Speak Up!

7 June 2005

Dear SDP,

While there certainly are valid reasons to abolish mandatory death sentences, I cannot but help sympathise with Irina Makarova over the chaotic situation in Russia since the collapse of the Soviet Union and rise of criminal gangs, secret societies ("Mafia") and so on in the anarchic situation of post-socialist Russia.

So severe penalties (not necessarily the death penalty) implemented firmly and fairly are needed to help deter crime.

Warren wrote: "The best way is still to educate the pubic about drug abuse, through schools and community gatherings. And of course increasing the possibility of getting caught."

However, most importantly, governments should look into the social and economic conditions leading people to commit crimes and try and address the problem at its root.

For example, if motorists often take illegal shortcuts, building more places where they can make legal U-turns certainly reduce much incidence of it, except among a few recalcitrant die-hards who need stronger measures to stop them.

Just come up and see the number of motorists in Kuala Lumpur, Petaling Jaya and rest of the Klang Valley who not only ride motorcycles on the wrong side of the road, but cars as well and they make U-turns where they aren't supposed to, thus endangering law-abiding motorists like me.

Also, look at how traffic lights mean nothing, especially to motorcyclists who go whether the light is red, amber or green.

Then, let's not forget the degree of corruption in the civil service up here. Do you want that in Singapore?

That's why me and many fellow Malaysians admire Singapore for the relative order and little corruption you enjoy there and yes, one of the requirements for achieving that is effective enforcement and severe penalties , which people like myself and Irina yearn for in our respective countries.

Have you ever asked why leftist protestors and demonstrators in Russia carry portraits of Josef Stalin, instead of protraits of "moderate" leaders like Khruschev, Brezhnev, Andropov or Gorbachev?

The people of the former Soviet Union must see something good in Stalin, despite all that the West and his enemies have said to malign him.

Education is the option oftentimes suggested by impotent NGO's but no amount of education will deter people from committing a crime or beating the system when they stand to gain materially or gain much time or convenience by committing the crime or offence.

Increased chances of getting caught are further deterrents, as Warren rightly said, but if all they get is a slap on the wrist, then getting caught won't matter much to them, just like the drug traffickers in Russia which Irana speaks about.

Detering crime requires a combination of penal, moral, sociological and other measures and while even the harshest of punishments won't completely eradicate crime, I'd like to see whether crime will decrease in the absence of adequate punishment.

There's also good reason to review crime and corresponding punishment based upon scientific and other evidence but the last thing politicians should want to do is to throw the baby out with the bathwater and see their country descend into a crime-infested cesspit due to loony-liberal policies.

Thanks.

Charles
Malaysia

SDP: Dear Charles,

You start your letter off very rationally when you say that severe penalties (not necessarily the death penalty) implemented firmly and fairly are needed to help deter crime. Amen to that.

What we find harder to comprehend is why you move from discussing the death penalty for drug smugglers to the chaotic (according to your observations) conditions of Malaysian roads. If the Malaysian traffic police are incompetent in enforcing laws, how does that make executing small-time drug peddlers in Singapore anymore right?

Perhaps you are trying to say that the Singapore Government is much better (define better however you wish) than its Malaysian counterpart. This still does not mean that the death penalty as it is currently employed in Singapore is right. They are completely separate matters. We need to get out of the infantile mode of thinking that society will disintegrate into a crime-infested cesspit just because we want to address injustice in society. In short, a society can be orderly and still not have insane policies like killing people found carrying small amounts of drugs. You say look at Russia, we say think Melbourne, Toronto, or even Boston. Its always problematic when you pick the worst examples to substantiate your point because you tend to sow fear. At SDP we prefer to point to hope.

You then descend into lunacy when you point to Josef Stalin to make your case that (some) Russians want an orderly society and are waxing nostalgic. In case you dont know: approximately 20 million, including up to 14.5 million needlessly starved to death under Stalins reign. Another million were executed for political "offences". Nearly 10 million more were deported, exiled or imprisoned in work camps, with many of the estimated five million sent to the 'Gulag Archipelago' never returning alive. Other estimates place the number of deported at 28 million, including 18 million sent to the 'Gulag'. No, these are not statistics fabricated by Stalins Western enemies. They are documented evidence with files, ledges, and books that have names of the victims.

Of course, there are people who long for the return of Stalin-type rulers. They are also those who also long for Hitlerian type of politics or the days during Imperial Japan expansion. Should we bring these regimes back or work towards such systems?

You write: I'd like to see whether crime will decrease in the absence of adequate punishment. You have to be silly to think that it will. No one anywhere on this website or anytime in this debate over the death penalty is advocating that we make punishment for criminals inadequate. What we are saying is that the death penalty for small-time drug smugglers is excessive. This much we hope that you can appreciate. If a discussion is not to degenerate into ridiculousness, we must avoid exaggerating the oppositions claims: We seek to end the death penalty for drug peddlers, you say that will bring about the malaise of the Russian society. You have not shown us how the two are connected, much less how one will lead to the other.

You say that politicians should not lean towards loony-liberal policies. Excellent point. At the same time, we caution against the wild-eyed, scare-mongering tactics of right-wing autocrats.

7 June 2005

I was appalled at the callousness of the government in allowing the family of the late Shanmugam Murugesu only $150 a month. $150 a month will not even go towards paying for groceries!

I am willing to come forth with a small sum to help the family, especially for the boys' education which is vital if they have to make something of themselves. I would like to make a monthly donation of about $50. I know it's not much but I am not a very rich person to afford more.

I would like to know what bank account to credit this amount to.

ANONYMOUS

1 June 2005

If I were LKY and those few around him, I would feel embarrassed rather than appreciate the unimaginative, mechanistic self-censorship practised by ST in not publishing Anthony Yeo's letter defending Ravi.

ST was very loud when it reported PAP's insistence on "the right to reply" in its disputes with the foreign press. We have here a respected, reknowned Singapore professional counsellor explaining Ravi's action defending his character against the imputing of dishonourable motives for his support of Shanmugam's family.

And ST is solely responsible for publishing the character attack in a lead article. It seems that what the PAP allows ST to publish becomes law, and any alternative view is silenced, knowing full well how effective that is in a country where no press independent of SPH exists.

And the issue under discussion is not even a "political" one. Even the PAP will acknowledge that hanging drug traffickers is defensible at best only as a neccesary evil, and appreciate the prima facie disproportionality of capital punishment for just having been found in possession of that weightage of certain drugs.

Singaporeans would be devoid of any moral sensitivity if they don't feel the tension between that punishment and the justice and compassion the PAP seems also to want to instil in them.

We have been made aware of "OB markers". ST seems now to want to extend those to exclude discussion of just anything the PAP has made law, irrespective of how arguable it is. "OB markers" now becomes no longer to do with issues affecting national security.

D.J. Enright, in Memoirs, observed that the only paper that survived LKY's purging of newspapers in the 60s was the paper he had previously held in contempt for its spinelessness, that is the Straight Times. ST needs to grow some spine, if its support for the powers-that-be is not to prove embarrassing for them instead.

TAN TAI WEI

1 June 2005

Irena Makarova asks if the death penalty is a deterrent to drug smugglers.

The fact that Singapore executes more people per head of population than any other country shows that it is not.

I would attribute the high number of executions to the facts that firstly Singapore has more crimes punishable by death than any other country, and secondly that once someone has been sentenced to death they will be hanged, they won't get off if they have a clever lawyer and people don't spend over a decade on death row like they do in America.

By the way I was surprised to learn that tobacco is legal in Singapore, considering that firstly people can be executed for trafficking other dangerous drugs, and secondly chewing gum is illegal because it causes a major litter problem, but so are cigarette ends.

I have still not received replies from the Attorney General, the Minister of Law and the Chief Justice. Did anyone else write to these people, and if so did you get a reply?

CLIVE

1 June 2005

I was reading the papers yesterday and I came across an article of an interview on the Home Affairs Minister. He spoke of issues concerning our society on how pampered we are and mentioned that the government cannot always be taking care of the people and that the people should look for ways to foster ties among themselves.

The minister was quite eloquent in his argument when the topic shifted to the various restrictions in our society. I totally agreed with his argument that there should be certain laws to protect the citizens. The rights of an individual should be limited before hurting the rights of another individual. The final part of the interview was on the banning of political films and a statement he made really puzzled me:

"Political videos, by their nature, will be political, will be biased and, therefore, will not be able to allow the listener or the viewer to see the whole range of arguements."

I can understand that political videos tend to be biased but I don't see a whole range of arguments with regards to the opposition in other sources. Where are the opposition arguments in the newspapers? I guess this Act applies to all forms of media. The people need to see the perspectives of all the parties in Singapore on various issues. That is the reality or I would say that the listener or the viewer will not be allowed to see the whole range of arguments.

HARRY

1 June 2005

I have a friend from the United States, who wanted to learn more about our culture and our country some time go. I described our society and laws as any ignorant Singaporean would but what she said next nearly took me off my seat. She asked me whether I was living in a police state and immediately I felt insulted.

I have been told that the laws in our country are very strict but the people are safe and happy. When I spoke on the issue of drugs and laws governing drugs, she told me that it was too extreme. In her country, an american carrying as much as what Mr. Shanmugam was carrying would normally be let off. The authorities there would normally see it as personal use. Now, thinking of Mr. Shanmugam's case, certain things has to change. Who are we to decide on the life of a human being. He made a mistake and he should be corrected, not "hanged".

After learning and reading more on our country's politics, I realize things are not what they seem. Earlier I mentioned that our people are safe and happy...Was I right? or Was I wrong?. If I was wrong, then I guess I told a lie and my place in hell has been secured.

HARRY

SDP: Dear Harry,

Things are not quite as drastic; no one has to go to hell just because they were wrong or told a lie. Many Singaporeans have been wrong about their views on our country. To a degree, this is quite natural given that the PAP has been censoring information over the past four decades. Being ignorant is not wrong, staying ignorant is.

With the help of the Internet, the Singapore Democrats hope to provide information that our readers would not otherwise read in the controlled mainstream media. You can help by alerting more of your friends and colleagues to this and other website carrying alternative views and information.

Remember, information is knowledge and knowledge is power.

1 June 2005

Dear fellow democrat,

I am here to share a true account, I was from the Goverment section then and every year when it come to charity donation it really piss me off, does the public know of the president star charity sure most people heard of it well the so call charity drive is to lot of people nothing else but extortion every year the sector involve target to raise a sum of money then present it to the president for the president challenge.

Little does the public know that this sum of money is not raised from donations but the management actually force those employed to donate a certain amount of money willing or unwillingly. This has been the practice for years and nobody has voiced concern over it for fear of the superior unhappiness,

If I am not wrong two years back someone wrote to the newspaper forum asking a explanation from Mindef for the above topic.

Last year when the charity drive started I approach my superior voicing my concern over this issue. His reply was to tell everybody the amount given is not forced but strongly encourage...huh really good at using his words but later on he kept asking anybody got any complain regarding or any problem to come up with the amount given.

From my knowledge a department is given a target then passed on to smaller department which in turn must try to raise the amount. I guess the immediate superior wanted face so he force us to cough out the money which many did unwillingly out of fear.

Sad to say in this time now the goverment sector even knowing of the way they hit their target pretend to ignore the practice. Really sad to say and hear and even see all this practice still continue to this day. Mentally feel so imbalance when come to think of it, sick practice!

DEMOCRACY PURSUER

27 May 2005

After reading about the late Shanmugam Murugesu's case recently, one of my friend in Russia, Irina Makarova, decided to write to me about what she thought about the whole episode. Below is what she wrote to me via email:

"I re-read your e-mail that you sent me around two weeks ago. A letter to president about Shanmugam Murugesu's case. Does your country(Singapore) have a real problem of drugs? And does execution limit the sale of drugs in your country.? I ask it because here we don't have such law. And there are so many addicts in Russia. this problem is becoming more and more terrible, as a lot of people and even children died because of drugs. And nothing can stop spreading drugs here. As in Russia people who sell drug don't get enough punishment. They spent some time in prisons and then leave prison, they started to sell drugs again and again. Sometimes I started to think that only execution can solve this problem."

Irina Makarova
(irina_pm@hotmail.com)
21/5/2005

I think the above letter reflects what some foriegners might think of Singapore. No matter how harsh our legal system might be, there are always some foreigners who wish they had similiar laws back in their own country.

To answer Ms Irina, Singapore doesn't have a major drug problem or a drug trafficking problem. Singapore does not hang drug abusers, only drug traffickers. As i have mentioned in my letter to the President, the death penalty does not deter people from trafficking drugs. Improving the chances for getting caught will deter future traffickers. For example, if you dont want to deter bank robbers, having a law to hang bank robbers will not work that much. Because every potential crimminal will always think that he won't get caught. But if the bank installs security cameras and more security guards, bank robbers might think its too risky to rob the bank as the chance of them getting caught is high.

Last year a small group of foriegners here got caught for possessing cocaine. Two of them paid the hefty bail and they ran away to another country and thus they escaped before they could be sentenced. The truth is rich crimminals and big shots can afford to pay the bail and escape punishment while poor and middle class like Shanmugam suffer because they can't afford the bail and run away to another country.

Shanmugam was hanged for bringing in 1kg of marijuana into Singapore. It is scientifically proven that marijuana has certain health benefits and in countres like Canada, USA and Holland you can even get a doctor's prescription for it. Tobacco is the number one cause for cancer all over the world. So shouldn't we hang cigerrates smokers and those who buy cigerrates too?

Drug addicts in singapore have to serve their time in a special prison called "Drug Rehabilation center". There they will not only spend time in the cell but they will also have the medical and psychological treatment to help them get rid of their addiction. Even after they are released from jail they still have to go for treatment and report for urine tests regularly for about 2 years after their release. Because of such policies, second time offenders are lower. I must note that such a policy is easier to implement in a small country like Singapore and more difficult for a big country like Russia. The best way is still to educate the pubic about drug abuse, through schools and community gatherings. And of course increasing the possibility of getting caught.

WARREN

18 May 2005

My question is how sure are we that the crime merits such dire punishment.
The Government is too cocksure of itself for its own good.

Now I am scared to enter Johor Baru, in case somebody slipped some drugs under my car.

SAM

18 May 2005

It was with immense sadness that I read the coverage of Mr. Murugesu's wake. I cannot even begin to fathom the immense grief his poor mother and his two sons feel, not only because of the loss of the sole breadwinner in the family, but also the loss of a father and a son.

It must be heartwrenching, especially for the two boys, who have been brutally introduced to the way of the world, at least in Singapore. They have been told, in the most cruel way, that no matter how much one pleads, no matter how many people protest, no matter how strong the show of support for your cause is, the government of Singapore is not willing to listen.

Initially I wanted to attend the ceremony but I knew that I wouldn't be able to stand the grief and might break down myself, so I decided to remain home.

What did he have to die for? He carried a bag of "drugs" that is legal in many countries, has proven health benefits, and is as widely available as Panadol in the streets if you know where to look.

What is wrong with us? Why are we so barbaric? Was the crime really serious enough to warrant a death sentence? Aren't there mitigating factors to look into? Is it really so bloody black and white? Would
Shanmugam have even done that had his financial situation in the "country with the Swiss standard of living" been better? What message have we sent through his kids? That Singapore "takes a tough stance on crime" or "we are a brutal, savage society that has no pity on the poor"? Saudi Arabia takes a tough stance on crime as well, with its weekly beheadings and
mutilations. I always thought we were more civilized than that. Turns out we aren't that far behind.

My heart really goes out to Shanmugam's family, especially to his aged mother. Is there any fund we can contribute to, in order to tide them over? How will the kids fund their education? Please keep us informed as to what can be done to help them, as I am sure the government won't give them a penny.

HADES

SDP: Dear Hades,

It is indeed a tragedy that the execution went ahead. Please continue to visit this website as announcements about any follow-up action on the death penalty and for the late Mr Shanmugam's family will be announced here.

16 May 2005

Like any other activist, I refuse to be silenced. I think the PAP and their rulings extend beyond the political realm into that of self-glorification.

The death sentence is inhumane, and "the law" which condones such mindless killings defeats its own purpose. This practice goes beyond politics itself. It transcends into the realm of moral and humanity. The law and parliament is there not only to ensure there is order, it should also be to take care of its people. That is precisely why their capitalist ways should not be supported by us.

A lot of conservatives believe that capital punishment should be used as a deterrence. Little do people know that it is precisely such legislation that limits and restricts the potential that Singapore has. If we are going to allow our country to progress, we need people to be more active and be able to speak up publicly about current issues.

The people should run the government. If it goes the other way around, then it is called a military dictatorship, which will then have the potential of bringing about violent revolution.

The PAP has done a great job in silencing individuals and/or masking the important issues by placing public emphasis on other aspects of life. We deserve to know the truth. Singapore belongs to Singaporeans, not the rich pap ministers that make up less than 5% of the population.

If we want to see true justice, people must first learn to detach their lips where their mouths dont belong first. Everyone has the fear of being singled out, and that is precisely why we need some organisation. As long as we keep it peaceful and legal, it is of no grounds of arrest. Another piece of advice is for people to think before they vote. Many people dislike the trouble of voting, and that is why educating the public on such issues should be a priority.

MARK

16 May 2005

We should organise a candleight vigil outside the Istana so that the President can be reminded of his lack of empathy. Also, to alert the world.

Tell me when, I'll be there.

SHAN

16 May 2005

Hi there,

My God I cant believe they executed him after all the letters etc they received about his case. And just think this one action changed his fate. Its such a shame, I cant comprehend how his sons or family are feeling right now. I hope they find peace. May God Bless all of them.

JENNIFER

16 May 2005

I was saddened to learn of the death of Mr Shanmugam. My condolences go to his mother and sons.

I did write to the Minister of Law, the Attorney General and the Chief Justice, as you suggested, urging them to lift the death sentence on Mr Shanmugam, and for the government to reconsider its poilicy on the death penalty. That was on the 3rd of May, and so far I have had no reply.

As I said befor the sooner Singapore abolishes the death penalty the better.

CLIVE

16 May 2005

I am emailing because I found a link on this website. I have been following the news over the years and I feel that Dr Chee has been extremely unfairly treated.

My name is Ryan, I am 16 years old and I am currently pursuing my studies in Australia. I recall, while I was still in Sec 1, Dr Chee had an ordinary rally and was discredited by LKY and GCT for it. He was forced to apologize, and even though he did, it was not accepted. This is very unfair.

The PAP used to be good, they rescued us from Britain and Malaysia, but I feel that now they are in the decline. The only reason why they are still in power is because the population is ageing, and most people still respect them for what they did nearly half a century ago.

NS. An issue I would like to raise. What is it all about? Why do they have to have a citizens' army, when nowadays strength is not in numbers? Not everyone wants to go to the army, it is a total waste of time as well as a brainwashing experience. With modern warfare, big troops will not cut it.

The education system has lots of flaws in it. There is so much propaganda: Lower Sec Geography and History, Upper Sec Social Studies, Primary Social Studies, Civics and Moral Ed and above all the dreaded Chinese. I am totally against the idea of 2nd language learning. It is impossible to master both languages - or become a jack-of-all-trades.

The PAP has recently been encouraging people to speak out, and when they do, they get discredited. Dr Chee is an example, and Chen Jiahao, a PhD student in the USA, is another. I strongly believe something should be done to rectofy the situation. Dr Chee, you have my support. All the way.

RYAN LIM

16 May 2005

Dear Sir/Mdm,

I am sorry to hear of the plight the Shanmugams are about to face. I pray that they find their salvation. A number of people generally regard Singapore as a police state while others are quite passive about it. I have had a discussion with a few people and they practically came up with the same line..."at least we are safe". How are we to question the system when a number of people are happy with it? Wouldnt leniency bring about a compromise in safety?

HARRY

SDP: Dear Harry,

Executing small-time drug peddlers like Mr Shanmugam does not and will not make Singapore and safer. If we want to really make Singapore safe, then the Singapore Government should go after drug kingpins like Burmese narco-trafficker, Lo Hsing han, who operates out of Burma. As long as people like Lo continue to be allowed to wreak their havoc, we can continue to hang people who smuggle small amounts of drugs out of economic desperation and we would not make an iota of difference. The drugs will continue to be produced and the big-time traffickers will continue to find individuals who are desperate and silly enough to be their mules.

But heres the irony. Instead of going after people like Lo, the PAP Government has been doing business with him, investing in projects that the Government refuses to tell Singaporeans. Whats wrong with this picture: The PAP hangs poor people who peddle drugs out of financial desperation while doing business with the real evil-doers like Lo Hsing Han.

In Mr Shanmugams case, he was convicted and executed for carrying marijuana, a drug that is smoked. The problem is that tobacco and nicotine found in cigarettes is also addictive and causes cancer, the number one killer in many societies. Why are we not hanging cigarette producers and people who sell them?

Hanging drug peddlers is a punishment that is completely disproportionate to the crime committed. A country is made safe when laws are tough. But there is a difference between being tough and being cruel. Taking a mans life for small-time drug peddling is cruelty.

For more information about the arguments against the death penalty for drug peddlers, please see Dr Chee Soon Juans speech on the death penalty on this website: http://www.singaporedemocrat.org/news_display.php?id=753

11 May 2005

First and foremost, why are people interested in politics? That is because politics decides the directions and quality of the lives of these people. Given the culture of Singapore which is very materialistic, when the people are generally not materially wanting, there is lesser interest in politics among the general populace. Thus it is easy for authoritarian system to exist. So the problem with apathy now is not with the dictatorship, it is with the culture of the people.

Why are our people so lacking of righteousness, especially among the younger generation? Our people are all only interested in the paper chase, in securing a material future, and that is actually quite understandable. The cost of living in Singapore is so high and comparatively the wages are so low, even if one is university-educated. The people do not want to live in small and uncomfortable accommodation, and to live otherwise would cost a bomb, considering the price of housing, even 'government-subsidised' ones.

Also, who really wants to live in a poor or rough neighbourhood? The last thing one wants to encounter after a tiring day at work is rubbish over the place, its smell wafting through the whole void deck, urine-stained floors, and hostile neighbours who do not hesitate in picking a squabble. Also, who can really endure the thin walls that allow one to hear the karaoke next door or someone arguing on the next floor?

And it is not even because Singapore lacks space and that is why we can only allow small housing, it is because of the inefficient land use right now that greatly favours the wealthy so the government can earn money, and also because around 40% of Singapore's land is used for the military. Yes, 40%. Very potent indeed, but in the event of a real war, I doubt Singapore can survive anyway. In the hypothetical event that Malaysia and Singapore become the current China and Taiwan, and war really breaks out, there will be no redemption. What our military can do is only to ensure that all the blood that can be shed will be shed, regardless of the outcome. Diplomacy is always much more convenient, cost-effective and lasting than the threat of coercion. Even if not, the idea of war is immoral and should not be referred to.

Singapore's culture exalts only the 'best', the top of the echelon, the white collars among the people, and encourages others to be like them. Those in other professions, the service providers or the blue collars, are shunted aside and are thus labelled "the average". The people forget the importance, achievements and dignity of these men, and their wage levels represent as such. I am just wondering, how long can this situation persist? It is a sore thumb and definitely unsustainable. In the government advertisements that appear to extol the services of the blue collars, the ads seem to portray them as 'happy slaves'.

If society really wants to show their appreciation, then it should not be talk but action, and one can start by increasing their wages, so that their professions can truly be recognised. In Canada where I am staying now, a garbage collector after working for 2 years will on average bring home a paycheck of C$3,600/mth, about 50% more than a clerk. This is how to show appreciation and increase the status of such professions, not to mention that the workers will feel more motivated and thus be more productive.

From young, we have been taught and shown this culture of dog-eat-dog and the strongest survive. It is very rare that in the family nowadays, values of morality or righteousness are being preached. Anything not stoutly practical or profitable are considered useless. The level of humanity is so abject. Fortunately, due to the exposure of international media and mindsets through the internet, many of our youth understand various cultures and types of thinking, so in a sense we are not entirely closed off from the world.

However, the last straw comes when men have to undergo NS. It is truly the most brainwashing exercise ever possibly conceived by man, and those who have successfully gone through it will not easily realise they have been brainwashed. Not brainwashing in the sense of 'duty to the country', which most people already consciously do not think so, but in the sense of blind obedience and unwillingness to address an issue, but just enduring it. It will become an expectation and norm of the people after 2.5 years of such character-bashing, and that is the ultimate conditioning for apathy. It is not the conscript's fault that he does not have the courage nor understanding of how to tackle the issue, for he is just only 18 and has only finished schooling, without any experience of the world, and with still so much of a future ahead of him. It is too terrible and unimaginable a price to pay. For those who are currently imprisoned for standing up to the system, I commend you all, for you are truly the bravest of them all, as brave as the men who have suffered punishment for confronting the government. If this system is not changed, this problem and culture will keep perpetuating itself, and may even grow stronger in the future, for it is a self-sustaining one.

The conclusion is the poor culture that is running through all our veins, and if we do not see the error of the system and of our ways, then we will have no hope.

REY

5 May 2005

3 May 05

My fellow Singaporeans,

The news that our public transportation operators, SMRT and SBS, are submitting their proposals to the Public Transport Council (PTC) to increase fares of buses and MRT should not sound alien to us anymore. While I'm not a socialist, in that our transport operators should be operating at a loss, I'm rather baffled and unconvinced on the operators' rationale to seek PTC's approval to permit them to hike their fares.

First of all, lets get the record straight here. Our transport operators aren't operating at a loss here. While their using of 'higher operating cost' and the 'absence of price hike since 2002' to justify their request for a fare hike seemed convincing initially, further thought suggest that these rationale does not justify the impending price hike. It seems absolutely ironic that the news about SMRT's application to increase fares was published on the front page of the Straits Times on 29 Apr 05 while the financial report of the listed transport operator was published on the 'Money' session the same newspaper. Just for the uninitiated, it was reported that SMRT had made a record net profit of 126.9 million in the financial year ended 31 Mar 05 - thats a 42 percent increase in profits compared with 89.5 million in the previous year! Considering this, it seemed that the 'higher operating cost' may not be that high after all to seriously affect the company's profitability.

Even if readers do not subscribe to the above financial figures, it is publicly known that our commuter company is one of the few 'major' players in this industry. As such, it's only fair to infer that the transport company would have the luxury of having a broad base or volume of 'customers' (residents and non residents) and would have little or no chance of making a loss. According to information obtained from the Economic Development Board (EDB) dated for year 2002, the MRT and LRT served 1.071 million and 40,805 average passenger trips daily respectively. Their concern, it seems, is mainly to determine on the percentage of its profitability.

The other matter of concern would be the unemployment rate in Singapore. From a press release obtained on the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) website, it clearly states that the "Employment gains moderated in the first quarter of 2005 amid a SLOWDOWN in economic growth" and that although total employment "increased by 11,600, it is still lower than the 13,700 in the same period in year 2004". With the slowdown, it was also reported that the "unemployment rate was slightly higher at 3.9% in March 2005 compared to 3.7% in December 2004". Although the unemployment rate was slightly higher, "it was still lower than the unemployment rate in March 2004 which stands at 4.5 percent". However, although there's a slight improvement in terms of unemployment compared to March 2004, it is worthwhile to note that there's a probable 'rebound' in the quarterly employment rate as statistics for the unemployment rate indicated as follows:-
Mar 04 (4.5%),
Jun 04 (4.3%),
Sep 04 (3.6%)*(lowest)*,
Dec 04 (3.7%)
and finally Mar 05 (3.9%).

As such, it would be extremely insensitive to read that our few commuter companies, whose purpose were to serve the people of Singapore, would seek to increase their fares during this period of uncertainty.

As such, I would really hope that the authorities, in this case the PTC, would reject and delay the price increase for all BASIC public transport services such as LRT, MRT and bus (excluding cabs which I considered as a
luxury form of transport) at least to a time when our unemployment rate goes below 2.9 percent.

Finally, on a personal note, I would really hope that more Singaporeans would voice out their opinions whether its dissent, disapproval or for that matter, support on issues such as the issue of price hike.

REPUBLICAN OF SINGAPORE

5 May 2005

Good day sir,

I have seen your forum on the death penalty of drug traffick and I'm with you for that. However I also believe that such laundering of money cases can hardly be prevented. In a secular view, take for example the Colombian drug cartels. They threaten poor ignorance women for trafficking and many of them land in jail and imprison for 10,15,20 of years while the masterminds are still in operations. What can the world do about it? sad to say they can't because of their billions dollar investment in the Wall street. It will be disastrous if they decide to pull off their money from the market.

Personally I think it's a flaw in the capitalistic world and how the stock market works. We can't risk our people's life by standing at the side of justice. It's too late.

I always have lots of respect for you sir for your guts to stand up against PAP. However I believe that we should always present an unbiased view on issues so as to make it hard for the press and PAP to counter. And I also believe that some things remain politically correct because they just can't be let known. Just my 5 cent worth.

JAMES

26 April 2005

Looking back at how I a son of this land have not been treated more fairly than foreign mercenaries who seek work and to live in this country, I would have done things differently, as would doubtless many of my generation.

Before being enlisted. Before stepping into adulthood. Before returning after graduation. Before embarking on a career path. Before making any financial commitments, especially for life. Before getting married. Before deciding to have children

In the words of an older and wiser ex-Singaporean who had apparently seen the light of truth:

Son, before and lest you become inextricably tied down forever to this place in future for whatever reason, go first be a national of another land. Then, armed with your degree, come back and work and live here if you must perhaps due to family roots and ties but only if you absolutely must. And only then.

You will find life not that much different than when you were holding a citizens certificate. As a foreign talent, which you will be known as then, you enjoy the best of both worlds. Many worlds, in fact!

Not having to subject and consign yourself initially to needless conscription and later to frequent and disruptive call-ups losing precious years in the process, during which your more fortunate foreign peers would have, everything else equal, sped ahead on the academic road and climbed on the corporate ladder.

As a foreign talent, you will still be paid pension savings, like any Singaporean. But unlike any Singaporean, you will be able to withdraw those savings (in whole and in entirety) as and when you pat the dust off your bottoms and leave while for the poor Singaporean to draw out his life savings (less a certain minimum sum which is not a constant but a constant change upwards, according to the whims and fancies of the lords of this land), he has to wait till retirement age, which is again not a constant but a constant change upwards, again, subject to the dictates of the clueless lords of this land.

In short, the present Singaporean finds it that much harder to retire; the premise being if he can retire at all, since the ever upwards-spiraling costs of living will make retirement more an elusive dream to chase than a distinct prospect to realize.

Like any Singaporean too, you will be able to own lands and property. And at the same price the Singaporean pays no foreigner premium, no scrutiny!

And like any Singaporean, you are not obliged to dine at fine restaurants but get to dig in to lowest-cost hawker fare as well and indulge in a pig-out! Again, no foreign premium, no scrutiny.

Life is good here, they say. Yes good for anyone else but the unfortunate and misplaced Singaporean.

And this is something for every young Singaporean to ponder about: Just how good is your piece of citizenship paper in this your land of birth?

Before committing yourself further and becoming tied down to this land inextricably and meaninglessly, I say unto you: You have a choice. Seize the day. Exit before it becomes too late. For you have only one life. And you live once only.

ANONYMOUS

22 April 2005

To: His Excellency S R Nathan
Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong
Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong
Mr Wong Kan Seng

I am a student in the National University of Singapore and am writing as a concerned member of this community. Reading about Shamugam Murgesu has greatly disturbed me. I understand that what he did was against the law, and punishment must be dealt out.

However, a death sentence is too harsh, and what's more, if the sentence ensues, his two children will be effectively orphaned by the State.

From his family situation, it is clear that Shamugum trafficked drugs more as an act of desperation or neccessity than avarice. Do his actions really merit a death sentence? Did he rape, did he kill, did he victimize or oppress the weak?

From what I've read about him, it doesn't appear to be the case. He has contibuted to the good reputation of Singapore by taking part in international sports events. He fell into drug use when he became depressed after the divorce with his wife - are we not human enough to make the same mistake given the same circumstances?

In many developed countries, the trafficking of Cannabis is not considered to be punishable by death and the sentences regarding Cannabis are much lighter - in Cananda for example, trafficking up to almost three times as much of what Shamugam had (up to 3kg) would merit a mere five years of imprisonment as opposed to a death sentence that would be delivered here for trafficking 1kg (according to the Health Canada website - http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hecs-sesc/cds/cannabis/facts.htm).

In addition to this, in Holland, it can be bought legally over the counter or consumed in a licensed coffeeshop.

In the light of all these facts,can one, with a clear conscience, sentence Shamugam Murgesu, who prior to this offence has never been convicted for anything else, to death for trafficking 1,028grams of Cannibis?

As a concerned citizen and member of a democracy, I feel that the Shanmugam should be released from a death sentence and the drug law concerning cannabis should be revised.

Yours Truly,

Deborah Lee

22 April 2005

Hello Matt Ngo

Are you a Singaporean? If not, please keep your bloody big mouth shut. SHAME ON YOU SDP! Allowing this stupid article from Matt Ngo to be posted on your website to curse your own fellow Singaporeans. What type of opposition party is that?

You commented "The Singapore Goverment has lost its moral authority to rule Singapore with the decision to build the Casino. This government isn't a moral government". Are you trying to say that those countries like the USA, Australia, Malaysia who have casinos do not have moral government. What the heck are you talking about?

You said "Why is the USA ignoring the blatant gross human rights abuses in South East Asia especially Malaysia and Singapore?" What blatant gross human rights abuses are you talking about? I think the USA is the worst cuplrit who does not uphold human rights. Just see what happened to the Iraqi war prisoners in Iraq. Are the abuses by the American soldiers on the Iraqi prisoners upholding human rights? Yes, I agree with you that USA must be the `big boss man' as it's the only global superpower capable of bringing world peace and securing universal freedom. But don't forget, Matt Ngo, the world is not as simple as you see, USA is also a sole global superpower capable of bringing war, chaos and uprising to a country which is not to their interest.

A TRUE SINGAPOREAN

21 April 2005

Dear Singaporeans

I read the media release by Dr Chee: SDP says casino idea imbecilic.

I find Dr Chee's suggestions to the existing regime to salvage the ebbing economy are sincere and honest, most of all, practical and sustainable as a pokey nation in the long run. His chief points are of broad-spectrum values for the locals to thrive in an economy as in individuals or companies as a whole.

Integrated-resorts with so-called "tiny" casinos may augment employment rate in Singapore and induce ripple effects on the economy but we are talking about a nation of more waiters, waitress, chambermaids and taxi drivers , of which the salaries many Singaporeans cannot survive on. OhI forgot something - reflexologists and shopkeepers they are rooting for.

What about experienced croupiers? Ironic either to set up a gambling school to train locals to game with high rollers when we read slogan like this "moulding the nation for the future". Are all these jobs creating true wealth for Singaporeans or foreigners? We cannot give in to plaintive tears in default of a detailed picture.

Casinos may at first seem small in proportion but there is always room for expansion when the patronage soars. Casinos as in the pop culture needs more than just resorts, you need notorious nightclubs to display revealing young merchandise for lust, in order to poach big time gamblers' custom, which converges to one ultimate sleazy competition when our neighboring countries could afford extreme enterprise in the pop culture. Oh yes, we are already mature to live with infamous activities, why whine. Drug lords do not consume, they leverage on handsome profits the traffickers suck from customers.

So when the casinos permit the entry of foreign maids and labourers, we stir up another debate to abolish the safeguard, it will be an eventual favorite haunt for the locals once again. Or in the midst of cutthroat competitions, the doors will eventually open without a levy when the casinos become also-rans. This is cold hard reality.

No wonder 30,000-concerned populace signs a petition against the casino idea to the highest office. Now, two casinos but not one notwithstanding listed in the inventory projecting to rake astronomical profits hand over fist, to add insult to the injury.

Also, are the resorts really going to be family-friendly to the locals? Are we anticipating something like Genting where you spend less than S$100 for one to two- night stay in a swanky hotel surrounded with magnificent setting? Or are they just another sightseeing venue for the locals or a field trip for students?

Should I send my son to a gambling school? I am confused because you cannot become rich in gambling but yet gaming is the revenue-pulling resource, so what role we play, as peasants, to become rich if the resorts and the casinos are our rainmakers? And two IRS to turn the whole economy around, sound good or silly? I am also very confused who is calling shots now.

How else can I guide my son to a better picture in life, and to earn a honest linear income or a residual income when he turns into a man, serve the army, when his peers are raking millions of dollars in the casinos, embracing wines and passion in the high culture hotels.

