paper Saturday, September 7, 2013, 2:00pm - 5:00pm in UTC+08 at Bras Basah Complex, Singapore

Dr Chee Soon Juan and Dr Kieran James. SDP headquarters, Singapore

NEWS: Launch of SDP's Malay policy paper Saturday, September 7, 2013, 2:00pm - 5:00pm in UTC+08 at Bras Basah Complex, Singapore

NEWS: Dr. Vincent Wijeysingha resigns from Singapore Democratic Party (SDP)

Dr. Vincent Wijeysingha speaks on election night 7 May 2011 at Quality Hotel Balestier

Dr. Vincent posted this announcement on his Facebook page on 29 August 2013:

Dear friends,

Here's looking at you! (Dr. Chee speaks)

My Facebook post about my sexuality attracted some debate on LGBT rights. The shape of the discussion shows there is misunderstanding of these issues, primarily because of lack of mainstream access to appropriate information. Misunderstanding leads to discrimination that works its way into the lives of LGBT people, resulting in anguish and distress.

I believe that, as a nation, we have a limited appreciation of civil liberties: they have not penetrated deeply into our civic discourse and public administration. There is a great deal of work ahead if we are to achieve the full range of our fundamental liberties.

During the last three years that I have been a member of the Singapore Democratic Party, I have been engaged in social and economic bread-and-butter policy issues. I hope I have contributed in some small way. But after reflection and consultation with friends and colleagues, I have come to believe that I should participate in the more intangible but no less important work to promote our civil liberties.

Therefore, I would like to inform you that I have taken the difficult decision to resign my membership of the SDP in order to explore how I can be of service to the wider cause of our civil liberties, a project which I believe to be the dominant mission of this present period.

I continue to share deeply the values of the party which gave me a political home and the opportunity to learn an ideal of service which I have tried to carry out. I intend to explore ways in which I can honour those values in the civil liberties sphere.

I have discussed my decision extensively with party leaders who have given me their blessing. I would like to ask you also to support me in this decision.

Yours sincerely,
Vincent Wijeysingha

INTERVIEW: My interview with Dr Wong Wee Nam (Singapore Democratic Party/ ex-NSP), 1/3/2010.

Dr Kieran James (left) and Dr Wong Wee Nam, SDP's 31st Anniversary Dinner, Fort Canning Park, 19 February 2011.

My interview with Dr Wong Wee Nam (Singapore Democratic Party activist, National Solidarity Party 1997 General Election, candidate for Hong Kah GRC).

Location: Tiong Bahru Market (Seng Poh Market), Singapore.

Date: Monday, 1 March 2010.

By Dr Kieran James.

Question 1: Kieran James: Explain the events in your life that caused you to become an opposition supporter.

Wong Wee Nam1: Actually I’m not a very political person. I found the Government getting more and more authoritarian as the years go by. So I said: “I criticize opposition for not producing good candidates so I ask myself: why do I criticize opposition when I’m not standing for election?” So as to try to improve the situation I decided I must do something. So I joined the NSP [1996]. We did not expect much, it’s not a dinner party, [and] no-one gives you an easy time. People in established positions such as myself will not want to go for election contests. We all think “what’s the point?” The system benefits you, why put your head on the chopping block? Being arrested is always hanging over your head and being sued for defamation. We did not expect anything. We chose Hong Kah [GRC; 1997 General Election]. Suddenly a group of us was quite credible – one other doctor, one businessman. It was a pretty credible slate so to speak. It surprised everyone. The press was excited at that time. The Straits Times said “we will give you good coverage”. The Editorial Board invited us for lunch and promised us good coverage. Once the battle got started our speeches were never reported in the press. We did not get fair publicity or the publicity we needed. Of course we lost; [final vote was] 31% or 32%.

KJ: What factors do you think explain your final result?

WWN: The tactic is to find a demon to divert all the attention to killing the demon. Tang [Liang Hong] was part of the Establishment in a way, you know. He does all the help in the cultural associations. At the time the fear factor was very great. [KJ note: For those young readers growing up in this modern era when Workers’ Party wins seats and scores 45%+ in losing contests it may be hard to imagine how strong the fear-factor still was as late as 1997 when Lee Hsien Loong had not yet become PM and the internet was still in its infancy.] I had a pair of husband-and-wife, young professionals working in the private sector, calling me up after the GE and telling me “I’m sorry, Dr. Wong, we wanted to vote for you but the moment we went in our names were called out” (procedurally, to register). This was meant to be shouted to another official, these were first-time voters, [and] they were so shocked. He said: “I was so paralysed and changed my mind and voted against you”. I said: “Why are you afraid?” He said: “serial number”. I said: “will they take action?” He said: “it’s possible”. I said: “why harass 100,000 voters? They will harass me [if they harass anybody]”. One of my friends for three years he dare not confront me and said: “I’m sorry”.