Are we being coaxed to seek true wealth, gain financial freedom and live a life to the fullest?
To be honest, besides chasing academic papers and get good grades, and gambling, there is none of any campaign to drive locals to becoming rich. Near future into the pop culture, we will have more bankrupts, slaves to banks and stressed-up citizens on the contrary.

Dr Chee brings up a very pertinent point "employ Singaporeans first policy". This is a simple formula yet highly effective. Replace those foreigners with the unemployed locals on those jobs that are unlikely to be shunned you get a humane answer to fight unemployment and create abundant jobs for Singaporeans. Then again, the formula can be cleverly disrupted by creating more new Singaporeans to defeat the formula if the subject of levy fees is raised.

Another point, if the environment has not been encouraging the locals to procreate and especially affecting the main group of the population, the proportion of population in the future will be a demographic time bomb. It is already clicking let alone talking about housing more millions of people in Singapore, we will be taking down the whole Mandai Forest.

Geographically, a small island has its limits and pushing it too far to maintain the exorbitant costs of upkeep will have negative repercussions when settle for less affluence is the pragmatic way out, and still straining to uphold the luxurious lifestyle will only degenerate Singapore into a banana republic sooner.

Many locals speak from mouth, not from their head and heart only to camouflage their conscience for self interests.

My father, who died 24 years ago, once said: "However poor we are, if we keep our heads high and soldier on without grants and handouts, we are what we are, under no beholden, we are free to make choices". My pop died a poor man, but in our heart, he died a rich gentleman I salute.
I have now an intangible legacy worth more than a million-dollar club; I am free to make choices I want and live my dreams while many are shackled to live on dreams of others. My son told me that his classmates could afford expensive football boots and footballs, but yet the school books were sponsored by the schools because they were so poor.

I sigh on the weakness and I begin to understand why I am not seeing things that are real.

You can give an earful, stigmatize me and condemn me for supporting Dr Chee's proposal, one thing is for sure, you will live to rue for many generations to come when the time arrives.

I salute Dr Chee as a man coming this far.

AH THIAM

21 April 2005

Hi, I was in India for a few months and what do you know, when I came back, a bloody casino in Singapore! Not one but two of them!

This is clearly a government that has run out of ideas and is now clutching at straws! Expecting casinos to boost the economy is like encouraging prostitution to boost the birth rate!

Truly sad state of affairs this. I am not against the idea of a casino per se, but is this the time? Shouldn't the government be doing something about allowing greater entrepreneurship? Creating REAL jobs?

I hope the people at SDP are okay. I was away for a while so lost touch.

BALAJI

21 April 2005

Hi,

I see no point, putting the case forward, to stop building a casino. How the hell can we get investment of such big scale?

Let the casino be built. You can choose not to go. Safe the 100 or 2000 dollars for a good holiday overseas. Go to beaches with family members. Do fishing if you need to pass time. If you want to try your luck just buy toto or 4D. Who knows, you may just strike it big.

With property value going down, and with so many Singaporeans caught in the property boom let's bring the property value back. Let people get the money back...and start your planning now to emigrate.

BENSON

21 April 2005

My thanks to Warren for answering my question on Singapore's military history.

If the political situation in Singapore was as volatile as, say, Israel, I would have rephrased my original comment on national service: "It is a sad fact that young men have to have their career plans interrupted by two years to do national service."

Republican seems to think that my opposition to Britain taking part in America's was on Iraq is at odds with my opposition to the death penalty. Taking part in the war would mean sending our own troops to their deaths and bombing innocent Iraqi civilians after all.

I agree with Republican that murder is a senseless act. However executing murderers will not make things any better for the victims' families.

Apart from murderers, there is another group of killers I am not on the side of, and that is the people who carry out the death sentences.

I read somewhere on the internet that more than half of all the countries in the world have abolished the death penalty. When I pointed out that someone told me that nine out of ten people believe in the death penalty, what I was trying to say was that whether most countries have the death penalty or not, whether the majority of the general public believe in the death penalty or not, it doesn't make any difference as to whether or not it is right. And yes, I am confident in my belief that the death penalty is wrong.

My comment that Singapore deserves better than the People's Action Party wasn't meant as a comment on Republican's postings. It was a word of encouragement for the SDP.

CLIVE

20 April 2005

SHAME ON YOU SINGAPORE! The Singapore Goverment has lost its moral authority to rule Singapore with the decision to build the Casino. This government isn't a moral government. It has blatantly chosen to ignore more pressing economic issues to indulge in immoral pursuits.

The Singapore government has also lost its economic authority since the Asian financial crisis with the inability to create jobs and prevent high unemployment in Singapore. All Singaporeans should rally to vote out this government which has no place in Singapore.

Singaporeans are a bunch of cowards. They are too obedient towards the regime. Their loyalty is misplaced. They are a blind people who don't understand universal sufferage and freedom. Stand up for your rights, Singapore Citizens. Do you want to see the PAP government morally and economically bankrupt Singapore. Make your presence and voices heard by condemning the `Pay and Pay' greedy government.

Why is the USA ignoring the blatant gross human rights abuses in South East Asia especially Malaysia and Singapore? The USA should use its political clout and economic muscle in the world to force through political reforms and economic reforms in South East Asia. The USA must be the `big boss man' as it's the only global superpower capable of bringing world peace and securing universal freedom. 'When the going gets tough, the tough get going'.

MATT NGO

20 April 2005

I cannot help but feel so in my land of birth.

Everyone had antipated, despite opposition, the Government's decision on the casino issue. But never, never in our wildest imaginations could or would we have expected the proposed imposition of the $100-a-day/$2000-a-year rule on fellow citizens.

Not that every citizen is clamouring to be on the local casino's VIP list or jostling to get into gaming rooms - the dire economic conditions of the past several years and an even gloomier outlook for the next several make sure that only the exclusively rich can. But the very fact that such a rule will be imposed at all shows how we are and will continue to be treated in our very own piece of the earth.

Disillusionment does not even begin to describe how many like myself feel...

Will the SDP stand up on this issue, Sir? Thank you.

PFC CITIZEN 2ND CLASS

SDP: If you think this is sad, wait till you hear that foreigners will be allowed to protest in Singapore during next year's World Bank-IMF meeting in Singapore while Singaporeans are denied that right in their own country.

The Singapore Democrats will not rest until Singaporeans are treated as citizens, not serfs, of this country.

20 April 2005

Dear President of The Republic of Singapore,

I am writing this letter as a concerned citizen of Singapore, requesting your Excellency to pardon Shanmugam S/O Murugesu; and lift the death sentence that the High Court has meted on him.

There are many reasons why Shanmugam deserves a second chance.

1. Shanmugan has contributed to Singapore society as a responsible citizen. He served in the Singapore Armed Forces for 8 years and was also in the Singapore Sports Council for another 4 years. During this period, he represented Singapore in water sports events even on an international level: World Championship Jetski Finals in Lake Havasu, Arizona, USA in 1995. His records of being a model citizen will hopefully win your sympathy.

2. Various campaigns have been launched over the years to promote Singapore as a caring, inclusive and forgiving society. The most recent, being the Yellow Ribbon Project, whose three main aims are: Create Awareness of giving second chances to ex-offenders, generate acceptance of ex-offenders and their families into the community, and inspire community action to support the rehabilitation and reintegration of ex-offenders.

If the President will pardon Shanmugan, this will send a clear signal to Singaporeans and the international community that we give our ex-offenders a second chance of rejoining the community. Shanmugan has submitted a plea of clemency, clearly indicating his repentance and desire to reform if he is given an opportunity.

3. Shanmugan was driven by desperate circumstances to possess drugs. As a sole breadwinner of his family, he had to financially support his two sons, niece, nephew and an ageing mother. This is a mitigating factor which I hope the President can consider seriously.

4. As regards to the above factor, if Shanmugan were to be sentenced to death as decided by the High Court, this will be an enormous and detrimental loss to the family and society. We have to consider the utmost pain and loss that the family members will suffer. Without any support and the love of the father, I worry immensely about the financial, emotional and psychological well being of the kids and his mother. Shanmugans growing teenage sons and sick mother deserve a father and son who can provide for them in any possible way. Various societal organizations will need to come to the aid of the family to prevent the family from plunging into further distress and poverty.

5. Various precedent cases of offenders who carry more drugs into Singapore have been pardoned.

6. This is indirectly related to Shanmugan. As a firm believer of abolishing the death penalty, I hope the President can reconsider the reasons why the death penalty is not an effective sentence against the offender.

First, the death penalty is one of the most basic violation against human rights. This is clearly stated in United Nations Declaration of Human Rights Article 3: Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person. Both the UN and European Union, has made clear positions on the death penalty issue.

Second, studies have been done which fails to find a link in proving that the death sentence is effective in crime deterrence.

Third, over half the countries in the world have abolished it in law or practice.

Global recognition of abolishing the death sentence has become one of the benchmarks on which countries are judged based on their human rights records. If Singapore wants to become a contemporary society on par with other societies in terms of respecting human
rights, we need to abolish the death penalty once and for all.

Most importantly, Shamugan has run out of options within the limits of the Singapore judiciary system, except to ask for a pardon from you, the President.

I hope The President will make a wise and compassionate choice.

A Concerned Singaporean
Charles Tan Teck Wee
S7735919B

Dear Mr. President,

I sincerely hope you will find it in your heart to give serious consideration to a plea being made on behalf of Shanmugams family to spare Shanmugam of the death penalty. I, like many others do not believe that drug trafficking should be taken lightly but neither do I feel that anyone caught trafficking illegally or legally for that matter in drugs should be executed by hanging.

The severity of the offence, I believe stems from the fact of the potential danger it poses for society. However, there are other vices equally destructive to the stability of society - gambling being one of them.

There has been much effort taken to persuade the public to view this otherwise negative habit from an economic point of view. I am sure most Singaporeans do not doubt the economic merits of the proposal even if it can pose a snare to our Singaporean youths. However, the right of choice does not make it an inevitable disaster for all, anymore than drug trafficking can.

Let the onus of responsibility lie with the consumer the State does not have to selectively play the role of nanny for its citizenry.

It is indeed a grave, serious responsibility to take the life of another. Can we, conscientiously justify such horrendous punitive measures in the name of the Law Law which we sometimes conveniently amend to suit our changing times and needs?

Margaret Louis

Note: If you would like us to post your letters of appeal for Mr Shanmugam on this website, please send them to speakup@singaporedemocrat.org.

18 April 2005

First, I must express that its regretted that Clive have altogether missed the point and crux of my response and arguement in my previous mails.

As such, I would just like to summarize in 9 main points on my previous exchange with Clive and perhaps readers of this website could just draw their conclusions based on logic and reason. That's the main purpose of having a discussion and the grand notion and purpose of having free speech anyway.

I do not intend to go into great depth on the credibility on Michael Moore's films as there's more than sufficient information available on the internet for interested readers to draw their conclusions. My point of bringing his films was to highlight to Clive that its extremely subjective especially if he tried to use biased 'works of entertainment' to substantiate any of his arguements.

As indicated earlier in my response to Clive, I've explicitly expressed to him that while NO legal system in the world, including that of Singapore, is 100% foolprove, we have adequate legal checks and honest judges to ensure that no one is put to death by the lack of proof.

As to Clive's belief that it would be a totally senseless act to even execute a GUILTY felon convicted in a court of law, all I would just like to highlight is that its basically his belief. I don't think its a senseless act to execute a convicted person whenever I think of the plight of victims such as women who got raped, abused, innocent children or even infants who were tortured or abused or even murdered, old folks who got mugged and punched because of theft etc. To these unfortunate folks, its even more senseless to be hurt, abused or murdered. They didn't asked for it. Apart from that, those who are on death row knew very well and clear on their penalites if their clandestine activities should failed. They made an 'informed' choice and they gotta be responsible for their own actions. It's not a case where for instance someone got caught for stealing and the court at its own pleasure meted the dealth penalty when the law or statues did not state that at all!

While I do not stop people or even myself from feeling sorry for those on death row, like what Clive said, they are human after all, I think we should all give some thought and sympathies to those who suffered or are going to suffer for their crimes or illegal activities.

Clive stated it in his last mail as a FACT that more than half of the world have abolished the death penalty. I'm not really convinced that that's a fact. If Clive had obtained the above statistics from the Amnesty International website, I would suggest that he study the figures indicated meticulously because the numbers and his abovementioned statement simply do not tally.

Apart from that, Clive mentioned that he spoke to an independent candidate who was pro death penalty and proudly indicated that he responded that 9 out of those 10 folks who believe in the capital punishment were wrong. Well, I'm not too sure what's his statements meant? Its either Clive is a person who's extremely 'confident' in his belief that even if 90% of folks do not agree with him or is he simply too out of touch with the others in his 'philosophical dreamland'.

At this point, I would just like to perhaps clarify a certain point with Clive. I'm NOT 'PRO DEATH PENALTY', sounds as though I'm someone who enjoy sending someone to the gallows or seeing some humans get fried on the electric chair. I think the right term used should be 'PRO JUSTICE and the RULE OF LAW'. Isn't that whats the rule of law seeks to accomplish and attain? That EVERYONE should NOT BE ABOVE THE LAW! So if someone breaks the law and that statue states the accordiing punishment, then it shall be carried out without fear or prejudice. That's why I thought the term 'pro death penalty' does not truly reflect those who support capital punishment. At this point, I do not wish to dwell into how some thought become statue or law as the process is explained quite readily in any legal websites.

Next, I think Clive completely misunderstood and miss the point on the issue of Britain joining hands in the liberating Iraq. Well you know what, Clive, I NEVER assumed that you supported the war because you had explicitly distanced yourself from the effort to free the innocent Iraqi people from their dictator. Neither do I wish to know who you voted for because that doesn't matter to me at all! What I want to highlight to readers is that someone (Clive) who fought vehemently against the death penalty would OPPOSE the effort to free the Iraqi people from their 'death penalty' meted solely by Saddam Hussein (NOT EVEN A COURT OF LAW)!

Finally, I'm appalled at Clive's last statement that the people of Singapore deserve a lot better than the People's Action Party (PAP). While I believe that no one is perfect in this world, even if he or she is a member of the PAP, I do believe in the integrity and honesty of my leaders who had tried hard, though sometimes imperfect, to run this island state and made all Singaporeans proud of our land and country. While you may argued that it's not the PAP but normal Singaporean folks that made Singapore the way it is now, I seriously and honestly think that while EVERY Singaporean has a role to play (and should be proud of it) in the Singapore success story. I think every team, organization, state and country would not be able to achieve its potential if they lack a great leader or team of leaders. Well, the record speaks for itself Clive. Singapore from an unknown 3rd world fishing village to a safe, grand, beautiful and sophiscated country with almost 97% of its population educated and living under their own shelters is something I think every Singaporean including me is extremely PROUD of.

Well, although we may not be 'perfect', no countries in the world do anyway, but I thought your sweeping statement that we, people of Singapore, deserve a lot better than what our leaders have done and is still doing, sounds extremely hollow and unconvincing.

Lastly, though I may not agree with everything what our leaders may have done or intend to do, I still trust in the integrity, spirit, capabilities as well as honesty of my leaders cos I always believe that faith in GOD, the well-being and stability as well as the integrity of my country SHOULD always takes precedence over my own individual freedoms.

REPUBLICAN OF SINGAPORE

18 April 2005

I read with much interest about the on-going feud between Clive from the UK and Republican of Singapore. I would like to offer some information which I think would be useful to Clive's argument. I was forced to return Singapore from Spain last year just to complete my military obligations since I still hold a Singapore passport. I am in the midst of completing my service now and wish to highlight some facts that I have got to know from my stint here so far.

Firstly, Singapore has never been engaged in military conflict. Yet the country maintains as many as 225,000 operationally ready National Servicemen and has one of the most advanced air forces in Southeast Asia. The only time that this island was subject to war was in 1942 when the Japanese defeated the then British ruled empire here as part of their attack on the Allies.

There is more than one reason why Singapore likes everyone to believe why it still has National Service. Firstly because it has a population of about 4 million. An army comprised mainly of professionals would simply be too small to adequately defend the country (although many similar sized and smaller countries also do not have National Service). It is interesting to note that recruits are trained to combat in jungle warfare in certain off-shore islands when there is hardly any jungle in the mainland where they are supposed to defend in the event of an attack.

Secondly, national service is supposed to instill a certain degree of harmony and racial/religious unity among its countrymen. All national servicemen are required to take pledge and sign an agreement that they will "die for the country and THE GOVERNMENT if the need arises" on their enlistment day. In simple words, it is used as a mean to implement forced patrotism.

Though it should be noted that Singapore has a thorny relationship with its neighbour Malaysia over disagreements regarding issues such as the sale of water, land reclamation and certain activities allegedly violating maritime boundaries between the two countries, the chances of these issues resulting in war between the two countries is slim.

Republican of Singapore seems to have his pride hurt since Clive is a non-Singaporean commenting on certain Singapore policies. There are other Singaporean writers from of this column who also share similiar sentiments as Clive who have been spared the rod from this Republican of Singapore. I applaud Mr Clive for taking interest in this website though it is of little benefit to him or his country how the PAP runs Singapore. Certain Singaporeans should learn to take negative comments in positive light if they really believe in debate, arguement and persuasion.

WARREN

18 April 2005

SDP,

I see you try to twist and turn facts. Very original of what PAP always accuse you of. For once I am inclined to think PAP is telling the truth when they say SDP is not very honest.

When did I say Seow and Tang are SDP members? I said these fellows are supporters of Chee and SDP and also Seow and Tang, the 'sued club'. Trying to push the blame to their supporters? I will contact Seow and Tang if I can but I can't. What matters is these people are also supporters of Chee and SDP, thats what I mean. At the least ask your supporters to behave themselves.

The SDP people are speaking ill of WP and SDA with no Seow and Tang. You jolly well know they left Singapore a long time and trying to mislead when you tell me they are from WP. I know that. Seow and Tang were members of WP, not are. Another misleading point.

When did you ask people to vote 29 candidates? Show me the report please.

I found out former MP Cheo Cai Chen and Kwan Ywe Keng are no longer with your party CEC. Seow Yong Chew has pass away! Why are their names still in the web site? Why you put dead man names on web site?

Why SDP talk so much abt PAP incompetence and you don't even update your web site?

EMPTYCAGE

PS Dare publish this letter again?

SDP: We highlighted the point about Tang Liang Hong and Francis Seow because you mentioned that SDP members and supporters were attacking the WP and SDA and supporting Dr Chee and SDP.

Your exact words were: ...SDP supporters have been sowing discord among opposition, claiming to support SDP but not SDA and WP...In fact many forumites are taking them as SDP members becos they claim to support only Chee and SDP and some politicians like Seow and Tang.

We were merely pointing out that it is not true that SDP supporters have been sowing discord among the opposition because they support SDP and not SDA or WP. According to you, these Internet commentators also support Tang Liang Hong and Francis Seow, who are (or were) WP not SDP members. (We will just take your word that Tang and Seow are no longer members of WP although you have not given us any indication that what you say is the official situation, not that we care either way.) It seems clear, therefore, that these people support both SDP and and non-SDP opposition politicians and, by extension, the matter cannot be a simple one of SDP members and supporters sowing discord among the opposition.

SDPs Assistant Secretary-General Wong Hong Toy called for voters to vote for all 29 opposition candidates at its final rally in the 2001 general elections. It may or may not have been reported by the media. The matter was discussed and the Singapore Democrats decided that it would be important for Singaporeans to see some cross-opposition-party support.

As for the partys website, we thank EmptyCage for highlighting that some of our pages need to be updated. He (or she) may be happy to note that the Party is revamping the website which the reader will see in the not-too-distant future.

The SDP posts letters on this website because there are valid arguments and interesting points that our readers make. Emptycage has dared us twice and twice we have posted his letters. But please note that the SDP does not post letters on a dare or not basis. This is the type of tricks that kids make on playgrounds not befitting serious political discussion. If Emptycage advances new arguments in his next email, we would be happy to continue the debate. As it stands, the exchange has run its course and we will bring this thread to a close.

18 April 2005

To the Singapore Democrat Party,

My name is Gaanashree Wood and I am a Singaporean. I have always lionized Singapore and forever been proud of her and her achievements. But recent activity surrounding the S. Murugesu v the State case and the dismissal of his appeal has saddened me greatly. The fact is that taking the life of this man could spell the eventual doom of his twin sons and possibly decide the future of capital punishment. However, this has failed to stir any kindness or humanity within the heart of the adjudicator. Now he has appealed to President Nathan for clemency. I have begun to question my faith in the Singapore Government and its jurisdiction. I fear the outcome of this appeal and what it may come to represent.

Another perturbing issue is the detention of Mr Boon Suan Ban and Mr Robert Ho at the Institute of Mental Health for criticising the Singapore Government. There are questions about the matter that need to answered.

I believe there is to be an election coming up in 2006/2007 and for the first time I will be able to vote. Should I too follow the herd and vote for the domineering PAP or for once take a stand? I think the Singapore Democratic Party has to stand up and speak out, not just for themselves but for all Singaporeans without a voice. I have seen the economic plans SDP has planned for Singapore and I am impressed and believe that it will work. SDP can change the future of human rights, free thought, free press and media and freedom of speech in Singapore if it aims towards it.

Fear not and take campaigning that step further and open the eyes of Singaporeans who are blind to what is happening. Take that one step and the party will be surprised by the immense support. And if the party does take that risk and give it all they have, the party will definitely have another vote, mine.

GAANASHREE WOOD

14 April 2005

I must write to respond to Republican's response to my earlier posting. If anything I found it more offensive than the previous reply.

I agree that Michael Moore's films are one sided. But these films are his side of the argument. I didn't agree with everything in 'Farenheit 9/11', although I agreed with most of his points. 'Bowling For Columbine', however, I thought was a sound argument for gun control.

I certainly don't trust Singapore's legal system 100% after reading the article "Forum on the death penalty and rule of law".

Other reasons that I'm opposed to the death penalty, include my belief that even if the person was guilty executing them would be a senseless act. There are even relatives of murder victims who hold this view.

My statement that more than half of the countries in the world have abolished the death penalty wasn't intended as an argument for abolishing the death penalty. I was just stating a fact. During our last general election I spoke to an independent candidate who was pro death penalty, and he told me that nine out of ten people believe in capital punishment, and I replied that those nine out of ten people are wrong.

You still haven't answered my question: When was Singapore last invaded, and what are the chances of it being invaded now. Perhaps the moderator of this website would care to supply me with the answer.

What I found distasteful in my earlier post was Republican's assumption that because I am British I agreed with the British government's decision to support America's war against Iraq, when in fact I was strongly opposed. Not every British member of parliament voted to support the war. Not everyone who voted for the current Labour government supported the war. Some people went on protest marches to express their opposition to the war (although I wasn't one of them).

As Republican said Britain is a democracy and a free country, and if the government makes a decision that some people agree with they are perfectly entitled to express their disagreement, whether it's by writing to a newspaper, joining a demonstration, or forming a pressure group.

You should not assume that I even voted for the current government. And I won't tell you if I did or not because we have a secret ballot and I feel no obligation to tell anyone how I vote.

The people of Singapore deserve a lot better than the People's Action Party.

CLIVE

4 April 2005

Dear SDP,

I can let go of the rest but just the following pts:

1. You may want to visit Sammyboymod forum to see how SDP supporters have been sowing discord among opposition, claiming to support SDP but not SDA and WP. If you don't know the link I can show you http://forums.delphiforums.com/sammyboymod/. The way they write portrays them as SDP members. If they are not, then that is not the impression they give. In fact many forumites are taking them as SDP members becos they claim to support only Chee and SDP and some politicians like Seow and Tang. I think this should be of your concern becos they claim they are supporters of Chee your leader. If Chee remains silent, it is taken that he endorses the attacks on other opposition and thinks SDP is chief of the opposition parties. Don't write a long letter back to me telling me Chee doesn't not think so with flowery words becos I believe in ACTIONS, not WORDS.

2. Attacks on SDP has always been carried by PAP supporters and not opposition supporters. Why is SDP supporters attacking SDA and WP supporters. In some instance, SDP supporters even join hands with PAP supporters to attack them!

3. You respect everyone the right to express opinions? How about opinions of SDP supporters that undermine the credibility of opposition? If you are that dumb to sit around and do nothing or practice double standards then you are not credible party.

EMPTYCAGE

SDP: Dear EmptyCage,

It is regretted that you have missed the point in our previous response to you. For clarity's sake, we repeat it: The Singapore Democrats have no desire, nor do we feel that it is in the interest of free speech, to tell Internet users what they can and cannot say in cyberspace.

You presumed that many of these Internet users criticisng the WP are SDP members "becos they claim to support only Chee and SDP and some politicians like Seow and Tang." We take it that you are referring to Francis Seow and Tang Liang Hong. There is a fundamental error in your presumption as neither Seow nor Tang have been, or are, members of the SDP. In fact, we believe that they are members of the WP. Perhaps your anger at SDP is misplaced.

You also say that "Attacks on SDP has always been carried by PAP supporters and not opposition supporters." The Singapore Democrats do not follow Internet discussions closely and we can only presume that what you say is true. However, we do not chafe at criticisms, those from PAP supporters or otherwise. If fact, we welcome them because any party that cannot accept criticism cannot become a good government when they win power. In politics the bitter comes with the sweet, praise comes with criticism. We repeat: If you feel the need, answer your critics, otherwise leave them alone. Trying to shut them up is unbecoming of a political party, especially one that champions democracy.

The Singapore Democrats would never ask its supporters to join hands with PAP supporters to criticise other opposition parties. However, we are of the view that they are intelligent and mature people who are able to discern who is doing what is right and wrong. We may or may not agree with them, but we support their right to say them.

And speaking of undermining the credibility of the opposition, it is on public record that the SDP is the only party that asked voters to vote for all 29 opposition candidates during the last election right till the very end of the campaign. Does this sound like a party out to sabotage the cause of the opposition to establish democracy in Singapore? Any party or group that believes in, and works toward, a democratic system where human rights and freedom of Singaporeans are respected, can expect the full cooperation and support from the Singapore Democrats.

4 April 2005

Before I begin, I would like to express my regret that the respondant found some of my comments offensive. However, I do not think I should be
apologetic about that and once again I've highlighted his 'casual' style
kind of argument.

I would like to inform the respondant that I had watch Michael Moore's
trademark 'biased documentary' "Bowling For Columbine" and some of his
notorious propaganda 'documentaries' notably the recent "Farenheit 9-11".
Perhaps I should reciprocate by suggesting that you read some of the
feedbacks and 'professional movie reviews and commentaries' about the nature of Michael Moore and how he's 'skilfull' enough to 'convice' his viewers, unfortunately I believe Mr Clive was one of them.

I do not wish to deliberate further with the respondant on the issue of the death penalty as he could only just express distrust on a country's legal system, the remote possibility that an innoncent person might be executed wrongfully and 'other reasons' that he chose to withold. How unfortunate, or perhaps it is fortunate as that would spare us from the respondant's litany of complaints and distrust.

"More than half of the countries in the world no longer have the death
penalty and the sooner the rest follow the better" is one of those
statements I found to be pretty hollow much least convincing. Just because half of the world practiced certain things, doesn't mean its correct and should be practice by the rest of the world! Apart from that, I just wonder how my respondant came up with the statistic that more than half of the countries in the world do no have the death penalty!

As for his question as to when Singapore was last occupied or what are the possibilities that Singapore would be invaded, I would like to take the honor to recommend my respondant to read the book titled 'Defending the Lion City: The Armed Forces of Singapore' by Huxley, Tim. Hope that would assist and further reinforced my position of having a credible and effective armed forces as a deterrant and clear some of the doubts my respondant may have.

Lastly, as for the comment that my respondant found extremely offensive and his subsequent reply, all I could say is that it really reaffirmed my belief that my respondant is really 'hollow' in his comment that 'it was his government's decision and not his'! What a JOKE, and unbelievable one too! Doesn't he know the basic of what's a representative democratic government is all about?? It's supposed to represent the will of the people! And your government was elected democratically, right!

But what REALLY and TRUELY troubled and saddened me was that my respondant who's living in a FREE country was against his own government's and the U.S as well as other countries in the 'coalition of the willing' efforts to liberate a country that was before ruled cruelly by a notorious DICTATOR who was known to have GASSED his own people and deprived his own people of basic human rights!! My respondant was AGAINST the liberation effort to free the Iraqi community!! What an irony that a person who is against the death penalty on the grounds that someone may eventually be wrongfully executed, is against an honorable military operation against freeing the innoncent Iraqi majority (Shiites) and minority (Kurds) from the 'death sentence' meted by Saddam Hussein when he was in power!!! What an unbelievable contradiction which really makes me doubt the moral credibility of my respondant.

Finally, its not my idea or thought that a sovereign nation such as the United Kingdom could be the 51st state of America at all! Its both ludicrous and unfathomable!

Perhaps I should just correct my thanksgiving statement and thanked the U.K EXCLUDING my respondant instead, for lending a hand and shoulder as a true friend might, to help give a chance and save the innoncent Iraqi civilians from their 'death penalty'!

Hope that would alleviate my respondant from some of my 'offensiveness'.

REPUBLICAN OF SINGAPORE

29 March 2005

I write in response to the letter from Republican of Singapore who replied to some of my comments.

Some of the comments in this letter I found offensive.

I suggest the correspondent watches Michael Moore's Bowling For Columbine for a view on America's gun culture.

I don't trust any country's legal system completely. I still stand by my view that any country that has the death penalty will execute an innocent person sooner or later. But that isn't the only reason I'm opposed to the death penalty.

More than half of the countries in the world no longer have the death penalty and the sooner the rest follow the better.

I admit that Britain and Singapore are two quite different countries. I should point out that Britain only introduced conscription when the two World Wars started. I don't know when Singapore was last invaded by another country or what the chances are of Singapore being invaded now. I would be interested to know.

However the comment I find extremely offensive is "I would like to thank Clive and the UK for their support to the US in Operation Iraqi Freedom". Do not thank me for this. It was the government's decision not mine. I was againts Britain's involvement in America's war on Iraq. Britain is not the 51st state of America.

CLIVE
UK

29 March 2005

SDP is not a credible party.

1. Being an oppo party against PAP, you have members and supporters attacking WP all the time on the internet just because they are growing and you are not.

2. The attacks contain lots of untruths and lies. SDP has more to hide and despite so attack WP weaknesses.

3. Martin See is not SDP member? My source tells me other wise. Lying to the press abt his membership with SDP yet come to internet to lie and accuse WP of lying.

EMPTYCAGE

PS: Dare to (publish my letter without) Change?

PS2: My warning to SDP -- stop the attacks on WP esp on Sammyboymod for the truth abt Martin See will be exposed. Take my wager?

SDP: Dear EmptyCage,

The Singapore Democrats have no information that its members are actively attacking any political party on the Internet. If you have any evidence that this is happening please forward it to us and we would be happy handle the matter.

To be sure, there have also been numerous attacks against the SDP. Many of them have even written to this website and their letters have been posted. The best way to expose "untruths and lies" is to answer them with reasoned argument and logical persuasion, not "shut up or else..." This is the PAP's tactic and it would be a shame for the opposition to try to imitate it. To cite Voltaire, while we fight with the views of our detractors, we will fight even harder to defend their right to express them. It is called freedom of speech and it is the cornerstone of democracy, a principle which we hold dear as Democrats.

But principles are easier to fight for than live by. It would be a shame for us to excoriate the PAP for denying us the right to freely express ourselves and then turn around and threaten those who disagree with us. The Internet is a forum where a myriad of subjects and a spectrum of opinion on these subjects can be expressed without censorship and control by the PAP. There are many things posted there which are disagreeable to many who participate in, or simply browse, it. Defend against those that attack you if you must, ignore them if you choose. But please respect everyone's right to express their opinion - intelligent or inane, reasonable or rude. We have enough PAP censorship in Singapore to last us many lifetimes, let us protect this little corner of freedom zealously.

We believe that you are referring to Martyn See and not Martin See, the film-maker who made the documentary Singapore Rebel. For the record, Mr See is not a member of the Singapore Democrats.

We thank you for your email despite our inability to agree with you.

29 March 2005

Dear Sir,

It is with interest that I've decided to pen a few words which I feel will open up someone's eyes as to what is happening in my beloved Singapore. I'm a 3rd generation Singaporean of Indian decent, I had always respected and conformed to all rules & regulation in this country till I came face to face with the ugly side of this wonderful country.

It took place some 6 years back at the immigration in Kallang. A friend of mind from India whom I met in Bahrain while working there came to Spore for a visit. He had called earlier to inform me that he had booked the hotel (Peninsula) and that he wanted to stay for a week for shopping. After arrival and checking into the hotel, he called me to say that the immigration at the airport had only given him 3 days stay. He was very upset. Anyone in his shoes would be! Spending all this money for some good holiday break, only to be told to leave after 1 day. As a S'porean, I told him "No problem, we can go down to the immigration dept. at Kallang and have it extended". You guessed it, my application to sponsor this person to stay another 4 days was rejected, this was even after being told at the immigration that I can sponsor him as I was a S'porean with the necessary qualifications.

When I went over to the immigration to ask for an explanation with my friend in tow, the officer told me, sorry I don't have to give you a reason! What does that make me, a Singaporean!

I've given up on this country too. The only option people in this country have is to stay and accept things the way they are or leave like me! This episode is only one of many I've written, and it has all added up to make me think hard and decide my future. I just hope Singaporeans will wake up to the fact that "what you see is not always what you get."

QUITTER

SDP: Dear Quitter,

The Singapore Democrats have received numerous letters on incidents such as the one you have experienced. We feel the anguish as much as you do when the authorities treat citizens like serfs. We want to help you and many others like you to overcome this problem and let our citizenship as Singaporeans really mean something.

Unfortunately we cannot do much if you choose to leave this country. If everyone who feels disenchanted with the government packs up and leaves, we will just fulfill the self-prophesy that we are helpless in the face of PAP domination. If everyone who cares leaves, then we will never be able to change anything.

The truth is that we are NOT helpless. Not if we all stay put in Singapore and band together. The Singapore Democrats need you and you need the SDP. It is by standing together that we can eventually overcome our plight. It is not impossible. Peoples in other countries have overcome even greater odds.

The process to reform the PAP system has already begun and the SDP will work tireless with all concerned to turn this into an honest to goodness movement for democracy. We are too aware that the road to freedom is long and paved with difficulties and hardship. But nothing worthy in life has ever been obtained without sweat and tears.

Instead of leaving Singapore, come join us. We're at 1357A Serangoon Road, Singapore 328240.

23 March 2005

I refer to the respond to Rosiati Jumardi from Clive from the UK (7 March 2005) and have to disagree with him on several points.

First, Clive seemed to conclude casually that America has a high rate of gun crimes, including child gun crimes, due to the fact that Americans are permitted to possess guns.

This argument is absolutely too casual and baseless. In fact, statistics in America have shown repeatedly that having guns by individuals in fact deter would-be muggers, robbers, molesters and rapists etc. The high rate of gun crimes mentioned by Clive could be mistaken to be the rate of gun-related deaths cos that's often been used to, mistakenly though, quote by anti-gun lobbyists. What they miss out is that this statistic includes shooting by legal enforcers (such as policemen), shooting mishaps and accidents etc.

However, I do agree with Clive with one point - that I don't really come across any cases of gun shooting or crimes committed by children as young as five years old!

Secondly, Clive tried to decry and discredit the death penalty based on his assertion that 'Singapore my sooner or later hang someone innocent by mistake'. Well, that would be one of the most unfortunate case if that ever happens.

However, I TRUST our nation's legal system and the wise men and women presiding in cases which involved the life of an individual. These men and women are humans too and I believe that its with great reluctance and sadness that these men and women passed the death sentence on guilty individuals in the court of law. In addition, sentenced individuals have the RIGHT for an appeal to the court of appeal which comprised of three distinct, individual and honorable high court judges. All this was done in the hope that not one individual, if an element of doubt exist, would be mistakenly sentenced to death as Clive suggested.

However, at this juncture, I would like to stress that I'm also not in favor of Rosiati's statement which mentioned that the death sentence was meted out so that convicts may not commit their crimes again when freed and to deter the possibilities of a prison breakout! This statement is so ridiculous that I don't see the need to elaborate on it.

Lastly, I totally disagree with Clive's notion that 'if the country isn't at war, you don't need every able bodied young man to serve in the armed forces. It's just a waste of their time, and the army's time as well'. So Clive what do you suggest? That we enlist able bodied young men to serve when there's a war? That's pretty naive and foolish to even contemplate and suggest! Its certainly not a waste of time to have our men do their national service and if the need really arise, war in that case, they would be well trained and prepared to do and complete their job. While a well prepared army may deter and finally win in any battle and scenarios, I think the most important thing national service does was that it ensures that each and every young men are trained so as to increase their chance of survival in any crisis and battle or war! Lives are at stake in every conflict Clive, and it would be extremely myopic to think that we can 'prepare' young people for war only when war arises, it would be too late.

At this point, I may wish to remind Clive that the case of Singapore and Britain is different as we are a small nation compared to his and thus his country has the luxury to have an army consisting purely of volunteers and professionals.

At this juncture, I would just like to take this opportunity to thank Clive and U.K for their support to the US in 'Operation Iraqi Freedom'. I'm not an American, but I think to liberate a country ruled by a dictator is what every armed forces in the free world and every freedom loving people such as Clive would like to do and participate.

REBULICAN OF SINGAPORE

21 March 2005

I read with disdain the recent initiatives by the Singapore Government to expand more tools to "safeguard our cyber infrastructure". My response to
this is bull****!

The fact that this call to defend against cyber terror comes from a reigning Minister of Defence, tells us
much.

Militarists have always used "defence" as a convenient excuse to develop worse arsenal of offensive weapons. I believe that this so-called defence against terror is nothing but an attempt to boost the state's surveillance technologies on its own citizens, to further cripple the growing and burgeoning feeling in Singapore that "WE DO NOT NEED THE PAP AND WE CAN STILL SURVIVE" mentality that is growing among more and more disillusioned people.

I foresee a day when People Power will force the change in Singapore with or without these oppressive technologies being imposed in the name of defence.

The people need defence not against an imagined enemey but the clear and present danger that is the Men in White.

FRANCIS D SILVA

21 March 2005

Dear SDP

I admit I have never been a great fan of your organization because I thought that you guys are all talk. But after reading the recent Sintercom article on the non-violence workshop SDP organized, I feel that I might have misjudged you guys too rashly and impulsively. You guys are actually not all talk but admirably have some action too. However, I am amused that Mr Moser-Puangsuwan found your leader uncharismatic! He does not seem confident about the SDP leadership it seems. The idea of a workshop is great but maybe next time SDP should enlist the help of people who respect SDP? Frankly, Mr Moser-Puangsuwan's views have blunted the SDP image and sadly undermine the thrust of the workshop somewhat.

EDWIN CHAN

SDP: Dear Mr Edwin Chan,

Thank you for your email.

There has been much that the SDP has done to fight for the freedoms of Singaporeans. As you know, SDP has been calling on Singaporeans to exercise their freedoms of speech and assembly. Dr Chee has in fact taken the lead in this regard by speaking in public in defiance of unjust laws restricting freedom of assembly in Singapore. The Singapore Democrats will continue to lead in this area.

Mr Yeshua Moser-Puangsuwan is a respected non-violence action campaigner. Dr Chee is a firm believer in the philosophy of non-violence as practiced most notably by Gandhi and Martin Luther King. He has indicated that he would like to expand the idea more widely in Singapore and thinks that Mr Moser-Puangsuwan is an able exponent and practitioner of non-violence, and would therefore like to seek his assistance in this matter. Whether Mr Moser-Puangsuwan thinks that Dr Chee is a charismatic leader or not is irrelevant. The point is that Singaporeans need to know about the principles and methods of non-violent action and the process of education must be undertaken. In this regard, Dr Chee has indicated that he looks forward to working more closely with Mr Moser-Puangsuwan in the future.

15 March 2005

Hi SDP,

I'm a fellow Singaporean but now reside in another country. My family will come home to vote for you every time there is an election.

Our Government is really doing a lousy job but gets paid so highly. We are so sad that two young families ended that way so sad and I'm sure there are many more families that are suffering that we dont know about.

Though the Government is not totally responsible for their actions but my life is very tough to continue on in Singapore. When Singaporeans are hit with the crisis, our Government made it difficult to help us with so many conditions, even saying that we should not be a welfare state.

So clever is the Government that The New Paper reported: They studied the wrong literature textbook for the O-level exams. Even stranger is that no one spotted the mistake. Not the students, not their teachers, not the Education Ministry, not the University of Cambridge Local Examinations Syndicate, and not even the Singapore Examinations and Assessments Board. What are they doing?

Keep up the good fight!

SDP SUPPORTER

15 March 2005

I am hearing impaired but can hear with the help of a hearing aid and communicate well in English.

I have a troubled heart over by hunting for jobs. I don't get enough satisfaction with the work that I am doing because I feel that I waste my certificates and education on such a simple job like data entry. I am wondering why don't I get the job similar to what I learnt at the ITE. All the job applications that I am interested to apply for, which fit my education, experience, and career interests are all rejected by employers because of my hearing impairment.

I get discouraged and disappointed. At same time I blame hearing people for not giving me a chance. I know the next thing you are going to say is to change my mindset. But I feel that this is not fair because from what I observe my ex-colleagues (who are not hearing impaired) are not serious in their work. They end up making a lot of mistakes whereas I, being deaf and needing to work so hard and concentrate well, have to proofread and edit the errors for them. Yet they get higher pay than I do although we are in the same positions.

Why cannot I get the job that I like? Why must I have to lower my expectation? Why cannot I get the salary as the market rate?

T GINA70

15 March 2005

Dear Dr. Chee,

I read with dismay, the rising jobless rate, the rising suicide rate and the general gloom that prevails in Singapore today.

The problems are due to one man, one man alone LKY. Since 1959, he has felt that he knows best, and no one else had a head on his/her shoulder. He will decide, and everyone else will conform. Any contrary opinion must be silenced. The people must submit or else. This arrogance has over the years, made an entire population silent and submissive. We have an entire Singapore population unable to think independently. An entire population silenced. The only speakers are those who will parrot the government line.

This style may have worked in the late 50s and the 60s where Singapore could attract foreign investment by purveying their assets, namely a docile English speaking work force that will work for peanuts, without complaint. But this marketing technique has been copied by our neighbors who have the advantage of lower wages. So the niche in the cheap labor market is gone. But the problem was that during the good times wages went up, salaries went up, property prices went up. Now with the niche gone, property prices are declining, foreign investors are leaving, banks are foreclosing and the ripple effect of the downturn is causing Singapore to fall on an unstoppable tailspin.

And this is mainly because LKY thought he knew best. Instead of 4 million people thinking and finding their own niche, now they can do nothing because their thinking caps are off. They do not know what to do.

And what have we in Singapore? A very large government sector with thousands of pen-pushers doing clerical work. Now when times are hard, they are laid off. What else can they do? They can learn to cook mee goreng, but how many mee goreng sellers can there be? Singapore does not have a large reservoir of artisans and technicians and tradesmen who can work in the industries that the foreign capital in Singapore needs, even if Singapore can attract more foreign capital. If Hewlett Packard intends to have a plant in Singapore, they can only employ assembly line workers. And the cost of assembly line workers in Singapore is no longer competitive. You get much cheaper costs in Jakarta Indonesia.

And with the lack of work, people turn to suicide. Suicide is something that can be prevented. If you had a caring society which can give some support for people in dire straits. But LKY says that people should stand on their own feet, they should be robust. Giving any assistance would turn Singaporeans into a lazy people. That is etched in stone. But Mr. Lee does not realize that not everyone can be as robust as he wishes them to be. Giving some assistance sometimes is necessary. It is necessary because it will give people a sense of belonging, the knowledge that Singapore cares. And in return the people would be loyal and appreciative. At least you will stop this tragic syndrome of suicides.

I live in California, near San Francisco. Here, people fall into dire straits too. Families suddenly find themselves penniless. But they dont drive to the Golden Gate Bridge and throw themselves into the San Francisco Bay. Why? Because the State has a system in place where people can turn for help, until they can stand on their own feet again. They invariably recover. They appreciate the government for this. They become useful citizens again, having learnt their lesson. But of course, in California, there is no LKY. Thank God.

If only LKY will listen, but he will not. I have sent him various emails telling him that Singapore is now a metropolis. Singapore has to find its own direction. And for that the 4 million people should be able to think and reason without fear or favor. That way Singapore will somehow find its own direction. Suing Dr. Chee and JBJ for thousands of dollars and bankrupting them, sends a wrong signal to the entire population. A society of fear is not going to produce anything. And topping it all, with the Internet, any discerning person in any part of the world, is already aware that Singapore is, to quote a phrase Disneyland with the death penalty. This too prevents many international companies from stationing in Singapore, because of the bad name it has earned.

I urge all readers who read this letter to write to Mr. Lee, and point out to him that he is barking up the wrong tree. Write to your local MP, write to your Minister, write to your local Residents Committee, write to everyone, and keep telling them, ad nauseum that their policies are driving Singapore down on the fatal tailspin.

You can see the desperation that Singapore now faces. Macau, the former Portuguese Colony which is now part of China, earns its income entirely on gambling and prostitution. There is nothing else there. Is this what the PAP wants to do with Singapore with the casino push. Tell the PAP that there are other ways to succeed and that gambling is not the way out. All LKY has to do is to come down from his high horse and realize that Dr. Chee, JBJ and the 4 million Singaporeans also have heads on their shoulders. And collectively, with their thinking caps on, Singapore may yet be saved.

GOPALAN NAIR

15 March 2005

With the recent shameful mistakes by MOE and many others in the past notwithstanding, I am sure citizens will be more convinced with the government IF the media has reported in this manner:

(Below is a fictitious ST article to illustrate how the PAP should have responded to blatant mistakes made by the government.

ST headlines, 7 March 2005: Tharman accepts responsibility for blatant mistake from MOE.

As part of the Real Remaking of Singapore (RRS), MOE was fined $10 million yesterday for causing untold hardship, inconveniences and emotional stress to many parents. He chides and chastens internal policy makers for not being able to 'Listen to citizen's voice'. Under RRS, all ministries and statutory boards are liable for fines for wrong, poor or unproductive policies made.

The money will be used to compensate the families involved who have suffered during the incident which includes giving bursaries and grants, cash incentives among many others, as a form of apology. Poorer families with students who have good results will have the highest priority.

Drawing his vast experience from his economics background and previous job as head of MAS, he also stresses the fact that implementing wrong policies that make live difficult for Singaporeans has a drastic effect that can wreck havoc in the country's economy.

Education is the key to Singapore's future which is heavily dependent on human resources to remain competitive in the region in this knowledge economy. Hence this fine is just a small amount compared to grave consequences that can affect the country in the long term.

It's a wake up call for every statutory board to remain really sincere and not just making policies on the fly just to create action and meet deadlines.

Agreeing with Tharman's statements in yesterday's key speech in parliament, PM Lee wants to convince fellow Singaporeans that the government cares for their hardships and will try all means possible to remake Singapore for a brighter future.

He chastens MOE that now its the time to Walk the Talk. Stringent policies such as fines and restrictions that were imposed on ordinary citizens must be applied to the government as well.

Its the citizens who elected us, he says, not the other way round and warns them to stay nimble and not to repeat the same mistake again or else heads will roll.

We have a lot to learn from PM Abdullah who mentions recently that government leaders must take citizen's curse at the government as a form of blessing. Without criticisms, we will never grow and we are also partly responsible for the majority Singaporeans who tends to whine and complain about the government.

He adds: Most S'poreans are generally unwary and non-participative in politics, As such, many vote for us blindly and entrusted us with a grave responsibility to ensure better lives for all. This must be the mindset for all ministries from now onwards that we simply cannot afford to provide a blind eye to citizen's problems.

The old perfectionist's mindset of trying all means possible to explain our mistakes is over. The onus now will be to admit more mistakes we have made, with more apologies, even from the past, in order to ensure a forthright and responsible government. This is the only way forward to prevent blatant mistakes from becoming unrecoverable in the future. From the communications point of view, with the citizens who have signed a social pact with us, the government has been taking the stand of the defense attorney who always wins the court case. Winning the argument against citizens of lesser knowledge must be thrown out of the door from now onwards.

The reasoning is simple, PM Lee says, Winning through scholarly explanations does not mean that the conclusion is a practical and credible one and of course we will always win (to the audience's laughter). And we must not be like the thief who stuffs his ears while robbing the temple's bell, thinking that people will not hear him, since he cannot hear it himself.

What's wrong with admitting mistakes? PM Lee reiterates. My apologies to my fellow ministers if you have received unnecessary stress from the past. Imagine, If we are in a situation whereby ministers have the idea that they are not allowed to mistakes, then any mistakes made will be quickly covered up thought slippery lies and explanations. If this is the case, Minister's win, but the poor citizens lose and suffer in the long run. I do not wish this nightmarish scenario to happen from now onwards.

"If we adopt the mindset of being Kiasu, Kiasi and selfish in all our policies and legislations, citizens will subconsciously follow. No wonder such are the end results what kind of citizens we have today. And I have to admit that the government is mainly responsible for it.

"Some time ago, I watched the CNA news telling Singaporeans to do good deeds and be nice to one another so that others will follow, this is what we call 'Paying it Forward'. And frankly speaking, I watch it with a deep remorse and embarrassment. If we are really sincere, we should start from the top that is, all Ministers must set good examples for the citizens to follow because it's a known fact that policies will always trickle down the hierarchy to affect ordinary citizen's lives. If we really want to Remake Singapore, this is one wise method to begin with.

He also cites a recent mistake made in his speech to the media that the cost of living has not increased drastically as compared to the salaries of workers and that prices has remain stable overall. Admitting that the mistake was because he relied mainly on the consumer price index, which is not an accurate statistic to gauge the true nature of the cost of living here.

He mentions that he understands now the main culprits are transport costs, housing, COEs, car costs, and fines (to the audience's laughter) that have increased from at least three to eight times more than citizen's salaries for the past 15 years, a terrible tragedy which is mainly responsible for Singaporeans late marriage and low birth rates.

He promises to make good such mistakes and that the government is studying all means possible to solve this major problem.

Finally, PM Lee mentions that most parents have to juggle and balance their fragile jobs in a highly stressful society to provide for the families. 'Yes, we are calling the shots, he says, but thats the whole problem when we cannot walk the ground to understand citizens hardship.

A NON-SCHOLAR ORDINARY FOLK

7 March 2005

I refer to the letter "I like things the way they are" by Ms Rosiati Jumardi (24 February 2005). In my reply to the letter, I occasionally refer to Spain because I lived there for a period. Therefore, I am in good position to compare Singapore with Spain more than with any other country. My response to her comments are in bold.

Dear Sirs and Madams,

First of all I would like to apologise for any rough words
used later in my statements or the wrong use of the English
Language. I am after all a student and is not that
proficient in my language. I am still coping but I will try
my best to bring across my points.

I have just stumbled upon this website while i was doing my
research for my upcoming school debate.

I have been following this website regularly for the last 5 months and have read all the articles in the archives even those which date a few years back. A far contrast to your "just stumbled upon this website"

I've read some of the opinions of those Singaporeans and other users of the
website on how Singapore really should be. But really, may I
ask all of you, are your suggestions really feasible? Does
it really make sense?

Please be specific in which suggestion you are refering to. I can give you a dozen PAP policies which dont make sense too.

Most of you feel that Singapore should allow her people to
be more open and expressive. You feel that the citizens of
Singapore should really be allowed the freedom of speech.
May I bring you all back to the reality that YES, Singapore
has allowed her people to have that freedom. This can be
seen from the opening of the speakers corner here in
Singapore itself. But may I ask you people, really, how many
people have been there to express their thoughts?

Have you not read about what has happened to fellow Singaporeans like JB Jayaretnam and Dr Chee Soon Juan after they spoke up? With so many restrictions on the Speaker's Corner itself, do you think it is really a platform for open debate? You can't talk about government policies, can't clench your fists, can't even say or do anything which "provokes public controversy"! Maybe you should do some research on the meaning of freedom of speech too.

Does the other Singaporeans really attracted to hear the opinions of
the opposition of PAP to make the changes that you have
proposed? If you really want to make your opinion heard dear
sirs and madams, please feel free to go to the speakers
corner to express your thoughts. If you are afraid of the
actions taken by the government for what you have said, then
I believe you should really review the words that you want
to use. Is it really appropriate to curse? After all, we do
not want the children to learn how to curse right?

I dont think using foul language is the argument here.

So would it not be appropriate to use the right use of words when we
are speaking in the media or in public?

Please read the letters that SDP has sent to the Straits Times in recent times and tell me which words are "not right". I dont think its just "foul language" the Straits Times editors are censoring.

And are the factsthat you brought up for real or just your imagination?
I feel that most of us are still comfortable with the way
things are run here. We feel that the government are still
giving us our space, and does not intrude in any of our
privacy. Apart from that our well-being are still taken care
of by the government, and most of us are leading a happy and
comfortable life. If this is not the case, then many of us
would have pressurize the government for a change. Am I not
right in saying this?

When I was studying in Barcelona, Spain last year, I got a letter from the Singapore Air Force congratulating me about being pre-selected to be trained to be a pilot in the Air Force. I, on the other hand have never expressed any interest in the public service all my life. So much for the "Govt not intruding in our privacy." Most Singaporeans are leading a happy and comfortable life? Comfortable yes. Happy no. If not, then why the rise in depression and suicide cases in recent years?

Think Center recently held a internet poll on whether Singaporeans feared the PAP Govt, the majority voted "yes". Are fearful citizens going to pressurize their Govt which they fear so much? I guess not. Even if they did, how would you expect them to pressurize the PAP? Hold a peaceful demonstration? That will land you in jail. Vote for the opposition? That means your HDB estate might not be considered for upgrading or other neighbourhood facility improvements. Write to the Straits Times? Dont make me laugh.

The opinions of the oppositions team sometimes do not
make sense at all. In my opinion, you are there for the sake
of going against the PAP since you are the opposition, is it
not true?

Now, which opinion of the opposition team does not make sense at all? Please be specific. What is so spectacular about "being there for the sake
of going against the PAP"? Being a opposition in Singapore only means that you risk being suit for defamation and being labelled a outcast.

How many suggestions have you brought up that has
or have taken the vote of the majority in Singapore?

Does the PAP Govt even let the opposition bring up its suggestions? The main reason why the PAP has been in power for so long is because of its manipulative ways. The PAP controls the media with a strong fist. It doesnt give the opposition any room to breathe. Has any of the suggestions or policies brought up by the opposition been even brought to the public by any of the media channels? No. The PAP very successfully makes the opposition in Singapore look like sitting ducks.

Dearest sirs and madams, do you really feel that Singapore
has to change the way it is? I would like to bring this
question dear sirs and madams. Are you not comfortable
living in Singapore? You may say its stressful, but may I
say this, everything that we do brings stress. It's just the
different weights of the stress that we feel.

Then why are educated and successful Singaporeans flocking to Australia and the US in numbers? Why are the top breed of our students going for overseas studies on Govt scholarships not returning even though their bonds guarantees them a steady, well paid career upon return? If these are not reason enough for Singapore to start considering change, then I rest my case.

The security that we have here in Singapore should not be
taken for granted. Really I have to admit crimes do occur
everywhere, but if you were to compare the security level, I
feel Singapore is way on top. Try walking in the streets of
some of the Western countries (I apologise if you feel hurt
by this statement), some children even at the tender age of
5 carry guns. Some even went to the extent of shooting or
killing their own parents if they are not satisfied with
them. People get cruelly murdered, robbed or raped. May I
ask you dear kind sirs and madams, how many such cases can
you find in Singapore?

Singapore ought to have a lower crime rate due to its small size and population. Even judging by crime rate per capita, Singapore is not the safest city in the world. Very strangely, the safest city in the world is in a Western country...hmmm...tell me why...

There is a difference between doing something right because of punishment and doing something right simply because it is the right thing to do. Singapore has a habit of looking for quick fixes when problems arise. This form of dealing with issues on the surface is not healthy and the consequences are already taking form in society today.

In Singapore, most people's reaction to taking marijuana or cocaine would be that it'll land you in jail and that you'll be hanged. The laws here even make one forget that marijuana or cocaine could be harmful to your health in the first place. There is no change of mindset of the subject (drug abuse) in the first place. People conform out of fear. Not because it is the right thing to do. Public education, though it takes a longer time, is a better option in the long run because that changes mindsets.

You mention kids killing their parents in Western countries. Am I not to say that this is a minority that you are referring to? Even with the strict laws here, we still had that 15 year old hitman in a murder case (Anthony Ler) a few years ago. Try removing the gun laws here and then see how many of our kids would be shooting each other down.

Ms Rosiati, I dont think that you have lived in another country before. I've lived in Spain and I assure you that you can walk on the streets of Barcelona at any given time without much complain. And no, you won't see a police car every 100m. Maybe Barcelona is not "super safe" like Singapore, but rest assured that it is safe enough.

Dear kind sirs and madams, you have proposed that Singapore
should abolished its heavier sentences such as death penalty
and caning. You feel that sooner or later Singapore
judiciary would make a mistake in punishing one of these
prisoners. You also said that Singapore is having this
punishment for selfish reasons such as reducing the amount
of money spent on keeping this prisoners in prison. May i
say i this dear sirs n madams, no one is perfect. Everyone
makes a mistake. If Singapore does not have this heavy
sentences for the crimes that deserve this, would Singapore
really be safe?

What crimes are we talking about here? Possessing 100 grams of cocaine at Changi Airport transit lounge? Is that crime enough to be hanged? Even you mentioned in the above paragraph that everyone makes mistakes and that no one is perfect. Why do you use your statements for your convenience only?

No one has the right to play God. Even European countries once had capital punishment in the past. The fact that they have removed such punishment is a sign of maturity on their part. Why does the United Nations even have a world ranking for Human Rights abuse in the first place? And why does Singapore always fair so poorly in this area? Either the United Nations is flawed in its judgment or that Singapore needs to reconsider its policies.

Those convicts that are freed may commit
their crimes again. And dear sirs and madams if all these
"dangerous" prisoners are put together, they may make a plot
to escape. After all, they have commit crimes before, and
has planned them before executing them, so having other
prisoners to share n plan their ideas, would it not be easy
to carry them out?

Then how about those who had been detained under the Internal Security Act without being charged under any written law?

You seem to suggest that dangerous criminals should be hanged because if they are kept alive together they would cause more trouble. Do you have any evidence to support this ridiculous theory of yours? Then why do they have jails in the first place? Forget murderers, what about rapists and other serious crime offenders? They don't face the death penalty. And they are sharing jail cells with other criminals too. Does it mean they are all plotting to escape and rape more innocent people?

Dear sirs and madams, you also brought up the issue of
National Service. May i ask you sir, if National Service is
to be abolished, can you guarantee that Singapore would not
get involved in war? After all, i still see there are still
many wars taking place around the world. Singapore is after
all a small country. We are vulnerable and our men powers
are limited. If you feel that National Service is to be
abolished, then am i not right to propose the abolishment of
any military aspects there is in this world. What for should
we have them in place since NS is not compulsory and no male
citizens can be trained? Why do we have to train our people
to be ready and vigilant when after all military and self
defence is not important? Am i right to say this sir?

Singapore is not the only small country in the world which is subject to war possibility. St Helena, the Mauritius, Moldova and Andorra are also small countries which are just as vulnerable as Singapore in this area. They do without national service.

Forced patriotism can only do so much. Just because our boys are trained to kill doesnt mean that they will kill when the time arises. The general perspective among most national servicemen today is that it is a complete waste of time and the fact that they are doing it for their country is far from their minds.

Ms Rosiati, you are female and would never be called up to do national service. How would you feel that if the Govt passes a law tomorrow that every female Singaporean upon reaching the age of 18 has to get conceived and bear 2 babies,(equivalent of 2 years of national service) as a national cause? Besides the falling birth rates now also affects our national security.

Dear Sirs and Madams you feel that DEMOCRACY should be
practiced by Singapore and that we should follow how the
super powers govern their country.

"to build a democratic society...". Its in our national pledge. Need I say more? Singapore shouldn't follow other countries' political system just for the sake of it. But who says considering them would be a mistake? If it works for someone else, what makes you think that it wouldnt work for you? Unless you want to quote Mr Lee Kuan Yew and hide under the "Asian values" umbrella.

But may I ask you, how similar is Singapore compared to these super powers? Those
super powers countries are bigger than us. We are after all
the red dot on the map. And how really successful is these
Super Powers compared to us.

National success doesn't count by economic achievement alone. Singaporeans are unhappy and always complaining. Our system doesn't support the old. And young, successful Singaporeans are still dumping their parents in old folks homes. Such scenarios are very rare in Spain. They have better family bond. Some of which could be attributed to their lifestyle and their level of tolerance which most European countries are known for.

Those western countries really
have problems that some Singaporeans are not even aware of.
Take Britain for example. Welfare state? Is it really
efficient? Try assesing it and tell me. I would be glad to
see some of your opinions.

No one suggested that Singapore should be a welfare state. But isn't it worth to think about that there are expats here who are living more comfortably than they would have back in their own countries at a time when there are Singaporeans who are struggling to pay utility bills and facing retrenchment?

Dear Sirs and Madams, Singapore SHOULD NOT follow and
practice what is being practiced by other countries.
Singapore after all has achieved successes through its own
way of governing. In fact we are much better than those
countries bigger than us. We are at the same level or better
than those countries that everyone goes goo-goo-ga-ga on. Do
I really need to elaborate on this point?

If Singapore has achieved so much success from "its own way of governing" and that any change is absolute unnecessary, then why did the Govt launch national projects like "Singapore 21" and "Remaking Singapore"? Even the PAP has realised that there were shortcomings in the old system and that change was necessary.

If Singapore is "so much better" than the bigger countries that you've mentioned, then why are we wooing foreign citizens from the same "bigger countries" to achieve success for us? Shouldn't Singaporeans be "much better than those from countries bigger than us"?

Oh before I forget, the issue of Singapore being a clean and
green country. You said that its not true and that Singapore
is just covering up all the dirt and rubbish that is thrown
everywhere and the bushes that are there are just to cover
them. But may i ask, if its true then sooner or later these
rubbish would pile up and we are able to see them. But I
have not seen this happening.

It is a metaphorical comment that Singapore hides its dirt in the bushes. What it really suggests is that Singapore is only clean and perfect on the surface. Underneath it all are layers of dirt manifested over 30 years. And I am not even talking about the cleanliness here.

What is the reason that we have
cleaners in every part of Singapore? To clean those areas
that are dirty, even if it means under the bushes or
wherever else.And thus by doing it is it not true that we
are keeping Singapore clean? Yes Singapore is not perfectly
clean, but we are sooo not dirty like some of the countries
in other parts of the world. We are way better in our
cleanliness.

You must be referring to poorer Third World countries when you mention that "Singapore is not so dirty like some of the countries in other parts of the world". How much dirtier is London or Berlin city compared to Singapore? I've been to both London and Berlin and it's not too much different from Singapore in terms of cleanliness. And no, you won't find any "$500 fine" signboards in the two European cities.

I would not go any further. It would take longer than this to
support my opinions on how crappy some Singaporeans can be
in criticizing our government and supporting the opposition.
Some of the foreigners may have their own ideas of what
Singapore is, i would not intrude on their privacy and their
opinion but may i say dear sirs n madams, you should after
all review both the demerits and benefits. Before you say
how a country should be, please think about how your country
should be first. Is it really good enough until it is a full
100% good enough an idea for us to follow?

Say that last line of yours to the PAP. How many PAP policies regarding HDB housing, education and unemployment has been proven "100% good enough" before they were implemented? Remember how the Govt introduced the SAT paper for "A" level and Polytechnic students to qualify for local universities and did an about turn when they realised that more local students were going to overseas universities instead?

Dear sirs and Madams, if you are a Singaporean and you feel
that it is not good enough to be in Singapore, and the life
that you are leading is not good enough, than i would say and
propose that you leave this country to go pursue what you
want. Where your freedom is not limited and you could find a
better life. Singapore would not lose out on anything if you
were to leave.

You are implementing that if you have a problem, just leave, dont even bother fighting your stand. What kind of message are are you sending to our young? Leaders are human beings too and they will tend to make mistakes. The only way that they can correct and improve themselves is by accepting criticism. You are suggesting that no one in Singapore should criticize the Govt at all and let "big brother" take care of us. No wonder Singapore is referred to as a nanny state.

By allowing Singaporeans to speak out and argue their case, they would feel more attached to their country and feel more patriotic as they would know that they can play a part too. And this patriotism works better as it is not forced like national service.

There are others citizens from other
countries who wants to be here and live here, find their
hope and dreams here just like you.

Yes, indeed. Even LKY once mentioned that there is enough talent in India and China to make up for Singaporeans leaving for abroad. His point was not to convince the leaving Singaporeans to stay but to rebut that there are foreigners who can take over them if they were to leave. How thoughtful of our MM.

So please as an educated
person, you should be mature enough to weigh the benefits n
demerits that our government brought to us. I do not say
that it is wrong to have an opinion of your own, but then
again, please review whether your ideas n opinions are
feasible

Thank you for reading this. I hope there is a reply of some
sort from any of the readers or the members of the SDP
themselves to defend their opinions or to support my stand.
I feel that PAP has done a good job and will not disappoint
us Singaporeans in the future

ROSIATI JUMARDI

a student in Singapore of age 17 this year
[Just to say I'm young but I still think I have better
opinions then some adults which some of it does not make
sense at all.]

Do not self praise yourself too much by boasting that your opinions are more worthy than what other proven intellectuals have suggested. Though it is a good sign that as a 17 year old you'd like to contribute to such debate, your mind is not fully matured and you still have a long way to go in terms of political awareness as you have demonstrated in your above letter.

I have never heard any SDP representative say that they are perfect and that they are the best. The fact that they are willing to listen and even post differing views on their website is sign that they are always looking to improve themselves. They create an open and balanced platform where anyone can air their views for debate so the public can decide for themselves what is best. This is the only way that Singapore can improve as a nation.

I hope my views were of some use to readers.

WARREN ESWARAN

7 March 2005

I read with interest the letter from Rosiati Jumardi

You mention in some western countries that children as young as five carry guns. I haven't heard of crimes being commited by children that young, although America has a high rate of gun crimes, including child gun crimes. This is because people are allowed to have guns.

I didn't say that Singapore has the death penalty for selfish reasons. Some people in Britain argue for the return of the death penalty, and point out that it costs so much to keep a convicted murderer in jail, while the victim's family gets nothing.

You stated that nobody is perfect, and everyone makes mistakes. So do do you agree that Singapore will sooner or later hang someone innocent by mistake, if it hasn't done so already?

You say that convicts who are freed may commit their crimes again. I never said that murders should be freed. In fact I think a life sentence should be literally a life sentence.

Prison breakouts are rare in Britain. And security would be tighter in jails for the more dangerous prisoners.

I don't think the death penalty is a deterrent as most violent crimes are not premeditated, and most criminals think they will get away with. Better policing is the only deterrent.

Being opposed to national service is not the same as being opposed to all military action. Britain has got involved in several wars since national service was abolished, most recently the US/Iraq war. But these wars only lasted a short time and they didn't need every able bodied young man to get involved. There hasn't been anything like the Second World War in the last sixty years.

Since the early sixties the British armed forces have consisted of people who've chosen that particular career.

If the country isn't at war you don't need every able bodied young man to serve in the armed forces. It's just a waste of their time, and the army's time as well.

I agree with your last point that some 17-year olds have better opinions than some older people, though usually they're more humble about it.

CLIVE
UK

7 March 2005

Dear Jumardi,

Your opinion warrants serious thought on the level of civility of students in Singapore. Your letter is laced with hubris and contempt, the same tone if used against the PAP would have warranted a libel suit. Your letter is vague. If indeed you do see something you disagree with strongly please present some supporting facts.

The government has not allowed the people to express themselves. The Speakers' Corner is set up to mislead the average man like you to think that freedom of speech is available here. If one can just go down to Hong Lim park he can see the rules and the curbs, such as registering with the police before a speech (for what purpose other than to track you down and maybe even impose the ISA on you?), the banning of using loudhailers, and the banning of topics on religion and race.

Indeed, one might think that the average man is stupid and is highly susceptible to violence and control by the speaker, thus leading to a great possibility of disorder, thanks to the highly 'manipulative' speaker perhaps? Such rules tend not to insult the speaker but more to the average man like you, because it assumes that the average man has no brains and is vulnerable to commit violence and create disorder through 'manipulation from a speaker'. The actions taken by the government are fanciful and abusive when it sues someone for libel. Only uncivilised people use curse words. You really should not assume that people are getting sued for saying curse words, because that is a great untruth and injustice.

I do believe that you have paid far too much attention to the media, meaning the media under the SPH, and you have not done any homework yourself. You really should understand firsthand what happened and what they are being sued for, because you are being affected by the demonisation done by the government-controlled SPH. Maybe you do not even know that the senior political correspondent Chua Mui Hoong of ST is an ex-ISD agent? I think one should do homework not based on SPH unless one loves living in the 'Matrix'.

Of course most of us are quite comfortable here, because this is the culture that the government has succeeded in perpetuating. Most of our achievements and comforts and freedoms have been entirely attributed to them, and we have now come to think and truly believe that our lives are not an entitlement, but more of a privilege given by the government, thanks to their good work and vision. Our rights and lives are God-given. Not PAP. If you think you are living a happy and comfortable life, that is because we are moderately correct in that sense.

But let us think of it this way: Without the PAP we will be even more established and developed, because that is how a democracy always beats an autocracy in terms of performance. If the US never was a democracy, they would still be living in the middle ages. If China had democracy and rights, they would be the beacon of light and hope in the world, shadowing even the greatest and most powerful western nations.

We are lucky in the sense that our neighbouring countries are a lot worse than us. But that is no excuse for us to be complacent and sit back and enjoy the ride. If all our neighbouring countries are true democracies with respect for human rights, we would already be protesting en masse, because even media controls have no power then. Singapore currently still belongs to the ignorant and apathetic. Once the people like you realise the reality, en masse protests will be inevitable.

For your fifth paragraph, if only you had elaborated yourself it would have clarified matters a lot. Unfortunately I do not quite understand what you mean by the opposition not making sense, because I think if something does not make sense, one should seek to clarify matters. But I am not sure if that will happen, because sense is something severely lacking in Singaporeans. Also, just to enter the opposition for the primary purpose of going against the PAP seems somewhat hare-brained, because setting up a party and contesting for elections is neither cheap nor easy. Maybe you do not even realise that there is a money bond involved when contesting for elections?

I feel Singapore has to change if it is to progress or even survive. I am relatively comfortable living in Singapore, but if I know that there is a better route to take, a route that will benefit everyone, I feel a responsibility to inform others of such a route, a responsibility for myself and for the people. On the rather unrelated topic of stress, stress is indeed a major issue that affects not just the individual, but productivity and ultimately the economy, the society, the culture and the attitudes. Stress is a very important aspect of life and something has to be done about it. To treat it at face value as something that can be easily controlled and handled by the individual is indeed fantasy talk. Perhaps the average man has been inundated by stress so much that he has lost his understanding of life.

The security for Singapore should never be taken for granted. Who takes such things for granted? I am not sure whether the security of Singapore is way on top, but I think that if one studies journalism it is inherent to sensationalise. We all have heard of terrible crimes happening on foreign soil, but one never considers the circumstances involved with each case. Like in a country of such immense area and population like the US, Britain, France, Canada, Spain and etc, if there is a news sensational enough to be worth headlining, one would imagine that these places are dangerous, though in reality it is unfair to assume that stereotyping is correct and the news are always trustable, especially if all the news come from one central channel like the SPH. Of course there are murder cases in Singapore, even shooting cases, and many too. If only one can just open up his eyes and look at news impartially and objectively, it would be great to note that perhaps Singapore is not too safe after all.

For your eighth paragraph, I am just too flabbergasted and shellshocked to counter you. This topic itself deserves a full essay to comment on and furthermore, your reasons for supporting the death penalty are so paper-thin shallow that I really do not know how to react. It really serves to insult the intelligence. Maybe if someone is kind enough to explain why the death penalty is wrong that would be great, because I just cannot write an essay now on this, and I am not an expert on the facts. Maybe someone who has had experience on death penalty cases can help a bit. Also I know a place that has great information on the death penalty situation in Singapore, that is www.amnesty.org

Also, the topic on NS is just mind-shudderingly huge. I will just honestly say it is impossible to explain it here even though it is my pet topic, as there are so many arguments and subtopics on this topic. I will though counter the arguments presented if necessary, but with just blanket statements unless I feel a need for clear elaboration. Please excuse me for this irresponsibility, I will definitely fill more in when I have time.