KJ: What was the effect of the PAP announcing that priority for HDB flat upgrading would go to pro-PAP precincts?

WWN: We lost votes definitely due to the upgrading promise. The ground response was good. We thought we might get a good result, we told each other. Two days before voting the Government announced counting of votes was by precinct, not whole constituency. We are easily identifiable. It suddenly shocked the voters. It forced them to reconsider. It did swing the votes for the PAP. In a small constituency it’s easier for the incumbent. They have a better rapport with the residents. The GRC is definitely designed to make it easier for PAP to win. When the GRC becomes larger it’s no longer based on personality.

KJ: What was the reaction of the PAP to the win in Hong Kah GRC?

WWN: The party was jubilant because they defeated us. All of them got some official positions.

KJ: How about the reaction of the NSP leadership?

WWN: We are OK, the NSP leadership. Just before this precinct issue, we were happy and optimistic. After this we said: “there’s no point, we’re not going to win anymore”. We more or less expected the result, [and] we were not in any way disappointed.  Tan Chee Kien, leader of NSP, Chairman, he was on the ticket in Hong Kah.

KJ2: What do you think will happen to Singapore politics in next 10-15 years and how many seats will the opposition win at next election?

WWN2: I think we will probably have to go through a very uncertain phase. There will be a lot of changes. The Strong Man [Mr. Lee Kuan Yew] will not be around realistically. He is the one who still calls the shots. Within the PAP there may not be a natural leader who comes out to replace him. Even in the GRC system you cannot produce a natural leader. I have worked with grassroots organizations. Say you are a member of a GRC team and you are a rebellious person, GRC MP, you cannot question the Government or Minister too much. You have to quietly retire if you rebel. It is not like you are Single Member Constituency. At that time I [hypothetical PAP MP in SMC] would not be afraid to speak my mind, if fired from PAP I would contest as an independent or opposition. My personality can still shine through. To contest GRC you cannot use your personality. You need four other running mates. If you are a single member PAP MP and they retire it, you will be absorbed into a GRC for fear (a) they do not need to get another new person, [and] (b) to stop the old [former] MP contesting the constituency on another ticket. So the GRC dampens any political ambitions of the MPs. Under the Constitution there must be at least nine single seats, they will increase to twelve. How they do the GRC is up to them [PAP].

KJ: Is a PAP internal split possible in the future, say between liberals and right-wingers?

WWN: I think the PAP, as it is now, how they recruit members, how the party is constructed, I think you get technocrats more than leaders. There are no true political leaders now to give you the differences and split the party. They are all trained to think the same. Most of them are technocrats. There are no true leaders that can emerge from this group of people. On the opposition side there will still be the same fragmented group of people. In next 10-20 years we will see messiness. I think the opposition can win more seats as they attract people with stronger political views, better leadership qualities, and initiative. If PAP opens up its political structures maybe they can attract good people as well. Now they choose the people. Many are reluctant politicians. When they approach PAP candidates they choose those out of the party [occupying] high positions [in society]. These people are not sure, not natural political leaders; [they] have to ask their families first, etc.     

KJ3: What do you think are the strengths and weaknesses of the opposition party you are most closely involved with, that is the SDP?

WWN3: Weaknesses: They have been weakened by their own internal quarrels between Chee and Chiam [See Tong] and Chee [Soon Juan]. Initially [when] they won the three seats i[at the] 1991 election they were on the rise. Chiam said: “come and join me”. He said: “I have 25 good people onboard”. Because of internal disputes things became fragmented. The PAP made sure Chee gets demonized. It weakened the party. At one time they were demonized so badly no-one wanted to join them, there was no true leadership, [only] misfits, deviants on the fringe of the political scene. This was 1996 onwards. In fact, at that time, one Straits Times reporter called me and asked me “what do you think of Chee?” She said: “He is finished, right?” I said: “not really, he’s quite an intelligent person, he has a political view, he is young and fresh, age is on his side”, then he was in early-30s. I said: “don’t write him off so quickly”. They pictured him as a totally dejected man. They [take the] worst picture of you and put in the papers.