1. "If NS is abolished, can it be guaranteed that Singapore will not go to war?" No. But also if there is NS it also CANNOT be guaranteed that Singapore will not go to war.
2. "There are still many wars taking place in the world." This statement is totally irrelevant.
3. "Singapore is a small country." No doubt, but still irrelevant.
4. "We are vulnerable." That is possibly true, but diplomacy is a gray area that has no certainties. It is wrong to use conscription to defend against this vulnerability.
5. "Propose abolishment of all militaries in the world." Why not? But viewing the current light, it is impossible for that to happen. But we can always reduce the militaries as an initiative.
6. "What for should we have them (militaries) in place since NS is not compulsory and no male citizens can be trained?" I do not understand this sentence.
7. "Military and self-defence is not important." The military is practical to a certain extent, but it is ultimately negative, retarding and senseless in the actual fulfilment of its purpose, which is violence and coercion. Self-defence is important, but so is peace. It is our great responsibility in the name of humanity and rights to find means of finding self-defence and peace without the use of conscription and aggressive militaries.
8. "Am I right to say this?" Sorry, but no.

It does not matter whether Singapore is a red dot or a blue whale, that is not an excuse for not allowing democracy. Democracy is common sense and practical, as well as being respectful of the people. It would be a great misjudgement to say that the 'super powers' being big countries, are thus entitled to have democracy.

It appears to you that democracy is more of a privilege than an entitlement, something which is spurious and imperatively wrong. But due to the manner of the media and government PR skills, most Singaporeans have the mentality that our lives are picked up from the floor and that we never deserved to live anyway, thus there is a necessity for a 'siege mentality' and 'being grateful' and a understanding of every action the government takes or encourages. It gives the average man a false sense of honour in carrying such convictions and is also the reason for his tenacity in holding on to such convictions, as any ideology towards the contrary gives him a 'victim complex', thus fuelling his beliefs even more.

I do not know about the problems they have, but every country has problems naturally. It would be great if more specific information can be given with regard to these problems. For your example on welfare states, I cannot comment on whether they are efficient. Firstly it is because that is irrelevant, secondly I do not know the specifics about their systems because Ms Jumarti did not provide any, and thirdly such a debate can go on forever without a clear conclusion as such things are not as shallow and simple as Ms Jumarti presumed. Anyway even if there are great flaws in the system, I take comfort to know that at least I can dissent openly and even take an action without fear of being locked up without a fair trial indefinitely and in appallingly inhumane conditions.

Your argument on why Singapore should not follow the practices of other countries (presumably democratic) is greatly anaemic and shallow. Yes, indeed Singapore has achieved successes through such governing, and we are definitely economically better than a lot of countries. But has it ever occurred to you that with a truly democratic way of governing, we would be WAY better performing than we are now due to the open, sensible and respectful concept of a democracy. Singapore already had a great base to build on, thanks to the British who established Singapore as a centre of trade in SEA. It is of course no wonder that we are economically strongest in this region, but the fact is that we can and will be much better off as a democracy performance-wise. Just like it is unfair to compare Hong Kong with her neighbouring city Shen Zhen, it is unfair to compare Singapore with her neighbours as we have different economy bases. I wonder if the PAP would do as well if they were given Mongolia or Liechtenstein to govern. It is always better for a country when there is democracy.

I do agree that it is incredible how crappy some people are. That they have no intellect and understanding of the local state of affairs, not to mention the global state of affairs, and then to believe that they know what is right and even to be so tenacious in their beliefs that it borders on intolerance. Is this a new trend of political extremism that we are witnessing here in Singapore?

And if anyone should think that the opposition are unhelpful for Singapore's interests, may I please state that these people are great people worthy of respect and admiration, as they fight for the future of all Singaporeans due to their great love for them, even in the face of great and tremendous adversity. These learned and gracious people risk their wealth, freedom and friends to fight for what they believe in. They can all just migrate and forget about Singapore, but for the love and understanding of what is right, they stay and continue their fight.

Oppositionists in Singapore, I salute thee.

REY

7 March 2005

Dear Sirs and Madams

I refer to the 17-year old student's letter, Rosiati ,who vehemently praises PAP and criticises those who speak against the same.

Rosiati is indeed a very young person who has a naive perspective of Singapore. There are many things yet for her to learn although she could have rightfully compared our living environs to our neighbors where kampongs and squatters are still prevalent.

So tender age is her that she mistakes what this site is meant for.
Ten to twenty years from now when she is come of age, and if Singapore is still under the PAP regime with the same mechanism, she will have a different perspective after reading what she thinks as the best posting she has posted here.

There is no point trying to cajole her at this age, she should look beyond Malaysia and Indonesia. She has got the wrong idea of what is called opposition party.

I wonder why she is in the debate team if she only believes in one angle of viewing things. I am not convinced what she is trying to do. Please ask her not to pose things she do not understand.

We should forgive her, she is still young.

EDLOH

7 March 2005

Singapore's human rights record are sadly not Number One or nowhere near the world's best it seems. Which is so ironically unlike Singapore's famous Changi airport, rigorous maths textbooks, excellent port or professional SIA.

The latest US State Department's "Country Reports on Human Rights Practices - 2004" released on February 28, 2005, (http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2004/41659.htm), clearly points out shocking lapses in human rights standards by the Singapore government.

All Singaporeans should know about the lack of basic democracy and decency because of (what did Jamie Han say?), a "D"-word who is still in charge pulling the strings behind the scene. The report is short and easy to read but for those who are busy and want a gist of the findings, here are the more pertinent comments about what is wrong here in Singapore.

"...there is a general perception that it (the judiciary) reflects the views of the ruling party in politically sensitive cases"

"The Government has broad powers to limit citizens' rights and to handicap political opposition, which it used in practice."

"The authorities sometimes infringed on citizens' privacy rights. The Government continued to restrict significantly freedom of speech and freedom of the press, as well as to limit other civil and political rights. Government pressure to conform resulted in the practice of self censorship among journalists. Government leaders continued to use court proceedings and defamation suits against political opponents and critics. These suits, which have consistently been decided in favor of government plaintiffs, chilled political speech and action and created a perception that the ruling party used the judicial system for political purposes."

"Some judicial officials, especially Supreme Court judges, have ties to the ruling party and its leaders."

"The Constitution does not address privacy rights."

"It is widely believed that the authorities routinely conducted surveillance on some opposition politicians and other government critics."

"The Government's authoritarian style fostered an atmosphere inimical to free speech and a free press. Government intimidation and pressure to conform resulted in the practice of self-censorship among journalists."

"The Government strongly influenced both the print and electronic media."

"The police did grant a license for a December 2003 event organized by an NGO to present the Human Rights Defender award to J.B. Jeyaretnam, former Member of Parliament (M.P.) and former Secretary General of the Workers' Party."

"The PAP, which has held power continuously and overwhelmingly for more than 4 decades, has used the Government's extensive powers to place formidable obstacles in the path of political opponents"

"the Government dramatically altered the boundaries of election districts only 17 days before the 2001 general election, abolishing some constituencies and adjusting the borders of many other constituencies. Since 1988, it has changed all but nine single-seat constituencies into Group Representational Constituencies (GRCs) of three to six parliamentary seats, in which the party with a plurality wins all of the seats."

My fellow Singaporeans, let's snap out of our PAP-induced stupor.

ENG CHUAN

24 February 2005

Yes, why be a singaporean?

I used to be proud to be a Singaporean, when compared to my neighbours the Malaysian, we were considered more modern and advanced in economy... those were the innocent days when as a youth, I went around being proud of my "country" Singapore.

But why be a Singaporean?

Look at my present situationwhy has my opinion changed and why do I feel sad to be a Singaporean now? Why am I on the verge of breakdown...angry with the Singapore government and all your stringent rulings...

Yes, why be a singaporean?

I am a single mother...my baby is turning 1 year old and I have no home to call my own...why? I've turned for help to many organisations...even to my neighbourhood PAP MP...but all my requests for a home has been rejected...why?

I have to work hard to earn enough money to provide for my baby, and as if that is not difficult enough for a single mother, I have to set aside money for renting a place to stay...why?

Mostly, I'm deeply offended my the reply letter I received from HDB...I quote: "We wish to explain that the government's public housing policy is aimed at promoting family formation through marriages. To discourage unmarried parenthood, a single unmarried mother is therefore not eligible to buy/rent a HDB flat with the child born out of wedlock"

"As you are not officially married to your child's father, it is regretted that HDB is unable to accede to your request to buy/rent a flat with your child who was born out of wedlock"

Yes, why be a Singaporean?

Yes, I am a single mother...but note that I am not an uneducated, 16-year old girl with a baby...I'm a woman reaching my 30s soon and marriage is not something you rush yourself into...not even if you have a baby.

Is the Singapore government and HDB promoting family life or are they forcing young couples to get married to get a flat? I feel being cornered by the Singapore rulings and regulations...am I to find just any man to marry so that I can get shelter? So I have to force myself into a marriage alliance that will definitely not last...that will end in divorce?

Yes, why be a Singaporean.

I'm proud to be a single mother. The neighbours may talk...my relatives may whisper behind my back...but they are not feeding me and my baby. No one is supporting me...I stand on my own feet... I am strong. I will survive...But can I survive in Singapore? I was fuming when I had to make a birth certificate for my baby...We are being discriminated by our own country...I am no longer proud to be a Singaporean. I am not proud that my baby is a Singaporean. I ignored all the whispers and gossip...but how can I ignore my country turning against me...the letter from HDB kept mentioning "child out of wedlock" ...so my baby is not human...my baby doesn't need a home? I feel like burning that letter but no...I must keep it for evidence to show...to explain to my baby that she must not be proud to be Singaporean...to tell her that we cannot stay here forever...

Yes, why be a Singaporean?

I'm smart...I have always excelled in my studies...I will give myself 5 years...I will migrate...Singapore is not my home country...I have no benefits in being a Singaporean...no reason to stay...Goodbye everyone...I know I'll do better elsewhere...I will rather pay tax elsewhere...I will rather spend my money elsewhereBut never on Singapore who has rejected me and my baby...NEVER.

ANONYMOUS

24 February 2005

Dear Sirs and Madams,

First of all I would like to apologise for any rough words
used later in my statements or the wrong use of the English
Language. I am after all a student and is not that
proficient in my language. I am still coping but I will try
my best to bring across my points.

I have just stumbled upon this website while i was doing my
research for my upcoming school debate. I've read some of
the opinions of those Singaporeans and other users of the
website on how Singapore really should be. But really, may I
ask all of you, are your suggestions really feasible? Does
it really make sense?

Most of you feel that Singapore should allow her people to
be more open and expressive. You feel that the citizens of
Singapore should really be allowed the freedom of speech.
May I bring you all back to the reality that YES, Singapore
has allowed her people to have that freedom. This can be
seen from the opening of the speakers corner here in
Singapore itself. But may I ask you people, really, how many
people have been there to express their thoughts? Does the
other Singaporeans really attracted to hear the opinions of
the opposition of PAP to make the changes that you have
proposed? If you really want to make your opinion heard dear
sirs and madams, please feel free to go to the speakers
corner to express your thoughts. If you are afraid of the
actions taken by the government for what you have said, then
I believe you should really review the words that you want
to use. Is it really appropriate to curse? After all, we do
not want the children to learn how to curse right? So would
it not be appropriate to use the right use of words when we
are speaking in the media or in public? And are the facts
that you brought up for real or just your imagination?

I feel that most of us are still comfortable with the way
things are run here. We feel that the government are still
giving us our space, and does not intrude in any of our
privacy. Apart from that our well-being are still taken care
of by the government, and most of us are leading a happy and
comfortable life. If this is not the case, then many of us
would have pressurize the government for a change. Am I not
right in saying this?

The opinions of the the oppositions team sometimes do not
make sense at all. In my opinion, you are there for the sake
of going against the PAP since you are the opposition, is it
not true? How many suggestions have you brought up that has
or have taken the vote of the majority in Singapore?

Dearest sirs and madams, do you really feel that Singapore
has to change the way it is? I would like to bring this
question dear sirs and madams. Are you not comfortable
living in Singapore? You may say its stressful, but may I
say this, everything that we do brings stress. It's just the
different weights of the stress that we feel.

The security that we have here in Singapore should not be
taken for granted. Really I have to admit crimes do occur
everywhere, but if you were to compare the security level, I
feel Singapore is way on top. Try walking in the streets of
some of the Western countries(i apologise if you feel hurt
by this statement), some children even at the tender age of
5 carry guns. Some even went to the extent of shooting or
killing their own parents if they are not satisfied with
them. People get cruelly murdered, robbed or raped. May I
ask you dear kind sirs and madams, how many such cases can
you find in Singapore?

Dear kind sirs and madams, you have proposed that Singapore
should abolished its heavier sentences such as death penalty
and caning. You feel that sooner or later Singapore
judiciary would make a mistake in punishing one of these
prisoners. You also said that Singapore is having this
punishment for selfish reasons such as reducing the amount
of money spent on keeping this prisoners in prison. May i
say i this dear sirs n madams, no one is perfect. Everyone
makes a mistake. If Singapore does not have this heavy
sentences for the crimes that deserve this, would Singapore
really be safe? Those convicts that are freed may commit
their crimes again. And dear sirs and madams if all these
"dangerous" prisoners are put together, they may make a plot
to escape. After all, they have commit crimes before, and
has planned them before executing them, so having other
prisoners to share n plan their ideas, would it not be easy
to carry them out?

Dear sirs and madams, you also brought up the issue of
National Service. May i ask you sir, if National Service is
to be abolished, can you guarantee that Singapore would not
get involved in war? After all, i still see there are still
many wars taking place around the world. Singapore is after
all a small country. We are vulnerable and our men powers
are limited. If you feel that National Service is to be
abolished, then am i not right to propose the abolishment of
any military aspects there is in this world. What for should
we have them in place since NS is not compulsory and no male
citizens can be trained? Why do we have to train our people
to be ready and vigilant when after all military and self
defence is not important? Am i right to say this sir?

Dear Sirs and Madams you feel that DEMOCRACY should be
practiced by Singapore and that we should follow how the
super powers govern their country. But may i ask you, how
similar is Singapore compared to these super powers? Those
super powers countries are bigger than us. We are after all
the red dot on the map. And how really successful is these
Super Powers compared to us. Those western countries really
have problems that some Singaporeans are not even aware of.
Take Britain for example. Welfare state? Is it really
efficient? Try assesing it and tell me. I would be glad to
see some of your opinions.

Dear Sirs and Madams, Singapore SHOULD NOT follow and
practice what is being practiced by other countries.
Singapore after all has achieved successes through its own
way of governing. In fact we are much better than those
countries bigger than us. We are at the same level or better
than those countries that everyone goes goo-goo-ga-ga on. Do
I really need to elaborate on this point?

Oh before I forget, the issue of Singapore being a clean and
green country. You said that its not true and that Singapore
is just covering up all the dirt and rubbish that is thrown
everywhere and the bushes that are there are just to cover
them. But may i ask, if its true then sooner or later these
rubbish would pile up and we are able to see them. But i
have not seen this happening.What is the reason that we have
cleaners in every part of Singapore? To clean those areas
that are dirty, even if it means under the bushes or
wherever else.And thus by doing it is it not true that we
are keeping Singapore clean? Yes Singapore is not perfectly
clean, but we are sooo not dirty like some of the countries
in other parts of the world. We are way better in our
cleanliness.

I would not go any further.It would take longer than this to
support my opinions on how crappy some Singaporeans can be
in criticizing our government and supporting the opposition.
Some of the foreigners may have their own ideas of what
Singapore is, i would not intrude on their privacy and their
opinion but may i say dear sirs n madams, you should after
all review both the demerits and benefits. Before you say
how a country should be, please think about how your country
should be first. Is it really good enough until it is a full
100% good enough an idea for us to follow?

Dear sirs and Madams, if you are a Singaporean and you feel
that it is not good enough to be in Singapore, and the life
that you are leading is not good enough, than i would say and
propose that you leave this country to go pursue what you
want. Where your freedom is not limited and you could find a
better life. Singapore would not lose out on anything if you
were to leave. There are others citizens from other
countries who wants to be here and live here, find their
hope and dreams here just like you. So please as an educated
person, you should be mature enough to weigh the benefits n
demerits that our government brought to us. I do not say
that it is wrong to have an opinion of your own, but then
again, please review whether your ideas n opinions are
feasible

Thank you for reading this. I hope there is a reply of some
sort from any of the readers or the members of the SDP
themselves to defend their opinions or to support my stand.
I feel that PAP has done a good job and will not disappoint
us Singaporeans in the future.

ROSIATI JUMARDI

a student in Singapore of age 17 this year
[Just to say I'm young but I still think I have better
opinions then some adults which some of it does not make
sense at all.]

14 February 2005

Dear fellow S'poreans,

I am proud to relate what happened at the newly-renovated Bendemeer Market & Food Centre recently.

I was with my folks having the famous Zhu Chang Fen at a table right next to the carpark when a huge group of people starting wandering into the place, all nicely clad in collar-shirt and long pants(not all were
white, mind you). Among this 20-plus strong contingent was a chap dressed in spanking robes of the God Of Fortune, long beard, bushy eyebrows, exquisitely embroided robe with the hoola-hoop belt thrown in, looking very much the part.

Word spread quickly that a VIP of some sort from the heavens has descended upon the peasants of the Little Red Dot. I am quite apolitical so I can't realy tell who it was, but I swear I've seen his face somewhere.

This man was walking around, shaking hands with the hawkers and chatting up the ah peks and ah sohs, surrounded by a digital camera-toting groupie and a note-taking groupie, among the many groupies. And the "God Of Fortune" chap was DISTRIBUTING ANG POWS after the VIP spoke to the plebians, what a sight!

The trailing edge of this group of comets was right next to me, so I asked a middle-aged man among the entourage who was basking in the limelight who that guy was.

"Oh he's the MP Lee Boon Yang, minister of the Info and the Arts(sic)" replied the faithful follower.

Then he added "Why don't you go and say Hi to him?"

"Awww no thanks, I don't like the PAP!" smirked I and walked away, feeling like I just won the half the 10 million TOTO Ang Pow draw.
That nice gentleman just laughed without so much of a retort. Maybe he was shocked, maybe he knew the implications of a public slanging match with a disgruntled peasant, plus the fact that the MP was throwing sweets at a spanking new Food Centre/Market on a bright cheerful Sunday.

All these point to one thing: What Time Is It, boys & girls? Election
Time!

QUAKE 12

3 February 2005

Dear Sirs,

I was interested to read your website. I am British, I have always lived in Britain and never been to Asia. But I was particularly interested to read about two issues.

The first is an issue I feel very strongly about, namely capital punishment. Any country which has the death penalty will execute some innocent by mistake sooner or later.

And I have no time for anyone who would be willing to volunteer to carry out the executions. The three main arguments in favour of the death penalty appear to be 1) that it's a deterrent, (but I don't believe it is), 2) the fact that it costs the government so much money to keep a convicted murderer in prison while the victim's family gets nothing, (a weak argument, why not hang all criminals and not spend any money on prisons), and 3) it's an act of revenge on the victim's family.

I know someone who went to Singapore and said that the streets were clean and it was very safe to walk the streets without fear of being robbed because they cane all criminals. (I don't think they do in fact cane all criminals.) Even if someone's been a model prisoner they don't get let off. But I don't think this person was aware that the prisoners are not caned like badly behaved school children. They are stripped naked and beaten till they bleed. This is a nauseating practice, and again I have no time for the people that carry out the beatings.

The other issue that was mentioned was national service. My opinion of national service is that it's a waste of time. Britain had conscription during the two World Wars, and after the Second World War there was national service where every able bodied young man had to serve two years in the armed forces. National service was abolished in Britain in the early sixties, but by then it was a hangover from the War and should have been abolished long before it was (although it probably was necessary just after the War).

In the fifties one of the arguments for abolishing national service in the fifties was that young men were having their further educations and apprenticeships interrupted to do their two years in the forces. National service was abolished before I was born, and I'm glad I didn't have to do it. I lost two years, when I was aged between 16 and 18, studying for A-Levels which I failed. I spent the next two years, aged between 18 and 20, at college doing a B/TEC course which I passed, and then after college I was unemployed for a year. So between the ages of 16 and 21 I lost three years studying for A-Levels which I failed and being unemployed, and the last thing I needed was having to spend two years in the army.

I'll look at your website again some time.

CLIVE

3 February 2005

Dear Dr. Chee

I come from Norway, and I have read some of your letters, and articles written about you in both Singaporean and foreign newspapers.

I lived in Singapore for six months, and found it to be a very good place to live in. I noticed that everything looked perfect, no dirt in the streets. Everything that might have been seen as ugly was covered up, for example bushes covering up bridges undersides. The fact that every ugly thing was covered up raised my interest, because it all just seemed too good to be true, almost like a town from a Disney-movie.

My interest lead me to investigate further, and it didnt take long before I noticed there was no use in reading the local newspapers to read about local news, because you could hear nothing negative about the government in there. Hardly anything at all.

I am not in a position to say who is right or who is wrong, but if you, Dr. Chee, have an opinion, then you have the right to be heard without being biased. If you wont be heard by Singapore Newspapers, then you need to go abroad, to get the international community to put pressure on your government. I understand that you already have done this, but I just want to help you by asking you to contact the biggest Norwegian Newspapers. Furthermore you should urge other supporters to contact media in other countries. Here are mail addresses to the three biggest Norwegian newspapers:

arild.kveldstad@aftenposten.no

http://vginfo.vg.no/kontakt/?til=tusentipset&
navn=Tusentipset','popup','width=450,height=500,scrollbars=no'));">tusentipset@vg.no

1000tipset@dagbladet.no

I hope this helps, and I wish you good luck in being heard.

TORGESTIEN

2 February 2005

I refer to the letter by Mr Chong Jian Bing. I believe that the average Singaporean walks, works and speaks, but without a mind of their own or the freedom from fear to really express what is in his mind. Wherever you are, if you live in an oppressive environment which places sanctions on your freedom of expression and thought by threatening your freedom of movement or demonising your image by influencing your peers' minds using the press that is NOT free, one WILL be stifled, no matter how sympathetic you are to whatever cause that may be in line with the oppressor's policy.

Just take for example the idea of NS. Is there any alternative for NS? Do we have concessions for people who are objectors to the idea? No we do not, we do not have a conscientious objector's class, the only way to oppose the policy of NS is by undergoing Detention Barracks (DB) for insubordination, which may last for an indefinite period of time until the detainee finally changes his opinion or the state just gives up the effort. The other way would be by declaring depression, which is quite underhanded I feel, but which repairs a little freedom (in thought and movement).

In such an environment of powerplay and fear, an environment where your freedom is at stake for your beliefs, it is impossible not to feel stifled. In the civilian world, the military police will be replaced by the ISD and the police, and the much feared press.

A press that specialises in marginalisation and bias has incredibly effective effects on destroying one's thoughts, especially in such a tight society where there is a fellow human being that is capable of being influenced and exerting peer pressure every 10 metres around you. How can we have freedom of thought and from fear in such a manner?

Yes, there are those like CSJ and JBJ that fight the oppression, but they are the few ones who are still capable of freedom of thought. It is not everyday you find someone daring to risk being bankrupted or arrested just for speaking his opinions. How CAN WE NOT BE STIFLED IN SUCH AN ENVIRONMENT? Please forgive my use of caps in the previous paragraph, I am just too excited and I think it reduces the clinical quality of my letter, but I really just cannot be bothered now.

But I'll refrain from shedding tears, this is hardly the separation from Malaysia. I will like to contest the fact that our elections are democratic. If it is indeed democratic, we should have an independent elections committee. But this topic is not about democracy it is about stifling of the mind. I can go on about democracy in Singapore. How can we have a free mind, an open society which has access to unbiased and comprehensive understanding of events and ideas all around the world if we do not have a free press? If we have a press which persist in marginalisation? Of course we are all Singaporeans, so why do we deserve the marginalisation? Why? Where are the rights of the minorities (minorities here mean those with differing opinions)? Do those who believe in another direction deserve condemnation and ridicule? When will have a press that is clinical and keeps its commentaries strictly to the last page? We need news, not opinions, or we might as well call a newspaper an opinion-paper.

It doesn't matter what one does. He can very well be a minister or a clerk, whether they commit their efforts to the civil service is their choice. Someone who commits to the civil service cannot be construed as good, and someone who seems not to have direct affiliations with the civil service cannot be construed as not-so-good or even bad. Everyone has a part to play and that part is to live their life out in a way that promotes one another and not provoke, to improve the quality of physical and mental life of themselves and not to impose on one another.

No entity is above another, and if the state believes that its interests is greater than that of the individual's, than that state is a grave sham, for a state is just a representation of the ruling power and the existence and morality of the ruling power can be questioned. All these thus have no relation to stifling of the mind and it is wrong for Mr Chong to say that they are not stifled in thinking.

Stifling is caused by fear and intimidation, not what one believes in. With regards to the US, I do not think that the US is a perfect model nor is it moving in a very correct and moral direction. But I believe that their democracy is very credible. The very fact that someone like Bush can get elected already showcases how democratic it is. Democracy is the concept of popular vote, not giving power to the 'right' person. If 51% felt Bush is good for them, so be it. As long as he does not marginalise the 49% of the nation nor infringe upon their rights and freedom, so be it.

I am not too interested in discussing their welfare state or war as it does not relate here, though they warrant a discussion. In Singapore one may feel that we do have the popular persons or party in place, but that is because we are under oppression of the mind and we cannot think freely. We do not even have a free press and the state indulges in mud-slinging and marginalisation. What kind of a democracy is ours?

Lastly, I do not think that we are superior or inferior to others at all. That is absolute. Any detractions to that are false and is discriminatory. I do not think though that there were any loose generalizations on the society here. Maybe Mr Nair had failed to elaborate on what he meant by stifling of the mind, but I surely hope that my explanation on why this environment is stifling can waken some people up from their chained reality, even though that does not mean they are now unchained. Maybe the generalisations appeared unjustified before, but I hope it is justified now.

REY

1 February 2005

I refer to the letter posted on SDP website by Gopalan Nair on 14 January 2005.

Nair stated that the average Singaporean '...walks, works and speaks, but he (sic) has been stifled for so long, that his thought processes have changed. Nair further claimed that ...everyone in the free world would object to how their tax money are being spent except for Singaporeans who seem to go against human nature by remaining quiet.

As an average young Singaporean, I feel extremely hard done by his generalisations and do not think he is right to portray all Singaporeans in this manner. After all, Nair did mention that both JBJ and Chee are speaking out for what they believe in, are they not Singaporeans? What about those Singaporeans who voted for the oppositions, are they not speaking out through the democratic system of election? Not forgetting to mention the elected oppositions and their members who continue to maintain their commitment for their fellow Singaporeans despite of their limited resources, are they not Singaporeans? How about those Singaporeans who might not necessary belong to a political party but commit their efforts to establishing a better civil society, are they too stifled to think?

I believe they are just but a handful of Singaporeans who are speaking out for their home country. Therefore, for Nair to claim that Singaporeans are no longer alive is totally uncalled for and such a label belittles those who speak up - most unfairly. We do not have to look too far to notice groups of Singaporeans speaking up for a better society. Take the example of the recent proposal by the government to install more welfare rights to the more disadvantaged groups. I do not think the proposal has sprung out from nowhere. Instead, I credit its possibility to the many alive average Singaporeans who have played their essential parts in calling for its implementation.

Nair also believed that unlike Singaporeans, ...Americans ask their government where their tax dollars are spent. I am not too sure of Nairs above statement, as I do not believe all Americans can be generalised as politically active or critical as Nair had portrayed them to be. After all, the collective Americans have not been able to prevent billions of dollars flowing into the War on Terrorism even when their welfare state is declining at an alarming rate. More significantly, in its own democratic manner, George Bush Jnr was endorsed by a majority vote to win his second election even after it was made known that billions more of taxpayers money would be extracted to continue funding the presidents crusade. Are these indications of Americans asking where their tax dollars are spent? Personally, I do not really think so.

By citing these examples, I hope to point out that Singaporeans are not to be generalised as not being alive. This is an absolutely false representation of Singaporeans! We are in no way more inferior or superior to any other nationalities or cultures when building our own civil society. One thing for sure is that there is no excuse for loose generalisations to our identities, as they are totally unjustified and only serve to disempower our people from thinking that they too have a political part to play in Singapore.

Lastly, on Nair claiming that host countries like America and Australia appreciating the work of Singaporeans, I can only be proud to know that Singaporeans are capable of working hard and achieving at home and abroad. I hope Nair all the best and wish he gets to appreciate the different aspects of what Singapore has to offer on his next trip home.

CHONG JIAN BING

14 January 2005

Dear Singaporeans,

There is no doubt that the purpose of the PAP is to prevent Dr. Chee from standing for elections and to make life as difficult for him as possible. We know that the PAP uses this tactic of heavy damages against opponents in the past, and to a large extent they have worked against the vast majority of their opponents.

Most of Lee's opponents have given up politics or fled the country when faced with such "punishment". But these people are not the people such as Dr. Chee and Mr Jeyaretnam. This tactic of punishing by bankrupting people would work even against the very courageous. But there are those whose courage is greater even than the ordinarily courageous. These are men like Dr. Chee and Mr. Jeyaretnam. For them, their belief in what is right is more important than anything anyone can throw at them. So here, I will say that Mr. Lee has sorely misjudged Dr. Chee and Mr. Jeyaretnam. And that will be the PAP's downfall.

Another reason why the PAP must fail, is the reality of the Internet. In the past, you could have bankrupted someone to silence him, and the world would not have known. But now whatever you do, is published worldwide. Dr. Chee having to pay this enormous sum has already been known in Anchorage Alaska, that is for any Alaskan resident interested in Singapore politics. Let me give you my personal experience.

I practice law in Fremont, California. When I say to someone that I am from Singapore, the immediate reaction is their asking me why is Singapore so intolerant of dissent. Now these clients of mine are usually highly educated company owners. Now if they have such a bad impression of Singapore, it is unlikely that they would want to invest in Singapore,
since Singapore has other added disadvantages, such as very high cost.

The need for Singaporeans to become "alive"

Without wanting to insult any Singaporean, and apologizing beforehand if any offence is taken, let me say this, because it must be said. The average Singaporean is no longer "alive". Yes he walks, works and speaks, but he has been stifled for so long, that his thought processes have changed. Let me give you an example. If I am a taxpayer, surely I have a right to ask why and how my money is being spent. As I live in America, Americans ask their government where their tax dollars are being spent, since it is their money. Why then does it turn into a libel case merely
because someone who is a taxpayer demanded to know this? Now, when you tell an American about Dr. Chee's case, or Mr. Jeyaretnam's cases, they are shocked. They cannot understand why the Singapore leaders should have such delicate nerves for wanting to sue everybody who criticizes them. The American would object to this. I am, sure everyone in the free world would object to this. But in Singapore, the individual has learnt to accept this status quo without complaint. It is surprising. It goes against human nature.

{B]Dr. Balakrishnan's appeal to Singaporeans to speak up

I believe you must have read Dr. Vivian Balakrishnan's bizarre request that students and others in Singapore should have the courage to voice their opinions openly. Surely a very strange suggestion to make to Singaporeans by a government minister and a rather dangerous activity to
engage in.

Surely everyone in Singapore knows what has happened to Dr. Chee and Mr. Jeyaretnam when they had the courage to do just that. Surely they know the heavy price that one has to pay, for the suggested activity by Dr.
Vivian Balakrishnan. Dr. Balakrishnan is therefore wrong in even suggesting that Singaporeans should speak up, if the undeniable result of such activity is bankruptcy and oblivion. Please read my letter posted on this site which I wrote to Dr. Balakrishnan after reading the recent Straits Times article where he had told some school children that they should speak up and criticize the government!

Why I left Singapore

Some who disagree with my leaving Singapore, say that I am a coward and I ran away from the fight. This is partially true, because otherwise I will still be in Singapore, and still fighting side by side with courageous men such as Dr. Chee and Mr. Jeyaretnam. However, quite truthfully, I did not have, at that time the willingness to endure a life of poverty and constant harassment that the PAP would undoubtedly have thrown at me.

I was a lawyer in Singapore from 1981 to 1991. In 1985, I joined the Workers Party. I contested 2 elections, in 1988 and 1991. Since my publicly joining the Workers' Party, my life began a downward slide. My law practice suffered and I was constantly being harassed. But what was
most important was that I was not happy practicing law. The law was not being applied fairly. And what is worse was that since my entry into opposition politics, I was constantly losing all my cases in court. And my clientele declined to a trickle. Those clients leaving me, told me that they were going to other lawyers because they felt that coming to me, an opposition supporter, would damage their chances of success.

You will appreciate that a career is very important in a man's life. That is what we have studied for and trained so hard for. But continuing to live in Singapore would mean, for all intents and purposes, giving up my career. Also I had young children. They too would suffer if I remained in Singapore.

If I intended to stay in Singapore, the thing that I should do was to join and praise the PAP like the sycophants and flatterers that make up their members. I was not prepared to do that. The other alternative was for me to give up opposition politics and be entirely apolitical and apathetic. In this case, I could have continued in Singapore but my changes for great success at the Singapore Bar will not be there. I am and was very ambitious. I could not have realized my ambition in Singapore being a nondescript non entity of a lawyer in Singapore.

Also I was not prepared to sacrifice everything like Dr. Chee and Mr. Jeyaretnem are doing so courageously and admirably.

So on balance, I left for California, USA in 1992. I obtained political asylum in the US for what the Singapore government had done to me. I passed the California Bar Exams and commenced my own law practice in Fremont California since the last 10 years. As far as my work is concerned, I have a rewarding and satisfying life. Of course, I miss Singapore very much and go there at least about 4 times a year.

It appears that the PAP uses a great number of psychologists in their formulating policies on how to deal with their people. It does appear that they have made a mistake in my case. I would have been a great asset to Singapore. I loved the country. I was born there and I have very fond memories of that place. I would have worked very hard for the betterment of Singapore. But when the PAP do what they do, to good honest decent people like me, who could have contributed greatly to Singapore, it backfires. They leave the country. And it is the host countries, such as America and Australia who benefit from our presence there. It is not only me. There are thousands of others who have left Singapore and continue to leave, even as I speak. Singapore cannot afford to lose good people at this rate. And importing workers from China and India will not do the trick.

I work very hard in my law practice here in Fremont, California. My practice is in immigration law. I have clients from all over the world. I manage to help many Mexicans and others from other impoverished countries in getting legal status in the US, among other things. These people, although not my own, are people too. It gives me satisfaction from helping them. It would have given me even more satisfaction, had I been able to help Singaporeans. But because of the stupidity of the PAP, they chase us away, instead of making it comfortable for us.

So if anyone of you, do still question my sincerity in having left Singapore, I hope that this explanation can make things a little clearer. And I trust you will understand.

Those of you who want to contact me directly, can do so at my email: gopalnair@us-immigrationlaw.com

Very Best,

GOPALAN NAIR
Attorney at Law
Fremont, California

10 January 2005

Dear Dr Chee

I am an unfailing democrat who believes in one's rights and totally forwn upon the government's form of subjugation.You will have my unfailing support in your next election and trust me I will donate all the funds I have to support you.

We Singaporeans must stand up and have the damn guts or be crushed by the PAP. The conservative nature is killing us and the PAP loves it. Such oppression though common in Asia and a higher tendency in Asia due to these so called values must change. We look rediculous in any talent show b'cos we do not have creativity. It's all the PAP's doing.

Cheers to you...

J YEO

10 January 2005

Hello

It's saddened to see that most of your articles are either anti-PAP Govt or anti-Singapore.

STAND UP FOR SINGAPORE

SDP: It is unfortunate that you find the articles in this website "anti-Singapore." Perhaps you could point out some examples and we would be happy to look into it. Thank you.

10 January 2005

The letter below by Mr Gopalan Nair was sent to the SDP.

Hello Mr. Vivian,

I suggest you stop wasting your time telling people in Singapore to speak up. You must know what happened to Dr. Chee Soon Juan and Mr J. B. Jeyaretnam after they spoke up. With your Singapore newspaper telling the people exactly what would happen if they did what you suggest, do you really expect anyone in that island to take you seriously?

I suggest you stop wasting time by uttering this stupidity. It is like Hitler of the 3rd Reich telling the Germans that they should have the courage to criticize the Nazi party, when only a few days ago, they had executed people for doing just that.

Continue with what you do if that pleases you, but stop this nonsense of telling people to speak up. Thank you.

GOPALAN NAIR
Fremont, California
An American citizen and former inmate of the island of
Singapore

8 December 2004

I am impressed that SDP members try to make Singaporeans better understand the concepts of democracy and civil liberties, despite the harsh response.

Some of the scepticism and criticism is even from the other Opposition parties! I don\\\'t understand why Singaporeans think democracy is not an important issue. They instead want the Opposition to focus on only \\\'bread and butter\\\' matters. That is unfortunately short sighted as they are dancing to the PAP\\\'s tune.

Singaporeans are politically conditioned to think that \\\'bread and butter\\\' issues and nothing else matters in politics. That is how the PAP cons the public during elections by offering them a juicy carrot at the last minute and pulling the rug from under the feet of those Opposition which campaigns solely on HDB upgrading, conservancy fees, tax rebates and NSS. But the carrot is only temporary. Once it is eaten, the public realises that it does not have a carrot anymore and the re-elected PAP is not going to give another one out till the next election. And the cycle repeats itself.

It is only through real democracy can the cycle be broken. Politics is more than leaders providing materialistic creature comfort to the people. SDP is doing the right thing by educating the public that the socio-economic problems in Singapore are rooted in an undemocratic government that represses dissenting views.

If the PAP had been more open about different views, our economy might have turned out better. Instead decisions are made by those in the inner circle and the sycophants just meekly nod their heads. I sincerely believe that pushing the ideals of democracy and protecting of our civil liberties is the first step to Singaporeans\\\' political awakening.

ENG CHUAN

26 November 2004

Mr Pranay Guptes article is an extremely informative piece. I truly believe in this article, as living in Singapore for a considerable amount of time with a much involved and daily interaction with the authorities has given me an impression that is similar to the one suggested in the article.

Singapore may be accommodating and well-facilitated for residents, but it is an extremely unfortunate place for people to grow up in. The growing-up environment here is extremely oppressive and mentally influential as the various areas one has to go through has adopted the government's general stance of pertinacity, hubris and repudiation of any views that do not follow the usual conservative style. People's free rights here are very limited and this is contributing to the apparent lack of creativity and originality among the people.

The worst part is undergoing National Service. In NS, one's beliefs are thrown to the floor, partly due to the nature of the environment that will inevitably conflict individuality with training, and mostly due to the holistic treatment one receives from his peers and superiors. In NS, one does not receive training but mental conditioning. Conditioning that does not teach battlefield and survival skills, but instead obeisance, subjugation and servility regardless of the duty being carried out, be it pointless, insensitive and degrading. Heavy national education is also carried out, nearing the brink of brainwashing.

It is no wonder many perfectly normal people go in and come out with mental problems. But it is a price that is very much worthwhile for the government to pay in return for an approximately galvanised and obedient mindset among the populace that will allow the government much easier control. Using the excuse of national security, NS can be easily exploited to serve other less appropriate purposes. It is highly prone to abuse. The instructors are usually also NSF and still young and inexperienced, but they are authorised with great power which is often used to such a mentally-abusive degree to their victims.

In NS, it is either conformation or a path of self-inflicted mental destruction. There is absolutely no compromise. Furthermore, in any military its affairs are usually classified and thus is difficult for the public to know anything about it. But it may be pointless even if they do know, because most of the adult generation have experienced NS themselves and are supportive of it. Those who do not have most likely flocked elsewhere. But during their generation, NS may have been subtly legitimate as Singapore was still developing and the nation is positioned in a potentially volatile region. But the validity of NS has long gone now. It certainly seems that it is ok to exchange inherently ethical and logical rights for the convenience of the government.

There is also open racial discrimination in the SAF. It is common knowledge that there are no Malays in the RSAF, and the one or two odd ones that are present in a camp of hundreds are mainly there for publicity, as the assumption goes. They are mostly shunted to the police, civil defence and military schools for their NS stint. It is possible the SAF are afraid that

Malays may somehow steal a plane and use it for terrorism if they are given access to an airbase as most Malays are Muslims and some might be radical.

However it is an extremely poor excuse for the carpet banning of Malays from the RSAF. Such a policy is obviously stereotyping and discriminating however one may justify it.

The government is short-sightedly steering the society in the wrong direction. What happens when growth cannot be sustained anymore? It is just a matter of time before big corporations that Singapore depend so dearly on move their headquarters to other places that have lesser operating costs, cheaper labour and greater access to markets. Of course it is not suitable in Singapore's interests to compete directly in the similar factors as that would greatly disadvantage the economy and the society.

However, some comprehensive plan must be thought up to address the problems of the administration as well as the inadequacies of the economy.My ending note would be that Singapore is not a recommended place to live, now and for a long time to come.

REY

16 November 2004

Thank you for publishing my letter. I am flattered by the attention!

I am also heartened that I am not the only one who still supports the SDP despite the onslaught of the PAP and its propaganda machine, The Straits Times. Tan Tai Wei's letter 'Let Chee have his say in papers' is encouraging and it opens the door for a strong rebuttal to that Odiarthavar character.

The Straits Times now faces a Catch-22 dilemma. If they don't let you reply, it becomes obvious again that they are just the PAP's newsletter. If they let you reply, SDP can have the chance to set the record straight. SDP should press on and not give its detractors rest.

E.C.

16 November 2004

I refer to my previous letter in this column and wish to voice out the reasons for my stand on the freedom of speech and expression.

The most important purpose of freedom of speech is that decision-making is reached by discussion and consideration of a large range of views. A decision made after adequate consultation is likely to be a better one than a decision taken with no consultation. Thus freedom of speech is important for society at all platforms.

A government that does not know what the people feel and think is in a very questionable position. The government that chokes free speech is at a risk of dampening the creative instincts of its people, with Singapore and Singaporeans being a very good example.

When criticisms of a government are freely voiced out, the government has the opportunity to explain unfair comments and criticisms about its actions. On the other hand, when freedom of speech is restricted, rumours, unfair criticisms, comments and downright lies are circulated by word of mouth "under the table".

The government is in no position to answer these views, because they are not brought to the attention of the public. It is in a government's and its people's interest to have criticisms in a public platform where it can answer its critics and correct its mistakes. It is able to present its explanation only if the opposing views are in the open.

Freedom of speech is also a political right of citizens. Without the latter, no political action is possible and no resistance to injustice and oppression is possible. Elections would have no meaning at all. Policies of opposition parties and its response to public opinion can only be heard by free speech. In between elections the freely expressed views of citizens help restrain oppressive rule. Without this freedom it is futile to expect political freedom or economic freedom.

With the free speech system just like any other political system, there would be a minority who abuse the system. That is when the defamation law comes in. But the latter should only be used to protect the reputation of an individual and not to gain political ground.

In the United States a person holding a political position or public office has no right to sue for defamation. The reason given is that a person who enters public office, unlike a regular citizen, should come under unrestrained public scrutiny. This is considered essential to the workings of the US democracy system. Thus the law of defamation holds no value to the holder of public office.

I hope I have explained the reasons for my beliefs and I welcome any constructive criticism or suggestions vis-?vis my views.

WARREN

16 November 2004

The problem and fault of the Singapore political scene today simply
does not lie with the PAP. Firstly, I am not living in Singapore and
am not a PAP fan or member. I am just looking at events objectively
and rationally and the truth is the failure of the opposition to be of
any substantial challenge is because they have not been able to
attract talented individuals to serve with the opposition, they have
not been able to develop a coherent plan and ideology to challenge the
PAP. Choosing between the PAP and SDP is a no-brainer, its like asking
a person to choose between a souped up lamborghini and a old broken
down trishaw. It is obvious who the people would choose and would
explain why the SIngapore people has voted for PAP the last 30
something years.

Instead of attracting talented individuals to join their parties and
developing viable and rational alternatives. All the SDP has done is
to trash and rubbish the PAP. This is just simply 'circus' politics.
Not unlike the US presidential election it was basically reduced to a
slinging match. Audiences could not even tell if either candidates
were telling the truth, much of it was just entertaining rhetoric.
Does Singapore want that sort of political process? Does being
democratic means going the way of the US political process?

Democracy is a generic term and blindly wanting to follow an American
style democracy might not necessarily be the best thing. The fact is,
the incumbent in SIngapore (PAP) in this case has created a system of
rational politics based on values, integrity of the candidates and
having a good plan and policies. It is up to the opposition to work
within this premises to challenge the PAP and establish a viable
opposition in Singapore if they want to have a serious balance in
political power.

Parties like SDP also have to be rid of members like Dr. Chee Soon
Juan who has lost all credibility with Singaporeans. Having him on in
the opposition only tarnishes the rest of the work other opposition
members are trying to achieve. When someone loses credibility,
especially in the political system in Singapore, that person is
finished. It is time for the opposition to move on, get rid of him and
start looking inwards at how they can rebuild. Continually lambasting
the PAP is not democracy. It is just cheap, dirty politics that show
the shallowness and the incapability of the oppostion to enable
themselves to be taken seriously. Seriously. Do yourselves and
everyone a favor by improving the image, reputation and policies of
the oppostion. Because if the opposition continues to be so lame, it
will be so easy for me and all other Singaporeans to cast their votes
in future elections.

XING CHEW

8 November 2004

Dear ST Forum Editor,

Today's forum page (6 Nov) carries a letter asking Chee Soon Juan to explain why he has been accusing the judiciary of being unjust to him. Since you have published the letter, presumably you will now give him space to fully so explain.

Chee has been daily informing readers about his present case before the courts in the SDP website. He seems to have grounds to complain about bias treatment, including slanted, even distorted reportings in your paper. I think you have an obligation, especially when you have published the letter, to let him have his full say.

TAN TAI WEI

8 November 2004

Dear Dr Chee,

I have been following your reports on your SDP website very closely for the last few weeks. I have always been a firm believer in the freedom of speech and expression.

Sadly, we are being deprived of this basic human right in this country. It is therefore not a secret why Singapore has never achieved full first world country status. I am an full-time national serviceman who just got enlisted not too long ago after living in Spain for a year.

I was warned by the SAF not to join any opposition party after declaring my political views. Dr Chee, you have more courage and mental tenacity than any other Commando or Officer I've met in the army. I don't need black bars over my shoulders to remind me that I am leader. Leaders are born, not made.

I wish to be part of the SDP and help achieve full democracy for this country.

WARREN

8 November 2004

Dear Dr Chee,

I refer to the forum letter on Nov 6, 2004 in the PAP-controlled Straits Times, 'Judiciary arbitrary? Chee should explain'. Historically, there is evidence of problems with the legal system in Singapore whenever court cases involve the PAP and the Opposition.

However, there are many who do not believe it. Partly it is ignorance stemming from the PAP-dominated media, partly because nobody important has dared say it.

This Odiarthavar is one such brainwashed person, despite his good intentions to remain objective. The horrifying thought is that he might not be the only one. There are just too few of us. The Opposition must educate the masses before more and more people like Odiarthavar fall under the PAP's spell.

I support your efforts to bring democracy in Singapore. Hopefully, that day will come very soon.

E. C.

8 November 2004

The SDP,

In the light of the recent economic downturns and the imminent terrorist threat the nation is facing, I believe it's time for a change of government.

Upon reviewing the 5-point economic plan as proposed by the SDP, I am impressed and optimistic about Singapore's future if there ever is a
chance to implement those reforms.

I am aware of the failures of the PAP you have highlighted in your website, and I do have plenty more faults to find with the way the PAP rules the country. As I generally see the SDP policies as a key to a brighter future for the nation, I wish to join the ranks of the SDP permanently as a member and eventually represent the SDP in the next elections.

I am currently pursuing my Bachelors of Arts in Mass Communication in the USA in a twinning program with the Managing Development Institute of Singapore (MDIS). At the age of 18 now, I will fly over to the USA in early 2006 where I will eventually graduate come mid of 2006. I do not believe that my age is factor in understanding the political situation in the country and my desire to overthrow the PAP will serve me well if I do join the SDP as a member.

Please contact me.

ELIJAH

8 November 2004

Hi,

After attending several Feedback forums, I realise that they were all shit. Just like a one-sided football match where Singaporeans attack and the Ministers defend by lining the players on the goal line so that the other team cannot score. Time to give up on Singapore.

Dr Chee, you should give up as well and go some other places to carry on your doctoral work. Let the PAP regime run Singapore until we slowly disappear from the map. Afterall, do Singaporeans have a share in this country? Nope.

Singapore belongs to the elite class and is the no. 1 racist country in the world. If you are white, you are God. Let Singapore go back to Malaysia. Why care a damn?

TCW

2 November 2004

Dear Dr Chee,

You have been accused in these columns of being negatively critical on every issue of governance you bring out for discussion. I think your critics should see this in the light of the role of political opposition in a democracy. It's rather like proceedings in a court trial, where the defence has to play the role of arguing against the prosecution, leaving the prosecution to do its job.

The aim is that both sides of the case would then be thoroughly presented for the jury or judges to judge. If the defence tries to be 'constructive' and not do its best to destroy the prosecution, the best possible defence might not be achieved, for a fair judgement that takes cognisance of all sides of the case. The prosecution (make no mistake about it) will also make the best possible case, and will not be 'constructive' towards the opposition!

Reading your postings on this website, I have been made aware of issues i had not realised before. Thank you.

TAN TAI WEI

SDP: Thank you for your encouraging words. It must be pointed out, however, that Dr Chee has published a few books where he has explicitly laid out alternative policies. How destructive is this?

Unfortunately the PAP-controlled media does not publish such information and Singaporeans are kept in the dark. The Singapore Democrats have not just critised PAP policies, but we have given the reasons for the criticisms and offered alternatives to the policies.

It is worrying that the PAP continues to control the information flow in Singapore and deny Singaporeans the truth.

2 November 2004

Dear Dr Chee,

I refer to your article, AFFIDAVIT TAKEN FROM ME: CHEE published in The Straits Times on 23 October 2004.

As a 38-year-old Singaporean, I read with great interest and encouragement on your cause and the principles that you stand for.

Although the media has not shown you in very good light during the last election, the letter you have written certainly lends much credence to your political cause, will power and motivation.

I just wanted to tell you that it was a well-written letter that has given many Singaporeans a better factual insight into how the PAP has been conducting itself, and how governmental channels have exercised double-standard when it comes to opposition members.

Please continue to educate our Singaporean voters on the real issues instead of being simply misled and misinformed by the politically motivated media.

I believe many Singaporeans alike have great respect for your courage and the cause you stand for all this while. We hope to support you when the opportunity arises again.

Please keep well and 3 BIG Cheers to you Dr Chee!

CLARENCE

11 October 2004

Greetings,

I'm a 21 yr male currently studying in NUS.

It occurs to me that the opposition in Singapore, to a large extent, fails to focus on major issues and acts like a "pest" critizing small and meaningless matters which most citizens do not bother with. In an attempt to discredit PAP. The opposition fails to learn to draw the line between being objective and subjective. Sometimes being even personal.

It seems like the aim of the opposition is to attack everything that the government says, even though it might be obviously good. Failing in their attempt to give a concrete and constructive challenge which we citizens seek to see.

The Democrats fail to let the citizen see a constructive challenge in any issues at all. Thus the lack of support. Concerns for citizens are not seen. Articles on the home page prove to be insignificant to a lot of us, maybe only a few are relevant.

Let's face reality: Why are the Democrats trying to discredit the government when they have proved themselves capable, even with mistakes, citizens will be able to accommondate, coz they prove they can retiry the problem.

How about Opposition? Have they proved themselves yet? Only prove to be a pest on trying to discredit the government all the time? Is enough done to publishlise your ideas?

Let's put aside the problem about media refuse to help. If there's a problem, solve it then, don't complain. It only show how weak you are. Have you actively reach out to the masses? Who knows of your website, activities or events if there is any? Are you active all the time or just elections?

I'm not discouraging the existance of an oppostion in Singapore, in fact, I value the presence of an opposition, which might one day provide an alternative leadership. I hope my points prove to be valuable to the oppostion and may see a difference in the future.

CONCERNED CITIZEN

11 October 2004

A prime minister who has brought his city-nation from a third rate backwater of British Colonialism like Lee Kuan-Yew has, naturally has a lot of influence.

Surely thinking Singaporeans and others in Asia cannot just believe that the LKY-model is the panacea for all their internal geo-econo-political problems!

Since Mr. Lee's ascendancy to power, a great number of gallons of water has passed under the Clifford Pier! But much as he doesn't like to acknowledge, the USA is not socially decaying. It's a top economic and military nation with free institutions of politics that are constantly undergoing reform.

The USA with its state legislatures and governance have had mixed results on the social safety net, a central issue of this current Presdential Campaign. Senator John Kerry of the Massachusetts is championing for more benefits and safety nets for lower and middle class Americans who make $200K p.a. and less. The sitting President is the otherway, and thinks that Iraq oil and gas will save USA.

There are no defamation suits in US elections. Debates may at times be personal or fringe on the frivilous, yet the law takes the view of unrestricted liberty of discourse.

Mr Lee and his friends, all great guardians of the Singapore Model will not survive the robust and vibrant debates of US elections.

US has more Nobel Prize Winners than any other country. Surely this is liberty and freedom pursuing scholarly research at their best. Scientific discoveries cannot be purchased.

GERALD HENG

11 October 2004

Dear Citizens of Singapore,

We have these two special squad ministers who have no solutions to the Cross-Straits issue, disregarding Chinas opposition for that fateful visit and showing no Empathy for the Taiwanese citizen's feelings.

Which Taiwanese citizen is so free to want a war with China? The present situation has clearly developed from Taiwan's deep-seated helplessness, hatred of China and their hostile stand, employing troops near the border, aiming missiles, threatening Taiwan countless times and not allowing them to be independent.

Any Tom, Dick and Harry in S'pore or any part of the world can say this about the Taiwan-China relations. Oh please dont quarrel, be careful, china is a huge market, Taiwan should be careful and should not press for independence, or else they will have to suffer grave consequences, bla bla, bla..."

Yes, Taiwan rightfully belongs to China - yeah and so was S'pore to the British and the Federation of Malaya from 1963 to 1965.

Now PAP should firstly ask themselves what if the British refused to de-colonize Singapore? How will Singaporeans feel if Malaysia threatens us and warns us not to go for independence in 1965? What if Malaysia only allowed us to have self-ruling, but still attached a "Federation of Malaya" or F.O.M.? What if Malaysia constantly threatens us, boycott, amassed mass soldiers and missiles along the border since 1965?

Its sad to have ministers, BGs, PM, MM oppress citizens using unreasonable restrictions and fines to create sour, sarcastic and rude faces everywhere among Singaporeans. They force us to accept that theirs is "The way, the Truth and the Life".

Both China and Taiwan can smell our Government's insincerity, stupidity and selfishness in official statements - If BG Yeo and PM is sincere and want to "advise" Taiwan, they must first have empathy. Dont try to act smart, and stop talking only about grave consequence that will affect the region's peace and economy which sounds like the Singapore Government is only interested in Singapore's GDP - money, money, money.

Taiwan has long been playing a cat-and-mouse game with China, in order to delay the war. It is their game, it's the game between Taiwan and China, they have been playing it for years and only they know how well it should carry on.

We as outsiders should never interfere with their domestic politics and getting scolded. Or else it will be Singapore, not China or Taiwan, who will suffer grave consequences.

CITIZENS OF MINISTERS WHO CREATE LAUGHING STOCKS

11 October 2004

I recently read JBJ's book and it was very revealing on some of the tactics the incumbent government uses to squelch the opposition and to gain leverage in contesting elections.

Previously I could not understand the opposition's tirade against the government and it seemed totally unwarranted. Now the opposition's grievances seem more perpiscuous and lucid.

I write this letter to offer my perspective and suggestions as a 19-year-old to further enhance the opposition and make it more appealing towards mainstream people. Many are simply oblivious to the devious methodolody employed by the PAP to maintain its monopoly. With an obedient and meek media, the truth being promulgated is less plausible.

Yet there are others who are cognizant of the PAP's tactics but still steadfastly support them. This is mainly due to the competence with which the PAP and its doyens have led Singapore, their reputation in Singapore is unblemished.

Undeniablely they have contributed enormously to Singapore. But it perturbs me that its suppressing of freedom has left us very weak. Also without a robust opposition, future leaders will have complete reign to abuse this monopoly and it could prove detrimental to Singapore.

Yet I'm also left chagrined by our infirm opposition who seem more occupied in spouting polemics then in endearing itself to the public. Although I undertand its greivances, the path it ventures on simply alienates it futher from the public who shun disrespect towards its leaders. Some opposition leaders foolhardyly plunge themselves into the pitfall the PAP has laid by being pounded with defamation suits.

JBJ was one such victim as I found out recently in his book and Dr chee is being chastised in a similar manner for his gratutitous comments.I cant fathom why Dr Chee who I'm sure is a man of intellect made that folly.

The opposition needs to set aside its vendatta with the government if it is to appeal to the public. It also needs to start focusing on more fundamental policies such as augmenting the economy, scrutinzing current policies and enhancing quality of life. I sincerely hope to see the opposition perform much better in the forthcoming elections and hopefully have more elected candidates.

I understand that the constraints under which they have to perform are quite obnoxious but it seems they have to play within these rules implemented by the PAP. Beat them at their own game should be the motto and their incentive!

I would appreciate a response to my perhaps naive views and suggestions.

A. SINGH

SDP: While Mr Singh demonstrates a healthy, if rudimentary, understanding of the autocratic nature of politics that the PAP plays, he also displays naivete when he calls on the opposition to "set aside its vendetta against (sic) the government", "start focusing on more fundamental policies", "play within the rules", etc.

The Democrats ask Mr Singh to study, not just read cursorily, some of the articles on this webiste. Without an in-depth appreciation of the nature of the PAP system, Singaporeans and the opposition will never be able to make the kind of political reform that is needed in this country.

Fundamental shifts in the way the opposition operates in Singapore is needed if we are to break out of the box that PAP has put Singaporeans in. Calling on the opposition to establish democracy in Singapore while playing within the rules set by the PAP is like driving a car without gas. Mr Singh should not be chastising the car but the one who siphoned off the petrol.

If Mr Singh is serious about changing politics and the way the opposition functions, he is welcome to contact the Singapore Democrats and contribute his energy and time towards bringing about democratic change. We will be most interested to listen to suggestions.

4 October 2004

Dear Dr. Chee,

I read your article of Sept 7th, 2004. I agree entirely with what you said.

I only recently read Lewis Carroll's Alice in Wonderland and was cursing myself why I didn't read it earlier. It dawned on me that during my time in Singapore, it was very much like Alice in Wonderland, which continues to exist till today.

In every other democracy in the world, the matter of the $17 billion loan to Indonesia would be raised since it is these questions that make a democracy, that is, with people participation.

The sad thing about Singapore is that we have stupid, I repeat, stupid leaders in Singapore. They are stupid because they do not seem to understand that all Singaporeans respect you. They know that you are an honest men. They know that what you do, you are doing for Singapore. They know that Singaporeans, being taxpayers, have a right to know where their money is spent. They know that that their salaries are being paid out of their wages. If they have no right to ask these questions, then they should not be taxed.

Personally I have great admiration for you. I wish I had the courage and the strength that you have.

You are not going to have right thinking discerning citizens in Singapore. And as I write this email I am sure that independent thinking proud Singaporeans who can no longer take the nonsense and the arrogance of Lee and Co, are packing their bags and heading to Singapore Airport en route to Australia.

God be with you, Dr. Chee.

Mr Gopalan Nair was a Workers' Party candidate taking part in the general election in the 1980s.

GOPALAN NAIR

28 September 2004

First of all, I would like to introduce myself. I'm a 16-year-old student currently studying in Singapore Polytechnic. Since young, I've always been concerned about Singapore's future and whether it can compete with other countries especially China and India.

I believe the Singapore Democratic Party, SDP, has it own potential of getting more seats in the Parliament. Its just that SDP must be able to change its ideology of having an aggressive attitude towards the ruling party which is PAP. PAP has been a ruling party for a long time since Singapore become independent therefore in Singaporeans' minds and hearts, their only choice is PAP as they manage to make Singapore a miracle and prosperous for so many years. It has also made Singapore recognised by the world. Now, most Singaporeans are educated people, therefore their minds are clearer and eyes are sharper.

Therefore I believe that for SDP to prosper and progress, SDP should be friendly towards PAP and give more attention to the public. PAP is a strong and progressive party, it is impossible to ruin PAP externally. Therefore in order to ruin PAP, the wise and better way is to have internal problem. In order to do that, PAP should have fewer enemies. The more enemies, the more they unite. The less the enemies, the organisation will have more and bigger conflict as humans are tend to be greedy.

I believe that SDP should have a positive attitude towards politics and the public. It is better to accept the enemy gracefully to let them put down their guard.

I hope that Singapore will able to prosper and progress more with more parties in the parliament.

Thank you.

ALVIN

28 September 2004

Why can't Singapore Residents and Foreign Visitors speak freely at the Hong Lim Speakers' Corner? Afterall as long as speakers and audience aren't inciting crimes of passion and otherwise,it should be just as free as Hyde Park Speakers' Corner.

I lament the deafening silence because many years ago I heard Assemblyman Ong Eng Guan take on the golf-playing Lee Kuan Yew (as he then wasn't the SM or MM).

In politics or public affairs, the defamation lawsuits should be restrained so that free speech may not be limited or be chilled off for fear of such legal action.

In USA, Canada or in UK you cannot really be made a defendant to defamation/libel action in political speech if no malicious and vindictive intention is established beyond a reasonable doubt. It's in the nature of free speech, that such protection is required.

GERALD HENG
Boston/Framingham, MA
USA

28 September 2004

Dear Dr. Chee,

This is rather strange indeed, even Indonesia and Malaysia gets invited, why not S'pore (see news report below)?

It says The exercise reflects China's diplomatic policy of 'treating neighbors as friends and partners,' and the new security concept of peaceful coexistence, mutual trust, mutual benefit, equality and cooperation, according to military sources.

What does this indicate about China's view on S'pore?

Did the ST report this incident? Thats the problem when the Government controls the media through SPH and Media Corporation of S'pore - they only report what they want us to know.

Appreciate if you could publish this article on your website and ask PAP how did this happen. Thanks.

http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/200409/25/eng20040925_158266.html

Some 60 foreign military observers invited to "Iron Fist-2004" military exercise

Some 60 military leaders and observers from 16 countries observed a military exercise launched by the Chinese armed forces in central China Saturday morning.

The exercise, code-named "Iron Fist-2004" and with live ammunition, was carried out by a reinforced mechanized infantry division in the Queshan Training Base of the Jinan Military Area Command of the Chinese People's Liberation Army (PLA) in Henan Province.

The foreign military leaders and observers are from Brunei, the Philippines, Tajikistan, Bangladesh, Cambodia, India, Indonesia, Kazakhstan, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, Pakistan, Russia, Thailand, Uzbekistan and Vietnam. The ranking officers include commander of the Brunei armed forces, chiefs of the general staff of the Philippines and Tajikistan, and the chief of staff of the Bangladesh army.

It is the first time the PLA invited so many foreign military officers in so high rankings to observe a Chinese military exercise. It is also the largest-scale military exercise open to foreign observers.

The exercise reflects China's diplomatic policy of "treating neighbors as friends and partners," and the new security concept of peaceful coexistence, mutual trust, mutual benefit, equality and cooperation, according to military sources.

It not only embodies the Chinese military's sincere hope to develop friendly cooperative relations with the military of neighboring countries, but also creates a chance for Chinese and foreign officers to learn from each other, the sources said.

The exercise, which involves some PLA 10,000 officers and soldiers, is of positive significance to promoting regional security cooperation.

Source: Xinhua

CHRISTOPHER

24 September 2004

The PAP government is up to its wily ways again in its renewed legal attack on Dr Chee. It is clear that the PAP, knowing full well that Dr Chee will be away for a conference, deliberately called for the court hearing. This is the usual run of the mill legal entrapment tactic of the PAP which is not surprising at all.

This vindictive attempt to malign the SDP and Dr Chee surely runs contrary to the vision of hope which the new PM so sweetly sold to Singaporeans barely a month ago. It is clear that nothing has changed. The PAP will still resort to such detestable legal trickery to ensure its dictatocracy.

I sincerely urge all Singaporeans to stand behind Dr Chee and put their support behind him, the SDP and the regional democracy organisations that he leads. More should be done to let Singaporeans be exposed to
regional groups like ARDA. Is there a ARDA office which Singaporeans can sign in their support? Let us test the so called winds of change which the new PM "promised" and see whether it is just winds of hot air.

To all Singaporeas : do not bow to DICTATOCRACY!

FRANCIS SILVA

24 September 2004

A statement that MM Lee made needs to be addressed: "I do not believe that if you are libertarian, full of diverse opinions, full of competing ideas in the market place, full of sound and fury, therefore you will succeed."

An environment that promotes diversity offers less boundaries, allows room in developing ideas. The concept of not putting all of one's eggs in one basket explains why diversity is critical in any dynamic climate.

In the education field; acedamics advocate "all rounded" education over limited ciriculum also suggests that diversity allow humans to explore and seek new experiences that might lead to creation of new ideas and innovation much needed in today's dynamic environment; requiring dynamic problem solving skills.

Apparently, Singapore's learned MM has conveniently forgotten about what the ruling party's economic policies of attracting talents; why would the Singapore govenment want to attract talent from the different fields. Could it be because "foreign talents" are sort after everywhere in the world so Singapore must have them too? Just as other countries who have made used of casinos to attract tourists, Singapore must consider that too?

Or, it could be because Singapore's education system has failed to produce the necessary "talent" and now she has to look else where for them. Ironically, the Singapore government probably realised that a "diverse" pool of talent are required to provide the much needed "diversity" required for ideas to developed and ultimately offer diverse/different business approaches and developing new products to offer to the world.

An evironment with "diversity" and "competing ideas" can only promote active and vigorous minds challenging every ideas at the same time accepting "diversity" and ultimately people living under such evironment are likely to be trained questioning about issues and practices that may not be relavant under current conditions.

Also, the population may thus accept and live with "diversity" in other aspects such as race, religion, political inclinations so on and so forth; again these issues if not addressed may affect the devleopment and progress of a nation.

Success can be measured in different areas and in varying degrees. For example, the economic success of the US has not lead to similar successes in its social/diplomatic relations with the rest of the world eg. the Third World nations and the middle eastern countries.

How one measures success requires serious thinking.

STEED

24 September 2004

Dear Citizens of Singapore,

Do not be deluded by the ST. It is natural for someone who rules Singapore with an iron fist to be fuming over CSJ letting the world know about domestic politics. It is because he doesnt want the foreigners to know his oppressive ways.

Hence, it is not an alarming thought to suspect this Person is summarily maneuvering Singaporeans to think that CSJ's agenda is to be in cahoots with foreigners against Singapore.

PAP's many oppressive policies against the oppositions have brilliantly achieved its objectives of bringing out the worst in opposition parties and portraying them as a nuisance to the public. CSJ was portrayed as a liar and political gangster. Jeyaretnam was squashed like a fly through a series of unfair defamation suits. The same goes for countless other victims through PAPs legal means.

And because PAP rigidly engineered this oppressive process, no one dares to challenge PAP openly, unless someone with a stronger character and intellect is willing to sacrifice at a high price. It is either YOU REMAIN SILENT OR YOU MUST SHOUT.

History has shown that a soft stance with PAP has and will never ever wake up the public that has so much trusted PAP's 'brilliant' policies for so long. For CSJ's case, its similar to PAP beating and tying him up, then say Ha ha, stupid fool, you cannot catch me, you cannot catch me, HAHA". Sounds familiar?

I can't help but agree with many foreigners who mentioned that we have a freakish government that wants us to think, eat and sleep rationally all the time.

Nevertheless, living in S'pore under PAP is like being forced to marry the wrong wife. Everyone in the household is afraid of her and has to tolerate her nonsense.

Imagine after many years of constant abuse by her and whenever there is a quarrel, she set rules that you are not allowed to talk back as she dictates being right all the time and never apologises and always give excuses when things go wrong. You must follow her every rule or else you will be fined until you are made bankrupt. The situation is hopeless as she will never change. You became very sad, miserable with a sour-face every time. You cannot take it anymore and as nobody at 'home' dares to do anything, the only way to air your frustrations is to share with your friends on what is happening at 'home', seek advice and let them know whenever she does unreasonable things to you. There is nothing morally wrong in doing that.

In the States whereby there is freedom of speech, people are allowed to let anyone or anybody in the world knows their leader's nonsense and wrongdoings. There are many Anti-Gov papers, speeches, talk shows and opposition TV channels to view and let people see the other side of the coin. It encourages such a culture to CRITICISE THE GOVERNMENT IN ORDER TO MAKE THEM IMPROVE AND WORK AROUND POLICIES INSTEAD OF TAKING THE EASY WAY OUT - restrictions, fines and more fines.

(Of course there are still restrictions on the mainstream media to restrict some content to certain hours or censor those images that will endanger public morale and safety. However, PAPs definition of such restrictions is clearly freakish and ridiculous.)

I was in the States from July to August in 2003 and thoroughly enjoyed those controversial TV channels. When I went to Taipei in Nov last year, it is similar, but with more spice - they are in Hokkien. This happened during the early preparations for their president's election. Especially those that make fun of the Government's ministers that can make one roll on the floor laughing.

There are also "Live" debates on TV whereby government ministers are queried by citizens, with some being whacked left-right-centre by the opposition.

Note : On a deeper thought, despite that fact that oppositions and citizens are deriding the government and putting them in such a bad light - it is a good thing as many of those policies and changes centered on creating more happiness for the people to provide alternative views to the Government to force them to see in different light.

Unlike here that only has PAP Light who have been using this their robotic style to groom new ministers.

In S'pore, we have a unique situation - in order to perhaps cover up their and wrong policies, PAP says that you are only allowed to speak up in one corner so that only a small powerless minority will know and not able to influence the election outcome. No microphone is allowed, citizens have to shout until they have sore throat, no raising of fists is allowed when LKY have raised his fists during his many election speeches.

Is it a Speaker's Corner or Freak Show corner?

ABUSED CITIZEN

31 July 2004

Hi,
I read the exchange between your organisation and "Democrat" and want to point out that while you mentioned the Government's control on the production of political videos, you had inadvertently or otherwise overlooked his suggestion to improve the integrity of your website.

Your lack of proper response to him/her seems too much of a propaganda when certain simple issues raised are conveniently ignored.
Unless you are prepared to be more transparent, the credibility of your party remains questionable.

While alternative parties like yours may be very much desired, it may remain undesired due to the lack of willingness to respond to EVERY SINGLE ISSUE raised especially about your organisation's weaknesses.
Also, if your organisation is indeed willing to allow posters to scream, shout or curse your party or the PAPees, why do you need to compel posters to write via email??

Why do you choose which letters can be posted? Are only those in Singapore Democrat's favour posted? Don't you think you are no better than the Straits Times and the PAPees??

It may be hard to swallow the views in this email but it's up to you to change your image because like many others who are politically concerned, I hope you have the courage and will have to prove that the your sincerity is as clean as a white bedsheet. Having such integrity does not mean that a person's past failure need to be stuck as a stigma but rather, to come clean and acknowledge the fact that while no one is good except GOD, one can repent for the better as a result of past failures.

TOLIM

SDP: Dear Tolim,

If you care to read some of the letters in this column you will note that the Singapore Democrats do not post only letters that are complimentary of us. The fact that your message appears should clear up any lingering doubts.

Perhaps the reason for your impression is the numerous letters supportive of the SDP. This is a reflection of the unhappiness of Singaporeans with the PAP and its oppression of this country, not the selectivity of the this website.

We may not respond to every criticism leveled at us. It doesnt mean, however, that we dont take note of it. Criticisms, especially those about how we can improve our website, are welcomed not repelled.

You are right that we dont have a forum where readers are allowed to post any message they want. The reason is simple. If a poster puts up a message that is libelous of the PAP, he or she can remain anonymous and therefore cannot be held responsible. It is the SDP that will have to answer to the ensuing defamation law suits. Given the litigation-happy nature of the PAP, dont you think it would be political suicide for the Singapore Democrats to allow a free-for-all type of chatsite?

It is interesting that you compare the SDP with the Straits Times. The latter is supposed to be a national newspaper, not the party organ of the PAP (although the Singapore Press Holdings does a commendable job in making sure we cant tell the difference).

The publicly funded Straits Times has an obligation to inform the public. In other words, its job is to report fairly the views of both the government and opposition. The SDP, on the other hand, is a political party whose job is to persuade voters that its policies are the best for the country. The fact that such a comparison is even attempted speaks volumes of the ailing political system of our country.

No, youre views are not hard to swallow. We welcome criticisms and encourage open debate, which are fundamental to transparency and accountability values that we have consistently and continually called for in our political system. Your indignation is better directed at the PAP. And if you do write a letter to the ruling party as firm as the one above, please send it to us. Wed be happy to post it.

31 July 2004

To Dr Chee and all deluded Singaporeans,

Please allow me to air my frustrations at the PAP Government and please disseminate this message to as many people as possible.