The SDP now has strengths. They have a clear-cut ideology. I think all along SDP ideology about democracy has always been the same. Chee made it more obvious. They have a core of people, dedicated group with a common cause to protect human rights, [and] speak up for the poor. The whole group believes in it which I don’t see in other political parties. NSP still has a group but I did not know what they stand for. I told them they need a cause. People joined because it was not radical, it is like a local club. You must identify your visions and your causes and people must agree to basic fundamental things. I told Chiam before: “I don’t care what you sell, fish porridge or whatever, you must concentrate on selling what we are selling or we keep quarrelling about peripheral issues and you never get the party moving”. In the last four to five years [i.e. since 2005-06] SDP have become more organized and can attract lots of young and quite dedicated people with some political sense, knowing what is human rights and democracy. Not a lot of young people can think like that, Singaporeans are so materialistic, they can’t think about abstract things. Young people in SDP have political sense. They are dedicated, they will be the future of the party, they are willing to sacrifice all, [and] to join the SDP is quite a sacrifice. The dinner [SDP’s 30^th Anniversary Dinner held on 27 February 2010] managed to feature in the newspaper yesterday, everyone was quite surprised. Chee’s speech and photo and SDP photo and news never appear but suddenly one big page and colour photo of SDP exco [Central Executive Committee] and report on speeches and dinner. This was a great departure. It was quite positive. Even the Chinese paper carried an interview with CSJ. I was telling one friend: “I saw the reporter, young reporter”. I said “the news will not see the light of day” but I was surprised.

It could be a problem as SDP attracts English-educated. They do try to give messages in Mandarin, it takes time I suppose. NSP has a lot of Mandarin speaking people in the party. NSP does not attract the overseas English educated, they are seen as Chinese-oriented party, [and] they cannot get members of other races. I brought Mr. [CK] Tan [to SDP’s 30^th Anniversary Dinner held on 27 February 2010], he was surprised to see so many Indians and Malays. WP has the advantage that they started, David Marshall, JBJ. The socialistic ideology attracted. The Chinese base of Barisan Sosialis threw their lot in with WP; this was the Chinese-educated base, Dr. Lee Siew Choh [1917-2002], Chairman of Barisan Sosialis, we call him “the other Lee” [KJ note: After Barisan Sosialis merged with WP in 1988, Lee stood as a WP candidate in the 1988 General Election and became Singapore’s first Non-Constituency Member of Parliament (NCMP), serving in this role until 1991.]

The SDP website is very good. I was talking to intelligentsia and they say SDP is the only political site that gives food for thought, all the rest are nothing.

KJ4: What do the opposition parties need to do to go from 25% to 50.1% and what type of people make up that next 25% that the opposition must win over?

WWN4: I held a forum, I said the opposition are too fragmented, they look very small. I can give [you an] analogy: PAP is super hyper-market, you are just neighbourhood provision shop. How can you fight? The only thing you need to do:  come together under one umbrella, Alliance [Singapore Democratic Alliance] or some other. Example is in Malaysia. They nearly have taken over the government. Here it would make a huge political impact. If you want to keep your own fiefdom you cannot make any progress. I told Chiam, he approached me to contest for GRC. I said: “what’s your idea in contesting small GRC? That is not a long-term solution. You want to leave a legacy? Then why not get everyone together and contest under one umbrella?” I said: “Chiam, you can do it; you are a respected MP, why don’t you get everyone together? Have separate parties but have a big umbrella for the whole of Singapore. Then you can choose whichever candidates from every party. Get you and Low [Thia Khiang] together, strengthen your ticket, [and] don’t stick to SPP”. He is worried of people making use of him. I said: “we are talking about advantage to everyone”. He brought in the Chee factor. I said: “I can arrange a meeting and you both shake hands and we can start”. He said: “the press will play this up”. He said: “it does not look good to mess around with Chee”. I said: “if you ever shake hands with Chee, it will have national impact, two enemies come together to fight PAP”. He said he would think about it and get back to me. I said: “unless you get a united front I won’t waste my time”. A fragment will not solve Singapore’s long-term problem.

Our interview location, Monday, 1 March 2010.

The 25-30% are hardcore [opposition supporters], they will still vote for a monkey, PAP has hardcore support of 40%. The rest are fence-sitters, [they] will see how their vote will help selves and family and nation. You are just going to get pockets of guerrilla fighters. This group go for stability, status quo. You must be seen as big party, as equal to PAP. These people want moderate, not hard. They would not mind giving input intellectually provided you have a big party. Now some want to contest, they don’t know which party to join. Who shall I help? It’s very confusing. If you have clear vision, this second 25% will give you their support and their votes. I do hope we come to the stage where young people can communicate with each other and decide they must come together and forget the old quarrels. This election [2011 GE] is not easy to guess results. Now they have a cooling-off period. I don’t know how they will use it. I hope they get eight seats, it’s a possibility – possibly we can win one GRC and three singles, that is eight. At the moment two hot GRCs are Tampines and Bishan-Toa Payoh, the opposition are gunning for these. Chee has a keen mind; he could ask many questions in parliament. It’s a pity he will not be able to stand.

***End of interview [interview time: 1 hour and 15 minutes]***