Lets talk about tennis and to use it to a describe political strategy employed by PAP to win the game. You step into the court and to your horror the Umpire announces the rules:-

1. You are not allowed to Serve.
2. You are only allowed to defend, not attack. You shall be punished if when you play an attacking game.
3. Later the Rules suddenly change. Now you are told that you can attack but only on a one square-foot corner of the court called The Speakers Freak Show Corner, but you will be fined if you try to attack elsewhere on the court.
4. You are only allowed a small Table-Tennis racquet (sorry should be call bat) to hit the tennis ball, whereas you opponent is using the latest ultra-light and powerful Tennis racquet.
5. Your opponents take health supplements. As for you, you cant even afford or not allowed to take anything else except plain bread and water. Furthermore, the bread looks nice and beautiful but tastes bitter and difficult to swallow.

As you play on for 2 hrs, you feel extremely tired and thirsty. The Umpire hands you a black bottled drink, and you say thanks to him without thinking. Later you discover that while your energetic opponent is allowed to drink the whole 1000cc bottle of water, there is only 10 ml in yours. But you still manage to survive, so the Law says its justifiable.

Flabbergasted, you argue with the Umpire.

Citizen: Hey, I cant serve and why I cant even attack? It is not fair!

Umpire: Attacking is consider uncivilized, irritating and will create
social unrest and affect law and order.

Citizen: How ridiculous! Then how am I going to play?

Umpire: Say further and you will be charged with contempt!

Citizen: I see, nevermind, but can you please explain why are you doing this to me, Mr Umpire?

Umpire: It can be seen in other countries that if you are allowed the same liberty as your opponent (who is a Scholar, ruling party member and hence a superior being), you will create more problems for people, you will keep blaming the government but yourselves, creating suffering for the people.

Citizen: Huh? You mean by just observing other countries and making assumptions, you claim that it will not work in Singapore? By just writing a scholarly looking paper, you are able to ascertain that it cannot work? Lets be fair here, why not we give it a try, modifying it to suit our local culture and norms. Perhaps it can work out?

Umpire: No.

Citizen: PWEE! YOU NEVER TRY, HOW YOU KNOW!?"

Umpire: I think I have made myself quite clear already. No means no! Oh yes, you are thereby fined $1,500 for talking back.

You are told that this is the only way to learn the game and constantly bombarded with loud brain-washing messages that never apologize for wrong policies but rather talks on one side of the coin all the time. All this is controlled by SPH, which is again owned by PAP. You find a microphone and want to shout back but discover that it is a one way radio.

Will you lose the game?

Of course! But do you have a choice?

ORDINARY FOLK

30 July 2004

Dear Democrats,

I have written a letter for publication in TODAY on the CPF restoration issue and the increase in fees. The newspaper refused to publish it (see below).

If Ministers' pay can be restored I dont see why the CPF, which is part of our salary, cannot be restored in tandem. Such a restoration, coupled with a policy change to enable the restored CPF to be cashed out by members, will help to increase spending to stimulate consumption which will be good for local businesses, many of which are folding up.

There is a dire need to look at the more even distribution of wealth lest the local businesses suffer further. By doing so, even foreign investments in Singapore can stand to benefit from increased consumption spending. We cannot just depend on the few top income earners to turn the grave local business situation around. Worse, some of them simply hoard the money.

Something drastic must be done or else more local businesses will go under, affecting foreign investment which will, in turn, dampen the overall business sentiment here.

When the Trade Ministry says that the economy is growing, it is nothing to shout about because the growth is lopsided. What good does it do if our trading activities with other countries increase while our local businesses suffer?

Letter to TODAY: The question before us is: Can the reasons given for the increase of miscellaneous school fees by the MOE stand?

It is always convenient to increase fees and give seemingly cannot-fault-type of reasons like rise in education costs and raise the quality of education in schools, etc to justify the increase. Again we are going to burden the citizens by ailing their pockets when they have to fork out more for their children's monthly miscellaneous fees next year.

On the one hand we are told to go on "self-help" mode and the next moment we were told to approach the Authority for help if the need arises. It's indeed perplexing!

Have they considered the overall cost of raising children nowadays? No wonder the fall in the birth rate! Whatever incentives dished out by the Government to induce more births may be dampen by such increase in fees, starting with MOE. Wonder which Ministry is going to increase the fees next?

It is always the case when any Ministry increase fees they will say that "it will remain heavily subsidised." I wonder who is subsidizing whom? How does it work out in real terms and how is it being derived?

We are continually faced with such dilemma. On the one hand, when we ask for CPF restoration given the good performance of the economy, the idea is shot down. But when the Ministry wants to increase the fees, we have to swallow it. What can be done with such inequality of treatment?

Can we institute a body that will study and manage the various increases in fees and balance these with the financial impact on Singaporeans?

CONCERNED CITIZEN

2 July 2004

Dear Dr Chee,

Having read your book, Your future, my faith, our freedom', I must say that you are a bigger patriot of Singapore then I previously thought. In fact, it would be no exaggeration to say that no one loves Singapore more than you.

To go through the crap that PAP put you through and still emerge fighting for what you think is right (me too), deserves great commendation.

I just want to tell you that although your struggle is far from complete, u can take strength from the fact that great democracy advocates from the era of the American war of Independence and French Revolution had to fight their PAP-like oppressors but it is only with the support of the great masses that they did so.

Having said that, and owing to the fact that it is difficult to publicly get across SDPs ideas, I suggest that SDP get down to serious work in setting up a young democrats wing, which has been suggested in your website but not seen active progress.

Like the SDP has suggested, revolutionary actions can stem from an educated base of young people who can see that the current government is leading them to self-destruction. As a young man about to step into the world that the PAP has carved out, I want to be part of a movement which Im sure many other young and misguided Singaporeans would gladly join.

Knowing that the SDP is not the only online party that provides alternate viewpoints on our society and being impossible in itself to be the only voice of disgruntled Singaporeans, may I know which other websites can I read about the mismanaging antics of the PAP and its related subsidiaries?

Lastly, where could I get the previous 4 books written by you? Bookshops dont seem to carry them for obvious reasons already mentioned in your latest book. Or is 'Your future, my faith, our freedom' the latest book? Is there another one in writing now?

Once again I'd like to thank you, Dr Chee, for persevering in your fight for democracy in Singapore. Where lesser men would have given up long ago, you have stood up against the autocrats time and again. Thank you for letting the international community know that democracy advocates in Singapore are not dead.

C YONG

SDP: Dear Mr Yong,

Thank you for your support and encouragement. We know that there is a significant portion of the population that just about had it with four decades of one-party rule where the PAP talks and Singaporeans listen. Like you, they want to see Singapore graduate into a democratic state where justice and equality can truly prevail (see other letters here).

This is not an impossible goal. It can come about if each and every one of us who feels strongly about freedom and democracy in Singapore take the step of becoming actively involved. Many young Singaporeans have joined us as SDPs Young Democrats and have helped to organise international conferences for youth in Singapore.

The movement is nascent but, make no mistake about it, it is growing.

Singapore belongs to Singaporeans, not the PAP. Come and do your part to reclaim our country.

PS. Websites providing alternative views are found on the front page of this website. Also, Dr Chees latest book is Your Future, My Faith, Our Freedom. He is currently working on another book due to be out in 2005.

2 July 2004

Dear Sir,

Thank you for taking the time to read my letter. I am a male Singaporean and like all other Singaporeans, I have grown to hate this PAP regime government of ours by the day. I can still remember the past election; I attended a SDP election rally at Yishun. That was the ONLY time I felt like I was truly Singaporean, a proud one at that! No NDP can bring me the same patriotic feeling that I felt. Everybody was cheering and venting their frustrations and for the first time, I saw Singaporeans smile at other fellow Singaporeans! That is such a rare sight these days!

But unfortunately, although I am well over voting age, I still CANNOT vote because my constituency got a WALKOVER! Naturally I felt depressed because I had been waiting to vote so that I can do my part as a citizen but the PAP, of course with its dirty tricks decides to splice our already small country into smaller parts!

My father is a hardworking man and my heart aches to see his hard earned CPF money, money which is supposed to be used for his retirement, being made to pay for our overpriced HDB flat. One of the reasons that I and many of my friends refuse to settle down is because we refuse to be eternally in debt to the HDB! And the worst thing is that I do not have any cheaper, feasible, options! And the public transport can kill you too! I have a diploma and earn $1500 and I can easily spend $300 on buses and MRT alone! I do agree with the COE to keep our roads free from traffic jams but public transport should be made AFFORDABLE for the people!

And the talk about foreign talent? I am an engineer and most of the engineers my company hires are from the Philippines. No, not because they are better, its because they are cheaper! I m not against them, heck I made a couple of good friends but the reality still lies that my Singaporean friend who is still job hunting could take their place. We dont need foreigners to do jobs we CAN DO! Is this the foreign talent that the PAP is talking about? Where is the Singaporean first policy when it comes to hiring employees? I guess there s none. And what is Singapores minimum wage, I have heard teenagers and aunties work $3.20 per hour at Mac Donalds?! That is downright exploitation!

And I do feel sorry for my Malay and Indian friends too. If you think its hard to get a job, its even harder for them. Just flip the newspapers and you will see Mandarin speaking/Chinese only job ads pasted everywhere! And the result? Throngs of my Malay/Indian buddies line up to work in CISCO, Police, SCDF or any government agency. Most of them don t want to but then again, they lack opportunities.

And to top it all off, let us take a look at the ministers pay. Even higher that George W Bush? I wonder how do these men in white sleep at night? Do they not know the suffering that they have inflicted and the climbing suicide rate? Or has greed blinded them?

The reasonable thing everybody is opting thing to do is to migrate and I had the chance to do just that. I was offered a job through a relative and I left and went West. The weather was cooler, environment was beautiful, people smile and said hello and I was paid better BUT I realize, deep inside, I still miss home. I was all alone abroad and I was missing my parents, family and my friends. I did have friends over there but it was just not the same. And after 2 years I came back. Instead of running away, I want to confront this PAP cancer. But in a country ruled with fear, those who take a stand lose everything. Leaders I respect and admire either went bankrupt, seek refuge in another country or hauled to jail!

You may have read and heard the problems that I have mentioned above so many times but what we lack is a clear solution. There is no room for compromise any longer but what can we do? All we have been doing is grit our teeth and complain in silent breath and what did it brought us? NOTHING but a further increase in GST.

Ive read countless complaints, the people venting their frustrations against the government for their policies in the local papers but it seemed to be fallen onto deaf ears. Most of the people that I know agreed that there is no room for diplomatic talks because it just doesnt work with the PAP! And voting DOES NOT WORK because your constituency will have a walkover, so elections are futile.

The solution everybody knows but too afraid to speak up is to have, a downright REVOLUTION. Yes, you heard me, an UPRISING. The people need to gather and to resist and topple this corrupt regime. Like how the Indonesians toppled Suharto, the Iranians toppled the Shah, we Singaporeans need to topple the PAP! May God help us all!

Vengeance on the 9th of August

SDP: Dear Vengeance,

Your anger and frustration at seeing so much social, political, and economic injustice in Singapore and the inability to do anything about it is shared by many Singaporeans.

Many of the issues you raised above have been repeatedly brought up by the Singapore Democrats. Unfortunately, as you have pointed out, without a free and open society, the PAP will continue to ignore our voices.

But we are not helpless. There is much that we can do. The first of these is to come together and work for the common cause of bringing about democracy for Singapore. The only way the PAP can continue to perpetuate its control is to keep right- and democratic-minded citizens such as yourself and countless others from coming together.

Resist the PAPs control and join the many who have already taken the bold step of being part of the Singapore Democrats and the campaign for democracy. Be unafraid and be strong. Justice and courage never failed humankind.

2 July 2004

Dear Dr Chee,

After reading the Straits Times report "Asef : Pulled funding nothing to do with Govt" of 18 June 2004, it became clear to me that in spite of its written denial, Asef had clearly aligned itself with the political leanings of its host country. Would its position be contrary to the wishes of the millions of taxpayers in Europe?

I would like to urge you to make a strong request to the Head of the
International Federation of Liberal Youth (IFLRY) to inform the governments, governmental agencies, human rights agencies of the European member states about what Asef had done. I am sure that the Europeans are more politically enlightened than the ones heading Asef.

Andy

17 May 2004

9 May 2004

Dr Chee Soon Juan
Secretary-General
Singapore Democratic Party,

Dear Dr Chee,

LETTER OF GRATITUDE

I read with interest Dr Chee Soon Juan's impromptu participation at the US forum delivered by Singapore's Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong.

Dr. Chee's courage to stand up for the minority's right by questioning PM Goh during the forum can best be described as righteous, brave and justified. PM Goh seemed to extol himself as an expert in handling Muslim affairs, hence a leading commentator in handling the Muslim population. Have his Muslim citizens excelled themselves to the extent that he can now advise others on how to manage the Muslims?

Surely someone must have briefed him on the social ills affecting his own Muslim community. If not, let me refresh his memory. In terms of percentage against the national population, the Singapore Muslims under his government now enjoys the highest divorce rate, highest inmates in both male and female prisons, highest inmates in all drug rehabilitation centers, highest unemployment and underemployment rate, highest inmate in juvenile detention centers, lowest percentage of students' intake in local universities and many more undisclosed repulsive figures. This is just a tip of the iceberg.

Dr. Chee is right to suggest that, if left unattended, these social ills can breed terrorism or even transform restless and frustrated mind into physical violence against the state.

The government's handling on these issue borders between imbecility and ludicrousness - appointing fellow Muslim citizen as stooges to stand as their representatives, thus calling themselves "Muslim Leaders" and setting up government-controlled societies in the name of helping its citizens along racial lines. With one swoop, they have brushed it all under the carpet.

It is ironic that that they claimed to practice meritocracy where evidently none exist. Jobs in the local Straits Times blatantly seek for Chinese speaking applicants, virtually every matters dealing with government-related agencies requires the applicant to declare their race, language and religion - from applying for a driver's license to running a public toilet.

The real issue affecting the Muslim community spreads wider than perceived.

The most crucial issue is to allow the Muslim community to join the mainstream and release the shackles of discrimination against employment and education - the very ingredients needed for the community to progress. The Muslims do not need special privileges or assistance - all they asked is a level playing field.

Dr Chee was right to point out the inadequacy of the PAP's policy towards the minority. PM Goh speech smacks hypocrisy and typifies the proverb pots calling the kettle black. Dr Chee has indeed spoken for us and we owe him our gratitude.

Thank you.

MOHAMAD JUSOH BIN MUSTAPA

13 March 2004

Dear Dr Chee and SDP,

Although Singapore is currently in the midst of economic recovery, many Singaporeans are still uncertain about their employability status and job security. Truly, this is troubled time for our country as people find themselves agitated about our economic outlook.

However, this is also the time for the opposition camp in Singapore especially the SDP to propose a viable alternative or solution to our country's economic woe. I'm also aware that among the three 'main' opposition groups, the SDP is the ONLY group that actually proposed an alternative during the last GE while the rest of the groups could only 'complain' on the current economic woe and demanded what the government would do to alleviate the currently situation. But bleak and gloomy as the economy may seem, it is also the time for the SDP and the rest of the opposition to 'prove' their mettle and provide solutions for the people in Singapore.

I'm not a political guru, but I do 'learn' a bit when I watch programs like the CNN and CNBC on their coverage on the current U.S. Democratic Party nomination of Mr John Kerry and the issues he chose to tackle with President George W. Bush.

I think the SDP could learn how Mr. Kerry challenges Mr. Bush. I really hope that the SDP can put together all their 'Masters' and 'PhD' talents available in the team to propose a solution for Singaporeans.

Next, I would humbly suggest that the SDP come up with a better management style within the party. What I meant is that there should be someone in the party who is a 'subject' specialist on a certain issue and let him or her be 'in charge' of that matter or field.

For instance, Ms. Chee Siok Chin who holds a B.A. in Education Studies should be the subject specialist for educational matters and concerns in Singapore and Dr Vincent Yeo who had previous experience in R&D and assisted the development of SMEs should be the specialist for entrepreneurial development especially for SMEs. I think these talents should be fully utilized in providing counter proposals or alternatives against government policies and not merely used for 'advertising' the party's capability of acquiring 'PhDs and Masters' graduates during general elections.

By doing this, the party would practice to be a 'mini-government' and formulate alternative policies or solutions for our country and present it to the Singapore public. Like it or not the SDP should know by now that Singaporeans are a pragmatic lot and though issues such as freedom of speech, human rights and equality and others are important, bread-and-butter issues still take precedence; no different from Americans who are now searching for answers and would vote for the candidate who can provide them with jobs, education opportunities and social security etc.

I know this other solution seems a bit far-fetched but I thought it would help tremendously to engage the services of a PR company to 'drum up' the image of the SDP. This would allow the SDP to project a more professional image rather than the 'hit-and-run' opposition that we usually see from the sidelines.

In addition, personally I find the SDP kind of stayed low after the last GE. You guys have not been present in front of Centrepoint during the weekends lately right? Why is that so? I've also noticed that the Young Democrats website is still under 'construction' for time since I don't know when.

I think these are some of the minor details that distinguish a 'professional' and committed party. To overlook these details would project a negative and unprofessional image of the SDP. If you can't even maintain 'information integrity' even at your website, how are you going to prove to the educated Singapore people that you can perform better in the formulating of national policies?

Finally, I've been keeping tabs on the SDP since Dr Chee published his first manifesto and had acquired and read all his books. I think Dr Chee's spirit and determination is admirable and that the SDP should continue to attempt to provide constructive alternative solutions for the country whether its in the field of legislation, economy, education or social.

Best wishes and luck for Dr Chee, his family and his party family.

DEMOCRAT

Dear Democrat,

We thank you for the encouraging words and the support you give for the cause of democracy in Singapore. We would like to address some of the concerns you raised in your email.

You rightly mention that the SDP has in the past proposed alternative ideas for Singapore. Dr Chee himself has written books in which he proposed policies for our education system, economy, social security system, etc. Some of them have been taken by the PAP (which has not had the courage to admit it).

We have then taken these policies, many concerning bread-and-butter issues, and put them before the voters during the last two elections in very simple, easy-to-understand language that appeals to the lay public. Alas this has not translated into greater support for a more democratic and pluralistic political system in Singapore.

We believe that this is not because of a lack of support for our policies and democracy in general but rather a result of the system itself (including the election process) which through intimidation and censorship does not allow Singaporeans to express their views and votes freely.

Without a system where there is a free media and fair election system, no amount of alternative policies and campaigning will change anything. Mr John Kerrys ideas for America would not last one second if President George Bush behaved like the PAP.

You have brought up good ideas in your letter, many of which the Singapore Democrats have thought about, and continue to explore. As mentioned, however, without a democratic system, none of them can be put to good use.

Your ideas about putting specialists to work within the party and even engaging PR companies to help the SDPs campaign are wonderful. The SDP has tried, and will continue to try, to persuade Singaporeans to join our ranks so that we can divvy up the various portfolios to take on the PAP and professionalize our research and communications teams. Unfortunately, few Singaporeans dare to come forward. On the PR-company idea, even a video that we produced to explain in a visual medium to voters our platform and policies was banned by the PAP.

We relate these obstacles to you not to discourage Singaporeans like you from joining in the struggle. On the contrary, we hope that it will stir your sense of justice and love for our nation to the extent that you will come on board and help us develop the areas of that you have identified. In short, we have a lot Singaporeans telling us what we need to do but very few who are willing to roll up their sleeves and help us to do it.

Democracy and opposition parties is not a spectator sport. Singaporeans must realize that opposition parties are an integral part of the people and are only as effective as the amount of blood, sweat and tears regular citizens are willing to put into them. Without your active involvement and participation, not just support during elections which the PAP can easily neutralize, a free and fair election system cannot exist.

We have said this many times before: the people who are currently serving the SDP have sacrificed much. We are stretched to the limit. We acknowledge that much more can be done and should be done. But without the hands and legs from those of you who care about freedom in Singapore, the noblest and most effective ideas will never become reality.

So please, come and get involved and put your good ideas to work.

13 March 2004

Hi SDP,

I am a regular surfer of several forums and despite the fact that the death penalty report by AI was quickly shuffled away by the PAP, the issue is still alive and kicking. The following thread in Sg Forums,http://www.sgforums.com/?action=thread_display&thread_id=67027 is only one of many such threads which decry this shambolic reputation of Singapore.

But the people can only cry out and rant without any kind of power. I agree that the Opposition has been emasculated by the regime but I still sincerely wish that some kind of action, however symbolic, can be taken.

We need not confront the PAP blindly but use ingenious means of dissent like putting up parodies of the gallows in strategic areas of Singapore like Orchard Road. Even a petition however worthless in the Singapore context can be powerful in a purely symbolic sense.

I still remember the signature campaign by Think Center in the Iraq War fracas last year, as these actions aggregate, they can snowball into a consciousness in the electorate which no amount of NSS bribery or pork barrel politics can overturn.

Please act now Dr Chee. Thank you.

FRANCIS C. SILVA

The Singapore Democrats urge all Singaporeans to sign the petition at http://gopetition.com/online/3642.html

13 March 2004

Dear Dr Chee,

With the recent elections happening around the region in Malaysia, Indonesia, Thailand and Philipines, personally I think its a good time for Singapore to have our elections now! 'Cos with a lot of happenings nowadays (SIA union, HDB windows, GST, ERS, NSS, SARS, unemployment, low birth rate, etc), it's a good time for SDP and opposition to raise these issues and represent the voice of suffering Singaporeans.

I suggest SDP should speak out more in the media, which rarely given by the media, and "bond" more with the people on the grounds. SDP politicians should also speak out their views and let people know that they care about the people and democracy in Singapore.

All the best!

ET

5 March 2004

CNA reported on 26 February 2004 that "The Government also made public a note from NTUCs Secretary-General Lim Boon Heng on how he sees SIA's troubled labour relations."

Until now the reporters still don't want to tell the whole world that that Lim dude, who is head of NTUC, is also part-time in the SIA management [SIA's Board of Directors]! In other words, NTUC = SIA management if this dude is around!

The report also said: "The airline pilots' union is not affliated to the NTUC, so Mr Lim took pains to explain the approach taken by NTUC unions - stressing that the key is fair play and mutual trust."

Fair play = NTUC chief sitting on SIA management which makes all SIA staff unhappy & low morale?

"In his note, Mr Lim wrote that the best help that the unions can give a worker is to get him a job."

Of course! By paying him peanuts & then charge him WORLD CLASS fees! Coz SIA management = NTUC Chief = PMO minister!

"NTUC, he said, does not seek gains for workers by confrontation."

That shows why workers have no rights in this land!

"As for the airlines management, he said while he did not want to micro-manage the issues, he noted that SIA's medical benefits were unsustainable and did not follow the Governments co-payment guidelines."

WORLD CLASS medical fees imposed by papayas mah - due to high land costs etc.

"SIA's management says it will make its position known in due course."

Come on, lah, media. SIA management = NTUC chief, why not come clean in the first place!

ANONYMOUS

30 January 2004

Dear SDP,

When I first heard the report by Amnesty International on Singapore having the highest execution rate in the world, I was totally appalled.

As a Singaporean, I am ashamed to be associated with a Government that hypocritically prides itself as a developed regime, boasting of this and that economic achievement but yet operating at a primitive and barbaric level in terms of punitive legal action. Like most 20-something Singaporeans, I have gradually become disillusioned with the PAP regime and feel an extreme frustration at their ability to perpetuate power while at the same time offering chimeras of democracy. But like many my age, the ballot has been forcibly removed from our hands through the gerrymandering machinations of the ruling regime.

As the villified Opposition which time and again operate with the entire repressive Government and legal machinery against you, I understand the constraints faced by you. But yet, let me encourage you not to lose hope, especially in today's world that relies on the Internet. Me and my friends have been empowered by the information fed through the Net and have come to a political awareness that change is necessary. I hereby urge the SDP to make use of the opportunity availed by the Amnesty report to challenge the Government and force a change in policy now.

The silent majority is with you and we cannot always wait every four years before we see the Opposition in action. Winning the hearts and minds of Singaporeans has to begin now and the death penalty issue is one such opportunity. I call upon Dr Chee, the Defender of Democracy, to lead this charge, set up an e-petition and through this mobilisation of numbers, show the Government that they cannot trod all over the people of Singapore when it is not an election year and subsequently bribe us with money and shares when balloting comes round.

The masses await the catalyst. I sincerely hope that Dr Chee will heed this call and make a stronger stand on this issue. Thank you.

JOSEPH LIM

30 January 2004

Hi Democrats,

I quite surprise to read Dr Chee comments on our death penalty in Lianhe Zaobao. After ten years of hard work, Dr Chee and party finally see some light under the tunnel, but i hope/believe it's not the train coming... t's true that our media is now going to open up, though it's still far from what we need.

Bravo, SDP!

But I hope SDP can be more focus in which constituency to be your targeted area. Frankly speaking, I don't think SDP can win any seat either in single seat or GRC in the next election. But I believe SDP will be do much better after next. As long as SDP is on the right track, I believe you will achieve what you want, one day.

FYI, I'm the active member of another opposition camp, so I'm not those only talk the walk instead of walk the talk. Thanks.

WX

18 November 2003

I wasn't quite sure if I should send this long tedious essay. But my personal experiences during my military service days stirred me to great compassion for the soldiers who died in the most indignant manner. If nothing else, I would like to dedicate this modest article to the deceased, and to those who still believe in democracy.

In a true democracy, a national scandal involving cover-ups and loss of lives will always subsequently lead to the downfall of some prominent office holder of high position, such as a minister. The rationale is simple. Failure to take necessary actions against an incompetent incumbent will jeopardise the re-election bid of the incumbent political party in the next election. The voters have the power, and they are at liberty to exercise their democratic duty to determine the leaders of their choice so to safeguard the future of their country.

In PAP's self-professed democratic Singapore, however, the situation is much duller. We see innocent young lives flagrantly squandered through a series of medical misdiagnoses and military maltreatments of our soldiers. However, the government will do nothing more than to repeat the same tried line "It will not happen again".

The trouble is, it had happened, and it has been happening for decades. I was in the army during the 80's, and these "accidents" were common phenomenon. But the PAP government remained intact, and the office-holders responsible then had since been largely promoted and distributed to the various government-owned companies. A handful had also become ministers.

And even while the families of the victims of injustice are grieving, PAP conducts its media blitz "humanising" the present DPM Lee Hsien Loong (Ever notice that since the fateful "Slapping-Joke" speech by PM Goh, Lee Jr. now wears an artificial smile on every newspaper photo), promoting him to be the next PM under the smug assumption that the party will be retuned to power. Status quo they say. "Life must go on" we are assured.

Sure, but what kind of life?

From the all-evidence-indicating suicidal plunge of flight MI185 to the multi-million-money-pit fiasco of the Suzhou Industrial Park, the Government of PAP persists in concealing and denying the truth.

From the recent freak SARS-leak (it might well have been the extremely infectious West Nile virus, or some other abominations!) to the recent NEL-EZLink controversies, the government had refused to take concrete responsibility over its mistakes.

And from its shameful unconditional support of the UN-rejected US war on Iraq (and now against its innocents) to its single-minded legislation permitting the destruction of experimental embryos (life!) of less than 14 days old, this government makes no apology for its immoral disposition.

No sane and self-respecting individual would say they identify with those nonsense, the economic mess notwithstanding. I don't.

The PAP government has long overstayed its welcome and usefulness. It is imperative that all voters regain their constitutional rights in the next election. Singaporeans must now transcend their own fear and prejudice, and seize the opportunity to restore justice and democracy to this once promising nation. All the threats, inducements, and promises by the incumbent (PAP) means very little when life is treated with contempt. Singaporeans must now clear the shroud from their eyes, and decide once and for all the kind of life they would like to live, and then take hold of their right to live it.

LAW SIN LING

17 November 2003

Dear Dr Chee,

As a typical Singaporean I am always intrigued by pornography, perhaps because we have been oppressed so much politically and sexually! So when I received your last email that had a link to your old website with pornography on it, naturally, I had to take a look.

In any case, don't be so agitated about the pornography - if you ask me it reflects worse on the PAP that they can complacently stand by and do nothing while being the highest paid in the world. A correction: they make laws that infringe on our privacy and basic human rights and lamely try to cover it up as an act that is necessary to the security of our nation. Surely anyone with half a brain would be laughing their butts together with us!

Unfortunately, due to our lousy educational system that spawns clones with no brains to think for themselves, we are stuck with youths who even dare challenge you publicly after making laughable statements such as "I don't think Singaporeans are ready for a democracy".

These youths may be applauded and championed by our equally useless and ball-carrying media, but instead of getting all uptight we need to see the real problem behind such thinking. Horror of horrors! A crack in the fabric reveals to us exactly how ignorant and brainwashed our youth are! (And they're becoming just as complacent as someone I can think of who can't seem to admit his mistakes, or accept anybody else's views.)

In any case, kudos to you for your patience, I am sure even Job would take his hat off you. Soldier on with my support.

JANICE

31 October 2003

This is just a quick email to say that I think you are doing a good job and that I hope you do well in the next elections. I know it must be an uphill struggle as an opposition party in Singapore, but I fully support your ideas and strength in pushing them through. I have not lived in Singapore since 1997 and am currently based in the UK. I have spent only a few weeks a year in Singapore visiting my family, but bought a copy of The New Democrat two days ago and this is the first I have heard of an opposition vocalising itself, what more with ideas that I have been harbouring for years, that I have only managed to throw across at Singaporean friends in "coffee-shop discussion" the little time I now spend in Singapore each year. Unfortunately, I do not have citizenship in Singapore (despite being born here and having spent the first 17 years of my life living here and being educated here!!! Another one of my issues with this country...), or else I would vote for the SDP in a flash. Keep up the good work.

SABRINA

31 October 2003

Dear Warriors,

My heart bleeds when most Singaporeans think only about money and are so scared that they only keep quiet. As a young Singaporean, 25, I feel that life can be so meaningless living here in Singapore. But this is my home, but we can never voice out to our super power government PAP as they keep changing for their own needs and benefits. I am angry that there is nothing we can do! The grandmother is right, the government is driving us all mad and making some kill ourselves.

It has been a real misery to grow up and learning to live life here. Everything is so expensive, while salary is so low. If you are a young grad from poly, you only about $1500 (probably less now!), then you have to pay CPF, tax, etc. Also pay your transportation (all public transport should be free! We paid for it already!).

If you want to start a family, you have to buy from HDB, and from then on, you owe them and you have to work like a dog to pay your mortgage for the next 20-30 years. At the end of the day, all the money that you work so hard for goes to the government! I think we are slaves to the government, there is no freedom with our lives...everything belongs to the government.

The government can be so ridiculous. They encourage people to get married young (how can they do that when they earn so little?!), encourage people to give birth to more children (in such an unfair and expensive country?), encourage people to take care of their parents (when public housing is so small, and expensive; 2 children, 2 old parents, a couple = 6 people?! New HDB is getting smaller and more expensive!)

i think we should all plan to die young rather than plan for retirement, because it is very difficult to save and never be rich...(it is already hard to live a little more comfortably).

This country is run by people who want to suck all of us dry! We are not citizens, we are the slaves of Singapore.

A bleeding heart and a dying soul...

CLAIRE

20 October 2003

I am writing this mail in hope that it can be routed to Dr Chee. I just wish to express my respect for him and the party and for the cause which you are fighting against.

I may be a mere civilian but having gone through the past years of finally realizing the hood that our "beloved" government has place upon our eyes, looking at the people of Singapore going from poor to poorer, I am truly sadden by such sights.

I just hope that Dr Chee knows that he is not alone in this. He's sacrificed for the freedom of Singapore has truly touched myself and I hope and pray that he will be blessed with the strength of a thousand to fight on.

I for one know that I will never vote for our "beloved" garmen, (pardon my singlish) and will always despise them. I hope one day Dr Chee will be able to enjoy the fruits of his labour.

Do pardon my sudden mail to you but it is a heartfelt emotion that I am expressing. Once again, thank you Dr Chee and party for the sacrifice you've made for our rights. Kudos to you!

PEN

20 October 2003

I say Singaporeans are unimaginative Followers and Permission seekers:
Proof:

1) On Singapore roads, only after an explicit sign allowing U-turns may one perform a U-turn at a junction.

2) The Focus of Army and BMT in Singapore seems to be on "Asking permission", high emphasis on military strength.

3) An unforgiving 'survival of the fittest', 'master-slave' - elitist society with widening income disparity, worsening jobless rates- a society unaccepting of the Depressed (see recent news) and having a rate of one suicide in Singapore occurring daily.

4) An unforgiving 1st world economy with a 3rd world mentality accepting of the death penalty.

5) Last election >65.5% of constituencies were declared instant PAP walk
over victories, thanks to very late disclosure of constituency boundaries
and newly-introduced 6-member GRC (PAP-policies). PAP is exceeding well
represented in the "world's best paid cabinet", too homogenously PAP
represented for much liberal debate to occur in parliament.

6) Very strict and authoritarian censorship laws and the limiting of much press and political freedom.

7) A 'democratically' elected PM Goh Chok Tong who proclaimed to the BBC on 5Sept03: "I think Singaporeans are entrepreneurial. You see, they can be very free in their economic activities and many are not really interested in the so-called human rights or free speech."

WHY 'Followers' cannot survive the globalized economy:

1) This is the era of the individual and for the individual, since technology has certainly made the world a smaller place to the knowledgeble individual (with the common availability of phones, travel and the Internet). Technology and globalization, like the race to invent new weapons, will be almost uncontrollable. Thus the child of today MUST certainly be taught to be the Wise and Farsighted resident in the 'everything-is-possible' world of tomorrow. Misguided children will only lead to tragic outcomes tomorrow so good moral education is indeed and important priority.

2) Most modern day crimes reported include: money laundering, drug trafficking, suicide bombing, corruption etc these are all crimes/ threats mostly instigated by individuals or small groups. It takes an individual to catch another individual, big, expensive guns and warships, and the "follow what the leader says" mentality will definitely not be the solution to many modern day problems and crimes. It is said that democracies have never waged war on each other (maybe the speaker ment immature democracies and there is also the problem of classifying and rating a democracy), so now that war is not so imminent, shouldn't we spare MUCH more time on peace efforts? Security is NOTHING without Peace so shouldn't we logically spend more supporting UN efforts rather then on military spending? Note: Security can only bring about a tense and temporary peace as seen in the Israeli-Palestinian/China-Taiwan conflict, so shouldn't we focus on achieving lasting peace through education and establishment of true democracies throughout the world?

3) In Singapore, PAP leaders seem to achieve parliamentary representation easily with >65.5% of MPs walking over elections without a rally. U call this an informed mandate of the people? What about the promised consultative/consensus approach? Do we have really good leaders and am I committing a crime in asking this question?

4) If leaders are not well chosen and cannot manage the local economy well, then the 'follower' kind of citizen will easily find himself become a misfit in the new economy and quickly become a dependent of the state.

5) Motivation and interest are integral qualities of the modern worker, a 'follower' - being not one associated with strong personality nor the quality of initiative will NOT survive long using 'old-methods' in the competitive new world economy. Afterall, Singaporeans have always been old that they ONLY need PAP, the MOST credible govt, so its PAP that the people will look to for assistance and CPF restoration. (Goh CT knows and alluded to this! (see above quote, pt.7)

6) Terrorist, foreign businessmen are people who think on their feet and have the benifit of low labour costs, can the servile-Singaporean compete?
Or will the Singaporean loose?

HOPE G

29 September 2003

Dr Chee Soon Juan,

With reference to your website, I find the topics here very interesting.

My name is Chan and I am in my mid-30s. I graduated with 2 diplomas in Electronics and Computer Science.

I used to believe in PAP's so-called democracy when I was younger. As time went by, however, I began to think otherwise.

Two years ago, I was struggling with my one-man business. My sole proprietor company was doing Audio/Visual system sales & installation to local customers. The business was not that profitable, I just managed to survive.

I was driving a 1000 cc van, to transport all my tools and equipment as I do not have a office, something like a mobile workshop. Everyday I have to worry about getting new projects and customers. So I forgot about my van insurance which had expired. However, by the time I realized was a month later and I quickly renewed it.

After few months later I scrapped the van as the CEO had ended and purchased other second hand van.

I thought that everything was fine but a year later I received a warrant of arrest letter from Traffic Police which stated that I had to surrender myself with a witness as I had been charged with driving without insurance last year.

I was shocked and stunned, so I did what I was told. I was hoping that I could explain my case to the officer-in-charge and that everything would be all right. But that was not to be.

The officer spoke to me like a mobster, he said "You don't talk to me, you talk to the judge". So I attended Court 26 in the sub-court without a lawyer.

I found out that I could't speak for myself in court without a lawyer, and I was only allowed to say " Guilty or not guity".

So I postponed the case whereupon the judge got real mad and shouted at me in court like a cowboy. He shouted: "Why don't you get a lawyer at first before the court date?" I just remained silent. At last he postponed my case for two weeks and I managed to get a lawyer which cost me about S$1000. Later I understood from my lawyer the judge was younger that me.

I was hoping this could reduce my sentence and I can't afford to lose my driving license. After two weeks , I went with my lawyer again. This time, my lawyer explained my case for about 15 minutes but I the judge didn't care. The verdict was that I was suspended for one year and fined two thousand dollars. Giving it like candy.

Early case just before me, this guy was charged with drunk driving and speeding 140 km/hour. And he got only a four-month suspension.

Then I had to retake my driving test again once one suspend for one year or more. I was totally lost. I asked myself what had I done. Only one month late to renew my insurance. I have been driving for ten years and I have not committed any traffic offense beside parking summons.

At the end of it, I had to close down my little business and look for a job. I start to wander about government promoting entrepreneurship and all the bullshit. The law is to protect us or destroy us?

So who can I tell my story to? Hope that you can publish this on the net.

CHAN

12 September 2003

Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong and his cabinet colleagues held their third and final dialogue with 1,800 community leaders at Kallang Theatre on Tuesday. Among the questions asked was whether the governments Cut Waste Panel might consider cutting ministerial salaries. Haha...good question!
Lets see how he answers: But Mr Goh said harping on this emotional issue would only distract Singaporeans from the bigger issue of economic recovery. So NO cut in his paycheck...Now he tells us not to harp on it. Trying to taichi & siam the simple question! Do we need such leaders? Other ministers then rose to defend this point. Collective leadership in supporting paycheck.

Then about 10 people said government cost too much money, should cut starting with ministers. Is not this the voice of the people? Lets see how our future PM answer: If only it were so simple, if you could solve your problem by doing that, we would have done so years ago, but you cant. So in other words, he is trying to tell you that even by cutting his pay, you folks would still have to bear the GST hikes, CPF cut, bus fare hikes, utilities hike, everything hikes coz it is not going to save much?

That is not all, that ACS guy had this to say: Dr Ng Eng Hen, Acting Manpower Minister, said: I can say this with a clear conscience because I have been in the private sector and come in to government, and I will tell you squarely in the face that youre getting a bargain for the ministers you get. What a bargain for paying TOP dollars, more expansive than Bush, Hu, Blair combined salaries?

Why do we have a cock up economy for the past few years? You pay top dollar for a rotten apple and they tell you it is a bargain?
I worked half as much and earn five times more when I was in the private sector and no one grumbled. If you like money so much, then go & be your doctor!

Show me any other system that is as efficient, as clean, as transparent and I will sit with you and we can debate it. Hey, CSJ & JBJ will sure jump at this! Does he dare to invite them? Or can the minister only debate in front of his supporters?

ANONYMOUS

12 September 2003

I refer to Huang's letter in this website dated 10 October 2002 (see below). Although written so far back, I cannot help but respond to the writer's baseless criticism of Dr Chee.

Yes, Dr Chee may be gaining fame and reputation as a law-breaking
politician, but then again, it is unfair to say that he is deliberately
trying to build up his reputation as a "fervent democratic fighter".

I admit that at that point in time when Dr Chee made the comments about Mr Goh Chok Tong and the government's misuse of $17M, I felt ashamed for the SDP and it's secretary-general himself. However, if you look deeper into the issue, how else could Dr Chee get his answers for the people? Few of us even knew anything about $17Million, and it is not surprising that Dr Chee was unable to get his facts right because of the PAP's utmost "transparency".

All right, if you won't give Dr Chee the benefit of the doubt on this one, fair enough, look at the other points. Freedom of speech. You have admitted yourself that it is restricted here. To hold an opposition rally, you need to apply for permission. From who? The PAP! Which political party in its right mind will give permission to a rival party to hold a rally?(moreover its the PAP we're talking about here) So what do you want opposition members to do?

Go to the estates and coffeeshops and shake people's hands and talk to them about political issues? Its a nice idea, but would it really be feasible? A rally would attract supporters and critics, so isn't it much better? By the way, they're illegal because the PAP says so. Not because its not right, but because the PAP says it's not right.

What we need are radical changes? I suppose you have some better
ideas that would be much more effective than what all our Opposition leaders have? Why don't you join the SDP or WP or SDA? Maybe Singapore's political scene might be changed radically. You make it sound so simple. Then why has there been no "radical changes" for the past 30 yrs? Why hasn't the opposition even risen to power to form the government ONCE after independence?

You call on Dr Chee to repent and wake up. Why don't you do so first? The opposition in Singapore are trying so hard to make it right for Singapore while people like you who understand nothing shoot your mouth off on the internet. I quote your letter, "not a liar taking issues to the streets illegally, defaming national leaders, and being arrested time and again all in the name of democracy."

How do you take to the streets legally? How do you voice out opinion about certain government members without being sued for defamation? HOW DO YOU STRIVE FOR DEMOCRACY DEMOCRATICALLY HERE IN SINGAPORE? I believe you should have some answers to that.

I take the chance to salute all Singapore's oppsition members for not being afraid to step out and make that attempt to make a difference.

DEREK

No place for Chee in Singapore
10 October 2002

I cannot help but wonder what Dr Chee is trying to prove. Dr Chee is notorious for getting into trouble with the law in his attempts to 'bring democracy to singapore'. What it seems to me and many Singaporeans is that Dr Chee is more concern about building up his own fame and reputation as being seen as a fervent democratic fighter on the pretext of bringing democracy in Singapore.

Can a politician who gets into trouble with the law time and again gain respect from the public? Or can one, who for the sake of gaining votes in the elections defame the prime minister and deceive the public by telling a downright malicious lie about a 17 billion dollars loan and apologises the next minute about it expect to gain the support of the people and get into parliament. Where is your credibility and integrity Dr Chee?

Although Dr Chee can argue that in our society, freedom of speech is restricted, (which I agree completely) and the only way he can get his message across is through illegally-held speeches and rallys, the question I have is how successful has his attempts been? What I see is a man getting into trouble with the law time and again, marring his own reputation, being on the verge of bankruptcy and yet with contributions no more than any other opposition members in the past decade in the political scene.

What we need are changes, radical changes to our country's system, not a liar taking issues to the streets illegally, defaming national leaders, and being arrested time and again all in the name of democracy. Dr Chee, perhaps you should wake up and repent of what you are and have been doing. Otherwise, Singapore has no place for you and you know that better than anyone else.

D. Huang

28 August 2003

We are a people whose sole purpose in life (recommended by PAP Government which promised a Swiss Standard of living) is to have cash, credit card, condominium, car, and country club

Singapore has become so stressful (yet unsucessful) that now:
1. there is an average of one suicide per day
2. marriages are breaking up at record levels, birth rates down to ~1.21
3. CPF must be cut to save jobs, but still there are no more jobs
4. we have an unfriendly, selfish, kiasu, kiasi, kia boh, anti-social people who watch crimes being committed in public and do nothing but watch
5. we have become a people who eagerly VOTE the PAP to gain benefits from the national fund to beautify their own residences (someone said: "Stupid people can be bought, but only fools can be bought with their OWN money."

A shroud of SADNESS has engulfed this land under the leadership of the PAP
government. The reason is because Singaporeans know nothing about ethics, morality and humanity.

We tried to break a world record by separating the Iranian twins, and the
twins lost their lives during the dangerous and bloody operation.

The point is that Singaporeans are too pragmatic and simplistic, they so often only think of the short term, about surviving today -- they leave all the rest of the thinking to the overpaid and complacent PAP government.
It is now that their quality of life has fallen so much that they discover
that they have over trusted the PAP, so much so that Singapore is now not a true democracy.

HOPE G

28 August 2003

Wait a minute. Wasn't it the PAP government's idea and policy some years back to create a high wage policy in Singapore so that we can go to a higher value-added level of the economic competition with the other low-wage countries?

Wasn't the wages in countries like China, India, and the other third world countries even lower than those currently prevailing in the respective countries? And we were doing well for a while despite that, were we not?

So why are we blaming high wages in Singapore and low wages in the third world countries for our economic woes now? No, the Government is just giving excuses to try to exonerate themselves from the woes of Singapore. Just like they were blaming our problems on each and every adverse regional and world event that had occurred.

The citizens of Singapore voted the current Government in for those policies and were fooled. Now hopefully, the people, who wield the real power, will wise up to the realities. And hopefully you will adopt a higher and more agressive profile.

TRUTHHURTSSS

23 July 2003

I applaud your latest move to give a lifeline to jobless Singaporeans by selling newsletters. I have always admired you guys from afar and hope to see more good moves like these to help the general public. May I take this chance to also suggest that you open up your office to hold some "pasar malam" where folks can trade their wares for food etc...

Another thing to note, if any of you have the chance to travel overseas, do keep a lookout for jobs suitable for Singaporeans and if possible, help some Singaporeans to get some overseas jobs thru your recommendations. I am sure these little lifelines, be it how small it is, could be helpful.

ANONYMOUS

13 July 2003

"It's not about gay rights - it's survival" screams the July 9 2003 Straits Times commentary by resident writer, Chua Mui Hoong.

It is a baffling, if not deliberate sensational and misleading headline as it provokes the question, "Does the straight really need gays to survive?"

Typical of the National Paper's style, this statement is not what it seems. Rather, the article stirs the pot, and acts as a propaganda support to our Prime Minister's statement in a TIME article/ interview entitled, "Lion in Winter". Like Mr Goh's comment in the article, Chua's commentary is a no-brainer meaning "might has well not have said it".

In her "well-researched" (depends on how you define research) article, Chua simplifies the equation for her readers and whittles everything down to bread and butter issues. She dumbs on us buzz words such as
"creative", "fusionpolis" (Is that a Straits Times creation? creative for creative sake?) to confuse and quote from books and examples to support her claims that

YES. WE NEED GAYS BECAUSE THEY ARE ESSENTIAL FOR MAINTAINING OUR BUSTLING ECONOMY.

While some gay quarters will be delighted and heartened by her vocal support for the sexually minority, her piece is in fact a stab and a regression for the progress and welfare for the Singapore gay community.

Let's go back to the strikingly obvious headline. She is telling Singaporeans (the conservative ones especially) that they don't have to worry about gays trying to fight for their rights to things such as marriage because it was never an issue of rights for them. Stated in black and white, it means Singapore gays DO NOT NEED any rights at all.

It is well-acknowledged that Singapore, under the rule of the PAP, has never been concerned with "rights". Gay rights which is a form of rights born out of the umbrella of human rights is hence, never a consideration. It is generally accepted that Singapore should worry about the economy first and foremost.

Seen in this perspective, Chua's statement is not that alarmingly shocking. Chua is merely reiterating the stance of our cabinet. If we cannot resolve the question of "human rights", I don't think we can even talk about gay rights in the first place. Her deceptive title hence hints at a country that is still years away from forming a liberal democracy.

What is wrong with not having gay rights? Some might argue. After all, we have survived and remained economically competitive without "rights". Singapore is already opening up and it takes time before people will "tolerate" gays.

This is the crux of my argument and sorest point with Chua's definition of how gay people should be treated. It is objectionable that she chooses to use the word "tolerate". By that, she implies that the best gays can do is to be "tolerated" in Singapore society. She deems them a separate entity, who because of their difference in sexual preference, has to be "tolerated" for economic advancement. Like Mr Goh, she means that if it were not for economics, we can continue to ignore gay people, their needs and welfare.

As a PR guardian of PAP, she has successfully magnified their opinions. If PAP treats Singaporeans as digits to contribute to growth, then there should be no difference to gays as well.

Because she thinks they have to be "tolerated", it inherently implies that they are not to be viewed kindly, not to be treated as moral upright citizens, regardless of their contribution to society; and always considered inferior to the straight population. If ever there was a cure for gayness converting them to becoming straight, she would be the first to say, "hey lets convert all of them back to being straight because we have been tolerating them all along."

If certain segments of Singapore are to be "tolerated", I wonder what should be the level of commitment for this group towards contributing and making a home in Singapore. What is the purpose of "Remaking Singapore" which aims to treat every citizen as equal when it sees "tolerance" for some quarters as the answer to social integration?

Chua conveniently forgets to mention that there is a huge difference between gays in Singapore and San Francisco which she mentioned in her article.

In San Francisco, the gay community is part of the city population. Gay Pride Parades are participated not by only the gay enclave but the straight population as well to celebrate diversity. Though there still exist San Franciscans who might disagree with the visibility of gays in San Francisco, the government and majority of the population has not chosen to impede the growth of a community. Gays are allowed to show their unity as a group, voice their concerns and make a difference to their city. Because they know that they can make a difference, they choose to make this their home.

This is a huge difference compared to Singapore. Our saunas and gay bars are mere economic contributors. Allowing gay people to serve in civil positions serve the same narrow interest towards economic betterment.They serve as a superficial or material need without being sincerely interested in contributing to the betterment of the welfare and needs of gay people in Singapore. If hence, this is the position that society and the government takes, then gays in Singapore will never feel at home.

The key word should be "acceptance" which has not been mentioned in any published articles by the government or journalists. Acceptance means integration into mainstream society. It means being part of the big national family. It is a positive term and not a negative inflection which "tolerance" implies.

The graciousness of a society is more than just courtesy or arts appreciation. It is about the majority respecting the existence of the minority, their views, and their involvement in the country.

A better society should not be solely concerned about achieving material prosperity; or to be comfortable with superficial peace and harmony within its citizens. It is one that accepts diversity; it is about giving people despite their differences, the ability, opportunity and channels to lead happy meaningful lives.

CHARLES TAN

13 July 2003

The most obvious reason is the suffocating presence of the GLCs. With virtually every part of Singapore's economy linked to a GLC, how can any entrepreneur hope to break the stranglehold?

Picture this. You have a great idea. You approach a GLC with your idea and show them how you can save them millions if they buy into your idea. Everybody is excited. They tell you they will be in touch. Weeks turn into months and you receive no word despite many further attempts to speak to them. Then to your horror, you read in the papers that a subsidiary of a GLC has come up with a new way to save them millions. They've stolen your idea! They figure why let an outsider make money from them.

So all your hard work goes down the drain. Don't laugh. The people to whom it has happened don't find it very funny. I know a couple of them. The moral of the story being, if you do have a bright idea don't take it to the Government.

Also, lucratic contracts awarded by one GLC will probably go to another GLC. Private companies don't have the connections to compete. We know that the situation will not change.

On the one hand the government assured us that the Economic Review Committee would not hesitate to sacrifice 'sacred cows'. In fact the Economic Review Committee expressed strong concerns about the GLCs' stranglehold on the economy. But Lee Hsien Loong immediately added that the GLCs are here to stay. So we know nothing is going to change.

So why the need for so many GLCs and their hundreds of subsidiaries? The reason is simple. Come election time, the PAP can count on getting the votes of people who work for GLCs. Fear rules these voters. Because they know which side of their bread is buttered. These votes probably account for about what, 30-40% of votes cast? Think about it. How do you begin to fight a system like that?

GREEN COUNT

20 June 2003

Today I have read and felt totally disgusted by the Land Authority to try to pull one off like this, Offering SGD$1 for a plot of Chuan Park carpark private property of 99 years.

If the land value is to go up and would have reimbursed the value of the carpark for their housing raise in prices, then does it also mean that we no longer have to pay our property taxes because the Land Authority owns the land after 99 years? We are only tenants leasing the land? Or does it mean to say that property taxes have been paid in vain for such property eyed by Land Authority? I do not understand the rationale.

LIM

20 June 2003

Dear Dr Chee,

I'm a student currently in Australia. I'm going to finish my course soon and I'm having my final exams now. Most people will say: 'Well, it's about time you came back and served in the country.'

I'm sorry but I'm not planning to go back to Singapore anytime soon, at least. (I'm applying for PR and I'll be here for a long time I'd say. Unless there's a total 'overhaul' in Singapore.) It's not that I'm not patriotic. I've told my friends countless of times over the Internet that if anyone tries to come and 'bully' Singapore (I don't think I need to spell it out more clearly, directly than this) I will take the first flight back and fight next to my fellow countrymen.

The reason why I chose to 'leave' Singapore at the moment is ever since I've come to Australia, this beautiful country has 'opened' my eyes to a lot of issues. I'm not saying Australia is a perfect place to stay in, there's a lot of crap going around too. But at least I feel more 'free' here. I can openly talk about the politicians here and I know I will not be crucified! Yes it's a very powerful word but it's how I feel!

Whenever I read online in Straits Times, I can't stop laughing at articles where politicians tell Singaporeans to Speak Up and be Creative! Just look at anyone who has really spoken against the government? Bankruptcy is only a minor issue. How the government goes about it is the scariest horror movie in the world! Who in their right minds will dare to speak up against them?

If I have political asylum to shield me from being prosecuted I'd be the first one to stand up at rallies to 'open' the Singaporean's eyes to the real world!

I understand why the government wants to prevent 'dissent' because Singapore is a small place, they can't afford to have 'disobedient' Singaporeans walking down the streets smashing things up and etc. I've gone to many peace rallies (before and during the Iraq-war) no one went berserk! Everyone was sitting there, quietly listening to the speakers, occasionally shouting slogans but that's about it! Why can the Aussies can be mature enough to do such things? How are they educated to be like this?

My next point is about creativity, with such rigid education system, who cares if Singapore students get the highest science and maths results in Asia? When I first got here, I was always overwhelmed by the locals who spoke up in front of the whole class of students whenever the lecturer asked a question.

I spoke to one of my lecturers who has taught in NUS, his comments about Singaporean students was, 'They're very nice, quiet, obedient students.' How nice! But this kind of students, how can they have the 'creativity' needed desperately currently by Singapore to rebuild the economy? The 'I Know Best' in Singapore will sort it out! But apparently, these people can't! That's why they try to 'move the blame' and demand Singaporeans to be creative? From this sort of education system?

I can't see it happening anytime in the near future. The system in Singapore punishes severely people who make the slightest mistake. Take myself for example: Like everyone else, I was told since young 'Study hard and you will be rich!'. I finished my 'O's (with a bit of luck), got admitted to Ngee Ann Polytechnic. During the six-months holidays, I did a course (from the 'study hard! learn lots of skills!' mentality) in NCC Diploma in Computer Studies. I grew to love computers (that was in 1990). Then I started Poly in July. But I've lost interest in Electrical engineering then, I did very well in my computer programming subject, Turbo Pascal. But eventually, I was kicked out of poly, because I can't pass the other subjects.

They were never the subjects I loved! Then was waiting to be enlisted. But I managed to get into Temasek Poly, this time, doing Electronic Eng! But, the same thing happened. I did very well in computer programming, but couldn't get pass the Electronic principles subject (same subject which I failed in Ngee Ann). OK I know it's not anyone's fault but my own, for not studying hard enough during my 'O's so that I can get admission into Computer Science in Ngee Ann! But does everyone see where I'm coming from?

I'm forced to do these subjects (which at that time, was the 'in-demand' subjects) which I had absolutely NO interest in! So, I ended up getting stuck with a O levels, served NS. By then, I thought, my life's stuffed! What can I do with just a 'O' level?

In 1999, I came to Australia. Then my life changed, I was given a chance! And to pursue the course I loved passionately. I'm currently doing the Bachelor of IT here. It's not a prestigious university, but the baseline is, I get to choose the subjects I want to do, which I can do best, and I've done it! Who would have expected? An O level, twice Poly dropout, a 'Goner' in Singapore, would be receiving his degree in IT?

And on top of that, I've revived my passion of studies. I'm going to work for some years, then I'll be going for my Masters degree. But maybe in Environmental studies? Or IT, I'm not sure yet. But one thing is for sure, I'm given a second chance! Sorry I'm going all over the place, but I hope whoever reads this letter can make something out of it. (Hope to see Dr Chee's replies/comments at the end.)

A few months ago, there was an article on Straits Times about the younger Singaporean's attitude towards Singapore,' I want to be proud of Singapore, But about what?' I feel the same too. Besides the foreigners' opinion of 'Singapore's a very clean country', what can I be proud of? But I'm not giving up on Singapore yet.

Although I'm not in Singapore, I love Singapore and miss her dearly. I will be back for a short holiday soon after my exams. Thanks for reading my letter. Best wishes!

ANDREU

Dear Andreu,

Over the years, I have received many letters and heard many stories such as the one you have related in your letter. Many talented Singaporeans have not been given a chance because of the rigid educational policies that the PAP has adopted.

I have discussed this subject in my books: different types of intelligence, individual differences in developmental rates, and the various test tools/classroom approaches all contribute to bringing out different performances in people.

A once-size-fits-all approach by the PAP is both outdated and unhelpful. As a result many Singaporeans such as yourself have gone overseas and made good. If you have read Singapore, My Home Too which I wrote in 1996, you will see I experienced a similar problem during my tertiary education years.

Tragically, many Singaporeans are not returning to Singapore after that education for obvious reasons. This exodus of local talent is a tremendous drain on our only resources human talent. Unfortunately the PAP adopts the attitude of good-riddance-to-bad-rubbish and embarks on the Foreign Talent Policy to replace what has been lost. At least overseas workers here in Singapore are obliged to remain quiet and obedient lest the Government ships them home.

The question is: Is this good for Singapore in the long-term? How will this affect the social fabric of our society? What happens to the identity of Singaporeans as a people? My worry is that the PAP doesnt give much thought to these questions. What matters to it most is that it remains in power and that Singaporeans remain servile digits to work hard to improve on the GDP figures.

How do we solve this problem? Singaporeans must make that sacrifice to come back work for democracy where we the people can take back control of the public process and stop the PAP from hijacking it. There is no short cut and there is no painless remedy.

I realize that the obstacles are enormous and the goal seems unobtainable. But thats how the PAP wants us to feel and if we believe this, we are doomed even before we start. If everybody stayed away until things changed we will all be staying away forever. In the meantime we have to think of what to tell our children when they ask why we didnt speak up when we had the chance.

Let us have some faith and courage for freedom and democracy demand no less from its servants.

Chee Soon Juan

20 June 2003

Ever since I had broadband Internet, I saw you website and started seriously to read the contents. Your website portrays a very negative side of our PAP government. While I dont really mind it, I suppose its kind of healthy since our 2 state-owned media companies, constantly portray our leaders in a good manner, your website has given me the right balance of my political view of our government.

I couldn't agree more with your party's stance on democratic and human rights issues in S'pore.
I'm writing to you not to discuss all these, at least for now. Instead, I have a question: the party portrays itself as a liberal party. Define for me the kind of liberal party you are. Are you all the same kind of liberal democrats as many (not all though) of those in the United States who want to impose gun-control in the name of fighting crime?

Are you all the same as those liberals who are environmental extremist, and those who want to impose a welfare state? I hope not, because I strongly believe that every law-abiding citizens in the United States should have the right to keep and bear arms according to the 2nd Amendment in their constitution passed down by their founding fathers.

I share the same belief as their forefathers that the only way to protect the civil liberties as guaranteed in the 1st Amendment, is to arm the citizens so they may protect themselves against oppressive leaders. Do you believe tat kind of cause? Or are all the same kind of those liberals as I describe earlier?

LIBERTY LOVING SINGAPOREAN BOY

SDP: The Singapore Democrats clearly spell out its policies in its various publications as well as on this website. Based on these policies, readers make up their own minds about what kind of party the SDP is. The SDP feels that it is more helpful to understand policies that various parties advocate and, more importantly, that these policies are debated and that citizens have a say in shaping these policies (and the policy-making process) before they are implemented.

As for gun laws in the United States, they are best debated and decided by Americans who understand their own political and historical culture better than anyone else.

17 June 2003

Dear Dr. Chee,

I fully commend your efforts and perserverance in attempting to educate the Singapore public.

I feel that our current government is simply not transparent enough. People are trading their freedom for that bit of security, and when it boils down to it, what sort of security do we really have? Certainly not in education, or the workforce, or even medical security. The state controls our economy so tightly, yet provides so poorly for its citizens.

We are encouraged to be entrepreneurs and to think creatively, but the education system in Singapore is structured so that children are not taught to think for themselves. They go to school, absorb the texts and are not encouraged to critically analyze what they study. To me, this foundation forms the core of the typically obedient, unchallenging, perhaps even clueless Singaporean.

I would be laughing all the way to the bank If I had a dime for every time I heard a parent tell his child "You must study hard so next time you can be rich". We are taught that aspiring to own private housing and transport is a luxury, and I find this truly laughable. I am far from communist, but I believe that every society should be egalitarian, and I would like to see income disparity reduced.

I also find it disgraceful that many fast food restaurants exploit the aged and the very young at starting salaries of three dollars per hour, a percentage of which is further deducted for CPF. Where is the fairness in that? To be honest, working at a fast food joint is not beneath me. What is beneath me, is the sort of pay that you get.

I imagine foreign construction workers are not paid much more. If a minimum policy wage of ten dollars per hour was in effect, I would surmise that Singapore's unemployment rate would be drastically reduced. Exploitation is just as despicable whether directed towards my fellow Singaporeans or to foreign talent. My secondary school toilet cleaner was a Masters degree holder from India. I feel that if you want to hire foreign talent, make sure they are able to hold decent positions with decent pay. But before you do that, think of what's closer to home first.

Recently I read a publication by SDP quoting one of our ministers as saying that the reason why they are paid such high salaries is to prevent them from leaving for jobs in the private sector. I've always felt that politics was a passion, not a job, and if our ministers are mercenary enough to want to leave the public sector for a cushy private job, by all means, let them. That sort of reasoning is simply no justification for our ministers being the highest paid in the world.

I know from personal experience that our public health system is inadequate. Many medications are not provided to patients who need it because their condition isn't "severe enough", because it is "too expensive". This I was told point blank by a dermatologist at the National Skin Centre. I paid to see a private dermatologist, and was cured in a month, what our national health system could not afford to do in the two years that I sought treatment from them.

Another point that riles me is the way our government invests millions in our military, spending good tax payers' money to conscript our male youth in the army. This is downright patriarchal, as males subsequently get paid more than their female counterparts because they have the "experience". Why are women not trained? I do not mean that they should be put through the same physical training as the men; I would like to see an implementation of National Service for women, training them in useful courses like Nursing. Lord knows, we could certainly benefit from that right now.

That there is no freedom of speech in Singapore is downright pathetic. We are thwarted at every attempt to assert our opinions. What I want to know is, why the Singapore government is so afraid of what we have to say. Laws should be made to protect the people from the institution, not the other way around. Why do we not have an independent judiciary?

There is no mild way of putting it, we are oppressed. So much so that we dare not sign our real names in these letters to you, much less speak up in public. Fear of prosecution. I would not be surprised if our IP addresses were monitored on your site. As far as I know there is no privacy act in Singapore, and this fear is well justified, seeing as how the government has already authorised the hacking of hundreds of thousands of singaporeans' computers once in 1996 and once in 1999.

I am not revolutionary, and I know that things can't change overnight. I think the PAP has made some praiseworthy policies, but many bad ones too. The least they can do is allow constructive criticism. Until then, the SDP has my support, for I believe that if enough of us Singaporeans support the SDP, the government will sit up and take more notice of just how disatisfied the majority of us are. Those who are not are either too wealthy or uneducated to care.

Please keep up the good work. You offer at least a little spark of hope in this oppressive space.

JANICE

9 June 2003

Singapore has rushed along to support the USA's iraq adventure. Now it appears that USA's intelligence failure has again put the country in a spot as there are no WMDs discovered in Iraq. USA's original arugment in the Iraq fiasco was that Saddam had secret WMD programmes but now it seems that all the intelligence estimates pointing to Saddam's goal to have the Bomb have somehow been exaggerated or even doctored. Where does that leave Singapore now? Are we now accomplices in a truly unjust war?

WILLIAM

25 March 2003

I am deeply amused by the government's efforts to promote entrepreneurship. The government's claim that they always plan for contigencies to justify their world class salaries is now being tested. They are indeed clueless as to the next phase of development and have coined another catch phrase entrepreneurship. They are assuming that everyone will make it as entrepreneurs without due regard to the costs of failure. You just have to look at the bankruptcy act and it's applications and it is of no surprise to see so many bankrupts being destroyed by the OA policies. The opposition must raise the issue through parliament and expose the fallacy.

ANONYMOUS

28 February 2003

Dear Democrats,

I am a young Singaporean studying in Australia. The experience of studying overseas has definitely opened my eyes and brought new perspectives into my life.

Even though I'm not that politically inclined (I'm a business student), I certainly appreciate the good, the bad, and the ugly while living in a world of democracy.

Like many people have pointed out, calling oneself democratic does not necessarily mean one is a 'soundly governed' country. My Taiwanese friends tell me Singapore is clean, safe, modern and so on. Definitely, the ugly side of Singapore is well concealed.

Like Singapore, the Aussie government also faces many problems especially over the Iraq issue. However it is the way that they show how decisions are made that's commendable.

People here are open to protests, they allow free speech. No one party has absolute power over others. Parties have debates, criticisms and many issues are openly aired to the public through live radio and other media. Nothing apparently is hidden far away from anybody.

And I have also seen many problems solved due to listening to people when peaceful protests were held. In short, all politicians can be slammed when bad policies were made, while being praised when sound policies were implemented (of course, it takes alot to get praised, especially politicians).

Both Mr John Howard and Opposition leader Mr Simon Crean get bashed by the public on national TV very often when people were not very convinced about their action and words! I can see the 'power to the people' theory over here, which is so fundamental in the notion of democracy.

As I have said earlier, it is apparent to me that Aussie politicians do not fully take decisions in their own ways and try to fabricate details as if decisions were the people's wishes. I don't have to repeat what others have said about Singapore being a nanny state for the past 40 odd years. It doesnt take a political scientist to see this. People can sense it themselves.

My only wish for my beloved countrymen is that those who consider our country still a 'pretty nice country' to live in (assuming that you are an obedient citizen), people would grow to be more receptive to changes and be more willing to voice out their concerns.

Like what I always study in business, what I think is most important is that people must be at least concerned about the existing situation, for anything else to happen. That's the reason why I'm typing this letter now, just right after my exams!

I'm concerned about the future of Singapore even though I am a few thousand miles away from all of you. It is also my wish to stay in contact with you guys, to discuss our interests.

All the best in what all of you wish to achieve.

Kumgia

3 January 2003

The politically bankrupt PAP is struggling feverishly to salvage its lopsided economic policies that are increasingly defying any solution.

With a view to continue its archaic economic policies that showed results in the past, the PAP is bent on not wanting to change course for fear of losing the power it had come to enjoy over the last 43 years of its authoritarian rule.

The PAP's inability to extricate the country from the present chronic economic recession and burgeoning unemployment is taking a heavy toll on the hapless people.

But instead of alleviating the sufferings of the people, the exploitative PAP is resorting to propaganda gimmicks to distract Singaporeans who are increasingly becoming despondent.

The latest move to 'attract talent' through newspaper and magazine advertisements in London and the US is part of its futile attempt to sidetrack the real issues.

Before it takes its propaganda ploy of offering 'a world of possibilities' in Singapore for foreigners by these advertisements, the PAP should ponder over the plight of Singaporeans who are burdened with increased cost of living and an uncertain job market.

How to woo the 'best brains in the world' to Singapore where its own people are squeezed to the hilt by the PAP elitists who don't believe in creativity and innovation?

PLEBEIAN

27 December 2002

Intended readership: The general public who are not aware of their loss of freedom or are afraid to vote their will.

If you seriously believe that the current state of Singapore is democratic, you either have a bad vocabulary or you've finally been tricked by all the propaganda that's going on.

The entry "democracy" in the Webster's unabridged dictionary explains: "Government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is retained and directly exercised by the people."

Considering the fact that Singapore has endless number of restrictions to political activities, a hyperactive ISD and the fear among us fellow Singaporeans, the propaganda of Singapore being democratic is merely a tool to maintain the PAP's tight grip over you.

The Japanese did this long ago by sealing the radios of citizens. PAP is now doing this by mandating Internet service providers install Internet proxy servers (electronic internet barriers) which blocks out unsuitable content.

Will political content ever get blocked out? Will the government use these proxy servers to track what people's views online, with the potential use of changing the web content seen by Singaporeans?

It seems that PAP's propaganda of a democratic society will go on with millions of Singaporeans not realizing how far this has reached.

Have you ever wondered, with local television programs becoming more prevalent, how this would affect the population especially our young? How will some of these programs intended for children affect them? Have you ever pondered that whenever you switch on the television for your children to enjoy, that television is essentially a tool used by advertisers? How about the PAP? Does National Education ring a bell?

Singaporeans have a subconcious fear of the Government, for they, like hypnotized zombies, vote for the PAP election after election, and believing every word the PAP says. In their minds, the phrase "if you don't vote pap, something bad happens to you, your family..." never ceases to exist.

If you're a "stayer", you must fight (or at least vote...) for the best for your country. If not, you'll probably see this country of ours being constantly pressed down with rules which strips the people of their freedom to vote, voice their concerns and suggestions, and get politically involved.

It is clear that PAP wants control. But the questions remain: What is the main reason behind this? Why is it so bent on maintaining this control?

The truth may be more frightening than what the people think.

ANONYMOUS

27 December 2002

Dear Democrats,

I just want to wish you all the best in what you are doing and going to do for this country. You are indeed THE alternative political party in this state with your wide array of issues and solutions.

Keep up the good work!!

FREEDOM ADVOCATOR

13 December 2002

According to this article (below) by the Agence France Presse, Moody Investors Service "downgraded its outlook for Singapore port operator PSA
Corp. from stable to negative late Tuesday, Dec 3, reflecting concerns
about increased competition and the poor global trading environment".

Singapore government-run PSA is obviously unable to compete with tougher competition from the Port of Tanjung Pelepas in neighboring Malaysia. Tanjung Pelapas recently snared two of its biggest clients over the past two years - Danish line Maersk and Taiwan's Evergreen Marine Corp, the AFP article noted.

The article also noted how lower cargo volumes due to the global economic slowdown could also effect earnings of the PSA.

The PSA is owned by Temasek Holdings, a wholly owned and funded Singapore government company. Temasek Holdings is headed by Ms Ho Ching, the wife of DPM Lee Hsien Loong and daughter-in-law of Lee Kuan Yew. Temasek Holdings is funded by public monies from the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) headed by her husband Lee Hsien Loong.

Read the AFP article below.

INFOGIRL

Moody's downgrades outlook for PSA Corp. to negative
Agence France Presse
December 4, 2002
SINGAPORE
http://www.singapore-window.org/sw02/021204a3.htm

MOODY's Investors Service downgraded its outlook for Singapore port
operator PSA Corp. from stable to negative late Tuesday, Dec 3,
reflecting concerns about increased competition and the poor global
trading environment.

However, Moody's affirmed PSA's "Aa1" long-term senior unsecured
foreign currency debt rating.

"The outlook change is prompted by pressure on PSA's operating margins
due to increasing competition and a poorer operating environment," the
credit risk evaluator said in a statement.

"Moody's is particularly concerned with the pressure facing shipping
companies with their focus on costs as well as competition from
neighboring ports (which) will impose increasing pressure on PSA's
operating margin.

"In addition, the port operations are also vulnerable to the overall
global trading environment."

State-run PSA is facing tougher competition from the Port of Tanjung
Pelepas in neighboring Malaysia which has snared two of its biggest
clients over the past two years -- Danish line Maersk and Taiwan's
Evergreen Marine Corp.

Lower cargo volumes due to the global economic slowdown could also
effect earnings.

But despite the growing pressures and the recent shutdown of US west
coast ports, PSA said last month it was on track to achieve its goal
of handling 17 million twenty-foot equivalent units (TEUs) at its
Singapore operations by the end of this year.

Moody's said it decided to affirm PSA's Aa1 rating to reflect its
belief that the Singapore firm "remains a global leader in container
transshipment services in view of its strategic location and its size
and efficiencies."

Moody's also said it considered the rising revenue contributions of
PSA's overseas investments when producing its ratings.

PSA said last month its total throughput rose 28 percent on the year
to 2.18 million TEUs.

Its overseas terminals handled 760,000 TEUs in October, up 122
percent.

4 December 2002

Our own CPF-funded, government controlled business like Temasek Holdings (SIA, SingTel, DBS, PSA, CRG etc) and Government Investment Corporation (GIC) proudly boast of their exploits overseas - but how much of their success comes back home?

All these organisations are funded big-time by our hard-earned CPF savings. Yet in times of adversity, we are left to our own devices to fend off poverty.

According to a article in SmartInvestor.com (www.smartinvestor.com.sg/livingconcepts.asp?LivConId=143), the Singapore government appears to be spending big time overseas. In South Korea alone, our very rich government has invested a large part of an estimated US$10 billion.

How have these investments benefitted us? Temasek Holdings has existed since the mid-1970s while Lee Kuan Yew's GIC just celebrated its 20th anniversary. How long do we have to wait to get returns on our CPF earnings? If these companies are doing so well, why does the government demand more and more stringency measures from us while they continue to live their million dollar lifestyles?

INFOGIRL

22 November 2002

Dear SDP

I'm sorry, yet not so sorry, for Dr Chee and Mr Gandhi having to do time in prison.

Sorry, because as a Singaporean who knows in his heart that 2 of his fellow countrymen have just been denied natural justice, I can do nothing more than stand back and watch the episode unfold.

But yet, there is no need to feel sorry, because these 2 gentlemen's courage and determination have led the way in the struggle for democracy and for the rights of the people. Instead of feeling sorry, we should feel a sense of pride and admiration for them!

I pray that time will accord Dr Chee and Mr Gandhi their rightful place in Singapore's history.

TY

22 November 2002

Hi,

All my support for the battle for the freedom of speech to all citizens in Singapore! I will pass the message about the 'nice' democracy in Singapore, where not everybvody is allowed to speak...

STEPHEN DELVOYE
Vice-President Jong VLD Belgium
President Jong VLD Brussels

22 November 2002

Dear Dr Chee,

It is heartening to find one activist for democracy campaigning hard for
the application of the democratic principles as enshrined in the
Constitution of the Republic of Singapore. However, the PAP government's
tight hold over the people of Singapore shall make it hard for any other
political party to be able to challenge the PAP to a direct meritocratic
battle of the best.

I propose that the SDP set up kindergartens aimed at inculcating the
principles of democracy into children from young. This should ensure
that the future leaders of Singapore would be aware of the acute
importance of democracy for Singapore. I note that the PAP has set-up
many kindergartens in Singapore. I attended one of the kindergartens
when I was young, and I must admit, though the teachers there do not do
anything to mention the PAP, the logo and all that had a psychological
effect on me. I was all for the PAP until I discovered their sleight of
hand ways.

I must admit that I felt foolish then. I have since been an advocate for
the liberal values in Singapore. I regularly show my friends articles
which are not published by the media of Singapore. That really opened
their scope of view.

Finally, I wish to thank you for being a symbol of Democracy in
Singapore. I sincerely hope that your struggle will not be in vain.

GAN

SDP: The cost of setting up kindergartens in Singapore is prohibitively high unless, of course, you are the PAP, in which case you can "rent" space from the HDB in void decks to run the schools.

But the idea of teaching democracy to students is a good one, although starting with pre-schoolers might be a bit too early. Many top universities in the U.S. have human rights departments which offer courses on the subject. Democracy and other political systems are even taught at the high school level in some countries.

It is important to inculcate the values of freedom, tolerance, respect for others, transparency, accountability - all values of democracy and human rights in citizens. Schools would be a good place to start.

7 November 2002

I would like to respond to the forum about Singapore ranking fifty in the best cities of the world.

The author annouce that Singapore is nowhere near the top best cities. Kindly take a look at the following...

1. Vancouver, Canada
3. Perth, Australia
4. (tie) Vienna, Austria
4. Toronto, Canada
4. Geneva, Switzerland
4. Zurich, Switzerland
8. (tie) Adelaide, Australia
8. Brisbane, Australia
8. Sydney,Australia
8. Copenhagen, Denmark
8. Dusseldorf, Germany
8. Frankfurt, Germany
8. Oslo, Norway
8. Montreal, Canada
16. (tie) Calgary, Canada
16. Helsinki, Finland
16. Stockholm, Sweden
19. (tie) Berlin, Germany
19. Amsterdam, Netherlands
21. (tie) Tokyo, Japan
21. Osaka, Japan

As you can see, the top best cities belong in countries which are reowned for their serenic beauty.

This are places where tourist hop on for their sight-seeings. The climate is cool and very ideal for living in. Compare Singapore's climate and natural attractions to theirs. Well, we all know that Singapore pales in comparison.

HOWEVER!!! Despite the fact over our disadvantageous position, the fact that Singapore manages to tide over her shortcomings and ranks fifty in the world( IF that is true...) is a miraculous achievement!!! The fact, that the govt. used the art of education and technology to make life for Singaporeans as every bit as interesting and convenient as those advanced countries is unimaginable, and a rare accomplishment.

The writer states that the Singaporeans do not live the same standard of living as those advance countries is absurd. I dare to challenge the author of saying that life here in Singapore is suffering.

MRTs, LRTs, Cinemas, Sentosa, Good Road networks, Skysrapers, Restaurants, Shopping malls, and hawker centres, cars... What more, or how much more can Singaporeans asked for??? What we need is hard work, and a gd and creative govt. to accomplish all that. Our currency is higher than Japan and Hongkong and many others.

The way the writer depicts our PAP govt., is an unfair insult and complete ingratitude to our nation leaders and fore fathers who undertake untold hardships to create the Singapore of today, from the ashes of nothing.

The way the writer labels the govt, depicts it as if it is an totalitarian monarch who is incapable of leading the nation, is very unfair.

Fine...

If it is so undemocratic,how is it possible for people to cast their ballots during elections. How then are opposition leaders able to stage mass rallies during elections.

AND... How then is it possible to achieve the Singapore of today.

If it is the writer's objective of inciting public outrage by means of exaggerated bluffs, than I will go all out to oppose it.

If the writer main intent is to allow MORE room for democracy, and a MORE relaxed system of governance by the PAP, than I will go all out to support is. And I MEAN IT.

Why do opposition members get sued and prosecuted???

The paramount reason is because they are inexperienced with the art of politics. They speak faster than their brains can react. They are rash, probably too carried off by the masses fervour, and they ended up with severe penalties. Yes, politics is cruel. It's a well-knowned fact.

The main purpose of staging public rallies and speeches and getting elected is the first test for you to see if you're fit to enter the leadership career. THAT, is the true wonderful benefits of democracy. It rectify things. It test your courage, your perserverance, your eloquence, and most important, your tactfulness and cunning.

People who blare all up and getting punished at the end is not fit to be in the political career. WHY??? They had already failed their first test.

The only thing I find admirable about JBJ and Dr Chee are perserverance and the never say die spirit. Unfortunately, their empty bravado is going to get them nowhere.

Remember, this is not HITLER's era, where chilvary can inspire the audience. This is Singapore, where the people here are educated and rational.

7 November 2002

November 6, 2002

Dear Distinguished Asean Delegates,

As you gather this week to discuss the present and future of Asia, we are obliged to call your attention to the imprisonment of Singapore Democratic Party leaders Chee Soon Juan and Ghandi Ambalam. The jailing of these two democratic activists by the government of Singapore is cause for great concern to Asians working to bring greater levels of democracy, human rights and economic prosperity to our region.

Chee, who is also chairman of the Alliance for Reform and Democracy in Asia, and Ambalam were arrested for failing to obtain a permit to hold a public speech during a Labour Day rally. The court cited "potential law and order problems," at the gathering of 500 people who had come to hear them speak. Before either man uttered a single word the police demanded that they leave the premises and promptly arrested them after they failed to do so immediately.

It is the duty of the government to provide for the safety of its citizens. However, a government that sacrifices freedom for security will, in the end, have neither. Chee Soon Juan and Ghandi Ambalam are victims of an overzealous and fearful government that places its need for power and control above the rights and freedoms of its people.

In the last year, the government of Singapore has arrested, fined and jailed Chee Soon Juan on repeated occasions. In August, Chee was fined for speaking without a permit, ironically enough, on Singapore's "Speaker's Corner." The fine imposed by the government banned the SDP leader from running for parliament office for five years. His sentencing in October is a further attempt to discredit and intimidate any and all opposition to the ruling People's Action Party.

The Alliance for Reform and Democracy in Asia calls for the support of ASEAN delegates in Phnom Penh in seeking the release of Chee Soon Juan and Ghandi Ambalam. It is in the interest of all Asian nations to protect and guarantee the basic freedoms of speech and assembly.

Sincerely,

Dr. Sunjaasuren Oyun
Vice Chair, Alliance for Reform and Democracy in Asia
Member of Parliament, Mongolia

Hon. Sam Rainsy
Parliamentary Opposition Leader, Cambodia

Hon. Tioulong Saumura
Member of Parliament, Cambodia

Mr. Aung Niang Oo
National Reconciliation Program, Burma

Mr. Sawar Bari
Co-Ordinator, Pattan Development Organization, Pakistan

Dr. Ken Coghill
Monash University, Australia

For more information, please visit www.asiademocracy.org

30 October 2002

Dear Dr. Chee,

I have just written to the Singaporean Minister for Justice asking for your immediate release and exoneration, and requested the Government repeal the Public Media and Entertainment Act and ISA.

I admire your commitment to the fight for human rights and hope that in some small way I have assisted in this very important cause.

Yours sincerely,
Fran McPherson

30 October 2002

Dear Dr. Chee,

I write in support of your commitment to further democratic principles in Singapore.

Urgent Appeals are being sent on your care to the Minister of Justice and local consulates, demanding for the unconstitutional Public Media and Entertainment Act to be repealed and your immediate release and exoneration.

It is outrageous that the Singaporean government continues to suppress liberties of speech and gathering that are fundamental to all humans.

Wishing you all success and deliverance of the People from all bondages.

A. Santhiapillai
Human Rights Officer
Valvuthayam
Mannar, Sri Lanka

28 October 2002

Dear Dr. Chee,

I write in support of your commitment to further democratic principles in Singapore. Urgent Appeals are being sent on your care to the Minister of Justice and local consulates, demanding for the unconstitutional Public Media and Entertainment Act to be repealed and your immediate release and exoneration. It is outrageous that the Singaporean government continues to suppress liberties of speech and gathering that are fundamental to all humans.

Sincerely yours,

Waheed Ahmad
Attorney at Law
Legal Secretary World Asian Workers Organisation
Member Human Rights Committee Lahore Bar Association
Address: 2/136- A Aman Park Baghbanpura Lahore Pakistan
Fax # 0092-42-6844293
Ph# 0092-300-4254329

25 October 2002

Dear Dr. Chee,

I write in support of your commitment to further democratic principles in Singapore.

Urgent Appeals are being sent on your care to the Minister of Justice and local consulates, demanding for the unconstitutional Public Media and Entertainment Act to be repealed and your immediate release and exoneration.

It is outrageous that the Singaporean government continues to suppress liberties of speech and gathering that are fundamental to all humans.

Dr. Muhammad Asghar
Asian Human Rights Commission

25 October 2002

Dear Fellow Democrats,

I support the Council of Asian Liberals and Democrats' resolution of the arrest, conviction and imprisonment of Dr. Chee Soon Juan.

The SRP with Sam Rainsy led a demonstration in Phnom Penh today, we marched for 2 hours in the boulevards of the city. I thought of Dr. Chee, given the terrible conditions of his detention, that I should be behind bars too had I been in Singapore.

With warmest regards,

Tioulong Saumura
Member of Parliament
Cambodia

15 October 2002

Dear Dr Chee,

I'm touched to hear that although you have a chance to pay fine, you choose jail. You don't mind losing your freedom in prison to let the outside world understand the PAP more.

Just like the weather, the political system here changed little for the past 42 years. Recently, the Eldershield was rejected by 33 percent of the population 40 years and above and that naturally reminded me of the people who voted for the oppositions during elections.

Maybe the money received from the NSS is used for paying the Eldershield. I would like to tell you that a growing number of people are beginning to do what is best for them. I read about the SIA pilots negotiating with SIA. I read about the 13 volunteers at Consumer Association quit their jobs.

People voted for the PAP in 2001, hoping that the government would lighten their loads during the recession and create more jobs for them, now they are repaid in the form of more and more price hikes.

When a person loses his job, has housing loan to pay, has a few kids to support, not only he has to cut his expenses, but at the same time has to pay all those price hikes.

Even those who get to stay on the job have to work extra hard with a wage freeze. When there's a wage freeze, where do they get the extra money to pay those government linked companies and government organisations?

R. F.

15 October 2002

Dr Chee Soon Juan:

Prison is for the real criminals, not for innocent men (and women).

When the survival of the ethnic-Singaporean race depends on the selfless sacrifice of a few able men (and women). Who will really help us, except ourselves.

When the hypocrites distort the truth, when it is necessary to tell the truth, but there are none so blind as they who will not see, a few good men who lose their time and liberty, and their lives too maybe, such honourable conduct can only be commendable.

Yours truly,
J. Huang
from FRANCE

12 October 2002

I read the sentencing of Dr Chee with utter disgust and contempt for the PAP government.

We should stages a mass demostration outside Parliament. But sad to say, most Singaporeans just could not be bothered!

LJS

12 October 2002

Chairman of Young Democrats,

We are a group of young undergraduates who are facing unrelentless
changes in our institute of higher learnings (NUS).

I have a group of about 12 students from various faculties hoping to meet up with your executives for an informal discussions.

Looking forward to your reply.

Regards.

A T

11 October 2002

Dear Dr Chee and Mr Ghandi,

I'm so sorry for the way our country is treating you, it is completely unjustified. I really feel the our country don't deserve people like you, you're too good for us.

Majority of singaporean are still ignorant of the democratic process, they are not aware of their rights, that's why they can't understand or appreciate what you are doing. I understand your intentions and I think they are very admirable. I admire all these people too (Nelson Mandela, Martin Luther King Jr, Mahatma Gandhi, and Kim Dae Jung) and what they have done for their people.

But I think there is a significant difference between your situtation and their's. They were fighting for the rights of their people who wanted their rights to vote. That's why they had the support of those people. You are fighting for the rights of the people who already have their rights to vote, but don't know how to excerise them (out of ignorant), that's why you don't have the full support of those people. What they don't know, they don't want.

Perhaps, you may consider a different approach, instead of confrontation, how about education. Educate the people about their democratic rights, the right to choose. The people always complain about these or that policy, but they don't know that they can fire those people from paliament. The people still thinks that MP & ministers are high and mightly, untouchables. They still don't realise that it's the people who select and hire and pay all the MP & Ministers. And if the people are unhappy with their performance, they can fire them.

The people still leave their thinking to the government. And of course, we know how the government wants the people to think. We have to educate the people that they are the masters of their own future.

Thanks again for your struggle for the people. Sorry again for our gnorant.

regards
CW

11 October 2002

I refer to the Strait Times's article of Sept 27: JI members: Not poor, not stupid, not marginalised.

I say this to the PAP Government of Singapore: Give them a fair trial in open court.

Before this article was published the PAP Government and the Straits Times have already labelled these detainees as "terrorists", claiming that evidence have been found.

Further, the article refers to: "But these 'foot soldiers' knew they were surveying and photographing local installations for future attacks, Mr Wong said." The vital word is "knew".

The question is not why they don't "let legalities get in the way of swift action". Rather, the question is: are the evidence genuine? Did they confess voluntarily? Are the evidence fabricated? Did they "admit and cooperate"?

Granted the Internal Security Department did their part with swift action. If the evidence are genuine, Mr Wong should know that under the law the detainees could be prosecuted, even for attempt or conspiracy. Don't tell me he doesn't know the law.

Remember Chia Thye Poh, accused of being a communist, he lost 32 years, the best years of his life, as a political dissident, including some time confined to a fortress on the island of Sentosa, if I remember correctly.

What does Karl Marx's Communist Manifesto advocate? The French Code Penal classifies terrorism as a crime. As at 1 October 2002 the French Senate comprises 6 political groups with 321 Senators among whom are 23 members belonging to the Communist Republican and Citizens Group. Karl Marx is buried in Highgate Cemetery, London.

Is the Singapore PAP Government saying that terrorism is a "political crime"?

Are the detainees ethnic-Singaporean-Malays or are they Cheap-foreign-imports-become-Singapore-Citizens? Do ethnic-Singaporeans have fewer rights than Cheap-foreign-imports-become-Singapore-Citizens?

You want to know why there are those who join terrorist groups? I can forward one theory. I define ethnic-Singaporeans as all those ethnic and racial groups in Singapore as at 9 August 1965: Cheap-foreign-imports-become-Singapore-citizens-and-sit-in-Parliament, ethnic-Singaporeans have fewer rights.

Does the world know that the Malay Peninsula, Sumatra, Java, among others, were tributary states of "ancient China"? Don't confuse this "ancient China" with today's "People's Republic of China".

Yours truly,
JH

10 October 2002

I cannot help but wonder what Dr Chee is trying to prove. Dr Chee is notorious for getting into trouble with the law in his attempts to 'bring democracy to singapore'. What it seems to me and many Singaporeans is that Dr Chee is more concern about building up his own fame and reputation as being seen as a fervent democratic fighter on the pretext of bringing democracy in Singapore.

Can a politician who gets into trouble with the law time and again gain respect from the public? Or can one, who for the sake of gaining votes in the elections defame the prime minister and deceive the public by telling a downright malicious lie about a 17 billion dollars loan and apologises the next minute about it expect to gain the support of the people and get into parliament. Where is your credibility and integrity Dr Chee?

Although Dr Chee can argue that in our society, freedom of speech is restricted, (which I agree completely) and the only way he can get his message across is through illegally-held speeches and rallys, the question I have is how successful has his attempts been? What I see is a man getting into trouble with the law time and again, marring his own reputation, being on the verge of bankruptcy and yet with contributions no more than any other opposition members in the past decade in the political scene.

What we need are changes, radical changes to our country's system, not a liar taking issues to the streets illegally, defaming national leaders, and being arrested time and again all in the name of democracy. Dr Chee, perhaps you should wake up and repent of what you are and have been doing. Otherwise, Singapore has no place for you and you know that better than anyone else.

D. Huang

10 October 2002

I write, requesting the article on Geogre Soros to be removed from your website. I have not read the article and am making my judgment based on Soros' professional profile.

He was the guy who crushed Thailand's stock market in the 1998 and later brought the downpour of Asia economy that has yet to fully recover. Not only this, he has played a major role in the economic, social and political repression of South America.

He might write articles that sound socialist but to me he is just a hypocrite. I hope you understand that Capitalism plays major part in repressing democracy in today's global situation and he is one of those who reaps profit out of others' misery.

I hope you look into this matter and justify your democratic intention by not only checking on PAP's power but also on those who exploit economic profits against Humanity.

CJB

10 October 2002

Dear SDP,

I'm sorry, yet not so sorry, for Dr Chee and Mr Gandhi having to do time in prison.

Sorry, because as a Singaporean who knows in his heart that 2 of his fellow countrymen have just been denied natural justice, I can do nothing more than stand back and watch the episode unfold.

But yet, there is no need to feel sorry, because these 2 gentlemen's courage and determination have led the way in the struggle for democracy and for the rights of the people. Instead of feeling sorry, we should feel a sense of pride and admiration for them!

I pray that time will accord Dr Chee and Mr Gandhi their rightful place in Singapore's history.

TY

9 October 2002

Dear Dr Chee:

I have followed your (and Mr Gandhi's) case closely, and have read your closing statements posted on the website. Your arguments are strong, and you deserve recognition for sacrificing your own well-being for the struggle that you are now faced with.

On the eve of the day verdict is due to pass, I wish you and Mr Gandhi all the best!

TY

4 October 2002

I'm very disturbed to find out that a sign was erected outside Seletar Camp which reads, "BIN NOT ALLOWED INTO THE CAMP". "BIN" here refers to Muslims and in this instance Singaporean Malay-Muslims.

I realise that Singaporean Malay-Muslims have always been given no opportunity to join the Air Force, Navy, Intelligence Department & MIW. With the arrests of JI members, the Government has spoken up saying that this group of people is trying to create racial tension among Singaporeans. But I beg to differ, with this example.

Its the Singapore Goverment aka PAP & the Defence Ministry who are instilling fear among Singaporeans, putting the Malay-Muslims into bad light & segregating the community into "moderates" & "extremists". There will always be one Islam and a Muslim is a Muslim. It is the media and people who give these labels. Rather than trying to solve the problem, the Goverment should ask itself what caused these problems in the first place?

Look at the Sept 11 WTC plane crash and the Palestinian crisis. The Americans & Israelis should ask themselves, what is the root of the violence.

I applaud SDP for speaking up for the Malay rights especially with the tudung issue, since we can't depend on the Malay MPs in the government. I hope SDP will keep on promoting democracy in this country for the benefit of Singaporeans and try to open up the eyes of the people to see the negative impact of the PAP Government.

With all these price hikes everywhere, the people may have lost confidence in the PAP. But Singaporeans have been blinded with the New Singapore Shares and whatever else.

I hope SDP can gather this evidence at the Seletar Camp if its still there and publish it to the media. Hopefully, but I doubt it, the media will publish it.

ETAM

4 October 2002

Senior Minister Lee Kuan Yew recently visited the Republic Of China (Taiwan) and mainland China. I wonder how well Mr. Lee knows these two countries and their leaders.

We all know that "The Founder & Builder of China" was the late Dr. Sun Yat Sen (1866-1925) who succeeded in declaring China independent from Ching Dynasty under Manchuria. Dr. Sun was elected as the first president of the new republic by delegates from 16 of 17 provinces gathered in Nanjing city on 29 December 1911. Dr. Sun was inaugurated on 1 January 1912, the founding day of a new nation, the Republic Of China.

However, a civil war broke out between the government and rebels/ terrorists of the Communist Party of China which lasted for 35 years. The government lost and moved to Taiwan without changing the name of country. The terrorists and their dictatorship claimed their founding date of the country on 1 October 1949.

Tell me, who is the traitor of Dr. Sun?

Dr. Sun denied the inevitability of communism in China. He also reiterated this point in a joint declaration statement issued with Soviet envoy, Mr. Adolf Joffe, in 1923 which stated clearly that the communist system was NOT suitable for China. Dr. Sun died of illness on 12 March 1925 at the age of 59 in Peking, China.

The fact is that the founding date of the Republic Of China is 1 January 1912 and the founding date of mainland China mainland is 1 October 1949 a difference of 37 years.

Therefore, I cannot understand why the Singapore government cannot help and support a free and democratic country like Republic Of China in Taiwan gain entry into the United Nations and other organisations, and also establish proper diplomatic relations with it?

Just think, Singapore government cannot afford to have diplomatic relations with the Republic Of China, a freedom country in Asia, yet can have a diplomatic relations with China, which is controlled by the Communist Party of China. This is the biggest joke in this 21st century.

If the government of Singapore is blindly supportive of the People's Republic of China and allow them to claim the Taiwan island by force one day, I am sure that similar story will happen again to another country. Consider this: Can the British claim back the US or Canada, or Indonesia reclaim East Timor, Malaysia reclaim Singapore, or India reclaim Pakistan, Bangladesh & Sri Lanka?

If a strong country in Asia like Singapore cannot give a hand to the government of Republic Of China in Taiwan, who else would dare to so? I do not believe the way Mr. Lee Kuan Yew is treating the government of Republic of China in Taiwan is right. Mr. Lee is a NOT strong man in Asia anymore. Do you believe the market in China can help Singapore to survive for another 50 years? Remember, China is Singapores industrial competitor.

ALFRED

28 September 2002

I am passionately interested in politics and am vehemently against the local ruling party. I detest authoritarianism and feel that it is not a justifiable means to any end. Freedom is a pre-requisite for civilization to be considered civil. What is happening in Singapore is not a mere anomaly that requires minor reform or rectification. It is a disease that warrants radical change and radical action. In my humble judgment, the only opposition party in Singapore radical and intransigent enough for such an endeavour is the Singapore Democratic Party. I am 19 and am therefore interested in joining the Youth Wing. I hope you can provide me with information on how I can do so. Thank You.

Tristan

28 September 2002

Dear SDP,

I am a frequent reader of your web articles. I know it's tough where you are standing and honestly I cannot see a solution out of this. Remember with more than 75% of the votes, the ruling party is LAW. And you cannot fight that.

But the battle is about winning. It doesn't matter how you win, you gotta win. It seems that the only battle ground is the Internet and foreign press. The foreign press is tough. They don't cover you frequently enough.
Internet is viable so it is very difficult to control. A couple of
suggestions are:

(1) SDP website is extremely difficult to find - www.singaporedemocrats.org
You should register www.democrat.org, www.democrats.org,
www.democrats.com.sg, www.democrats.org.sg, www.sdp.org.sg etc.

(2) Produce some rich media content with video message. Singaporeans cannot read very well or don't care enough to read. It allows you to express emotion in your message.

(3) Host your server out of Singapore. You need to fall out of Singapore's
jurisdiction. I think you know why.

Lastly, it's sad to also accept the fact that Singaporeans is a pitiful lot. They don't fight nor like uncertainty, very gullible and selfish. Alas, if you find this bunch of people worth fighting for, you need to plan strategy to win.

K Tan

28 September 2002

Define a true democracy:

Democracy is based on the principle of equality for all, where every person has an equal right to an equal vote. Given the fact that it is rule of the masses, it is hoped that the people will vote wisely for credible leaders who will rule (during their terms in office) based on the principles of justice, equality and love.

Define a typical communist government:

A government claiming to profess the principles of strict equality amongst all persons BUT such a government is usually a dictatorship with authoritarian leaders who rise to power by revolution, not by elections. Communist leaders usually use brutal power to uphold their positions of power. There is usually only one political party and the opposition is constantly penalised and crippled. George Orwell said it well: All are equal, just that some are more equal then others.

Define the Singaporean (so called) democracy.

An authoritarian nanny state where the leaders state that true elections are not necessary because the average Singaporean is fickle, immature and irresponsible in judgment. In Singapore elections are mostly just ceremonial public holidays because with the opposition crippled and having employed unfair GRC system of elections, more then 70% of all Singaporeans do not need to vote in the 5 yearly walkover elections. The opposition is frequently inconvenienced and penalised and the government frowns upon freedom of speech.

Is Singapore a democracy? You decide.

Singaporean betrayed

28 September 2002

Firstly, I would like to announce that I support Singapore. I would love to see that my country succeed in this global economy and be competitive. I am sure most of the people would agree with this.

I would like to bring to your attention of the philosophy of 'Objectivism' by Ayn Rand with regard the role of the government which I found myself agreeing with:

The ideal political-economic system is laissez-faire capitalism. It is a system where men deal with one another, not as victims and executioners, nor as masters and slaves, but as traders, by free, voluntary exchange to mutual benefit. It is a system where no man may obtain any values from others by resorting to physical force, and no man may initiate the use of physical force against others.

The government acts only as a policeman that protects mans rights; it uses physical force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use, such as criminals or foreign invaders. In a system of full capitalism, there should be (but, historically, has not yet been) a complete separation of state and economics, in the same way and for the same reasons as the separation of state and church. (Taken from: www.aynrand.org)

Under this theory of laissez-faire government, it is purported that this would bring about creativity and happiness to the people. Lester C. Thurow (MIT professor) the author of the book "Building Wealth" indicates that the success of United States today is due to its founding fathers believing in the virtues of free speech and minimum control, which encourages thinking and creativity among is people. (Although it is not perfect example, most people still look to Amercia as a role model.)

I believe that the Singapore governments control in various ways stifle creativity and repress thinking among its people. From strict regulation and government-linked companies such as SingTel, PSA and SIA, it has curb the spirit of potential entrepreneur.

Although we do have successful Singaporean entrepreneurs running small and medium enterprises (which is commendable), do we have entrepreneurs running large, innovative, global enterprises, whose revenue is over 10 billions annually and surpasses the GDP of large countries, like the Americans do?

We have one of the highest per capita income in the world, and we often tout ourselves as one of the most brainy people in the world in various fields and industry but are we really what we claim to be?

LX

28 September 2002

Dr Chee,

It is with great courage that I am writing to you. Firstly, let me applaud you guys for your great efforts into motivaing Singaporeans to move ahead and towards a democratic environment.

I am deeply concerned with you comments on the alleged $17-billion loan to the former Indonesia president. May I know how and where have you learned about this? I strongly believed that a person who possesses doctorate would not make such a false claim to gain political ground. I also observed that following this comment during the last election, there seems to be many newly formed policies that are in favour of your claim (eg. CPF changes, tax increase etc).

Lastly, I hope that you will not be disappointed by the last election results. I gradually realised over the years that there is a growing number of opposition supporters in Singapore. The main problem that they are facing is the opportunity to cast a vote during election prior to the GRC system which was strategically formed to keep the PAP strong. Te results that are projected does not speak fairly. Continue to keep up your good work.

ES

The matter is still before the courts and Dr Chee is desperately fighting the matter so that the facts can be presented in court. As such, it would not be proper to discuss this matter at the moment.

20 September 2002

The SDP claims to be fighting on the side of the common man. But the Party is keeping its lips sealed on a most unjustifiable dismissal of the SQ006 pilots. Never have I expected that SIA would sack the pilots...after pointing the finger at the airport's confusing signs and guiding lights at that fateful night!

It is very perplexing that SIA would now sack the pilots, which vindicates the Taiwanese authorities' position that the pilots should shoulder the fault of the mishap (thus putting our Ministry of Transport's findings as wrong and just a national chest-thumping exercise), and it is predictable, though regrettable, that the trade unions are not calling for strike actions against SIA.

But I would expect that the SDP would rally to the cause of the pilots' efforts to have their rice bowls back (and ask the PAP, where is their "forgiving society" they preached?). Is the SDP as impotent and as silent as our trade unions? The pilots have no backing except the lip service of the trade unions, the moral support of their families as well as the indignant of the international aviation lobby groups.

Come on, SDP, we are Singapore, Singaporeans. Let's rally behind the pilots in their uphill battle against SIA for their livelihood.

This is especially when both the SIA and the Ministry of Transport argue that the pilots are not to blame for the SQ006 mishap. If the pilots are indeed responsible, then let's make SIA and MOT admit that pilot error was the decisive factor for the mishap, and not blame the Chiang Kai Shek airport's facilities AND deprive the misled pilots of a means to support their families.

Are you up to the task of campaigning for SIA to re-instate the 3 pilots if they are truly blameless (ie. MOT's report is correct), SDP?

VALERYJ

SDP: The fact of the matter is that both the SIA pilots and Taiwan airport authorities were to blame for the mishap where many lives were lost. The SDP does not have details of SIAs decision to sack the pilots and the evidence on which the decision was made.

The pilots unions would have more information and would be best placed to decide whether or not to take up the fight on behalf of their colleagues.

Many of those who perished in the SQ006 crash were also Singaporeans. By standing up for the pilots are we not also being insensitive to the families of the victims who are our fellows Singaporeans too?

20 September 2002

The following article just shows how creative local talents are and sometimes we really wonder how much the foreign talents have stolen the thunder from the locals and robbed them of the precious opportunities to shine simply because they are non Singaporeans...

When UOB unveiled a surge in profit yesterday, it really makes one wonder if the so-called "foreign talents" who are paid highly are justifiable to enhancing shareholders' values. As far as the local corporate scene is concerned, those companies who have or had "foreign CEOs", mostly do not perform admirably.
DBS & OCBC saw a drop in profit, while NOL, ST Assembly & Chartered Semiconductor went into the red.

FRIENDLY DEALER

20 September 2002

Dear Dr Chee,

Do not worry, everything will work out fine. I am confident that your party will tide through this difficult time. In Singapore, it is almost impossible to fight legal cases against the PAP. This is a result of one-party dominance for too long. As long as your party remains sincere, it will still get the support of the people. God Bless Dr. Chee.

ANONYMOUS

16 September 2002

I shall pray and wish for Dr Chee's success. With all the blessings of his supporters he will go through this battle. I wish him every success in his future plans and action.

I greatly applaud and appreciate his determination and admire his will power. It is really a pity that Singaporeans fail to understand his goal for our nation. However, we have to admit that there is a very impressive percentage of citizens who want the changes and accept his goal. There are many who are afraid of the consequences if they speak out.

Dr Chee, till then we need time, strength and patience and not to give up easy on your goals. Keep up your spirit and you will win the battle.

God bless you and party.

MINA

16 September 2002

My dad has 4 children. Two are now in Australia and one more will be going over soon. The Government encourages us to study and I agree it is important. But my dad has to pay 28 percent of his pay to the Government. Even though we can claim back a little of the money for us to study overseas, it isn't enough! Especially when now the economy is so bad, business is bad. Will the Government be lowering the income tax? Is it necessary for it to take so much income tax?

KERRI

16 September 2002

PM Goh said: "Here, I'm the No 1 wife. Elsewhere, I'm the concubine." Firstly, we are so self-centred that even for this we must be no.1!

Secondly, in our self-centredness, we are so pathetically ignorant of the outside world? Are Singaporeans who have emigrated less than no. 1 in say the U.S., Australia, NZ, etc? Just you wait and see: Someone of Singaporean descent may become the President or PM of one of those countries in the future.

Thirdly, if I am making the kind of money that the ministers are making, I too would be hanging around. I would definitely fight and die for Singapore. No kidding.

PM Goh also said: "The more the Government provides for Singaporeans, the higher their expectations of what the Government should do...They also measured a government by whether it met their infinite material wants."

All this is a result of the PAP reaping what they have sown. They threatened helpless voters that if they are not voted in, there will be no HDB upgrading, no MRT lines, no new pavements, etc. for these "ungrateful" voters. How else do you expect Singaporeans to respond? (Here we are also No. 1. in being the only country to employ such tactics, where candidates can threaten helpless voters and get voted in.)

It is very telling of the Singapore environment that when I write this response, I have no b**** to sign my name off, but I'm just one of us. How can I have b**** with the PAP suing and charging the opposition all the time.

No, Singapore has a long way to go before it matures.

By the way, I seriously think many overseas Singaporeans will return and fight for Singapore if the environment, or shall we say the guards, change. And by changing guards I don't mean changing a Goh for a Lee. I mean changing the whole lot of them!

WDFSARE

16 September 2002

First of all, I just want to say that SDP has opened my eyes to reality, just like waking up from THE MATRIX and seeing the real world for the first time.
Anyway, I am a young Malay Muslim and would just like to know what the SDP are doing to ensure "quality and freedom to speak and practice your religion.

I will not even bother asking the PAP what it thinks. They are anti-freedom of speech; the Speakers Corner needs a license for Gods sakes. It is just stupid isnt it? It is like saying "free gift" when they is no such thing as "free gift" because a "gift" is already supposed to be free!

I am very interested in SDP beliefs but I need to know where my race and religion stands in all this. Will we be equal with the rest? Race and religion are extremely important to me as they are the main pillars of my life. I sincerely hope that SDP doesnt turn out like another PAP.

FAIZAL

SDP: We have always maintained that freedom to practice ones religion is the crucial to an open and democratic society. This freedom is enshrined in our Constitution. Citizens of this country must have the right to freely express their religious faiths, especially when they dont infringe upon the rights of others.

We have spoken up strongly on this issue and have taken the PAP to task on its discriminatory policy of not allowing Muslim girls to wear their tudung to school.

If Singapore is going to guard itself against racial and religious trouble, it is imperative that various sectors of society, racial and religious groups included, speak up freely and openly debate their concerns.

As long as one does not resort to violence, or advocates violence, one must be able to voice ones views freely and openly. Ironically, it is the suppression of views over a long period and not open debate as the PAP would have us believe that will pull our society apart. Open and frank debates lead to a society more tolerant and diverse, and ultimately more stable and peaceful.

The SDP regards all races and religions equal as our past actions and statements have demonstrated. When the rights and interests of one group are threatened by the PAP, the others must speak up. This is the duty of every Singaporean.

13 September 2002

I read with interest on your latest article "PAP system exacerbating divide between rich and poor" dated July 18, 2002.

It is heartening to have someone like Dr Chee to pen down the problem we're currently facing. Unfortunately, not many Singaporeans have the chance to read these articles and think further about improving our society. I hope SDP can continue its good work to seek all channels to reach out to people.

Hereby wish you all the best & be strong!

Concerned teenager

13 September 2002

The mishandling by the Ministry of Health regarding the issue of liver transplant and the Slim-10 distributors is a very good and valid issue for the SDP to raise. This matter epitomizes the failure of an insensitive and inhumane system that we have to live with, a matter that most Singaporeans can identify with.

I suggest that the SDP approach the families involved, make enquiries to the Ministry (albeit without much effect) and represent the families to seek redress on the matter. This will be a good for the party and, though most Singaporeans are forgetful, it may have positive residual effect on the electorate in 2006.

A Singaporean

28 July 2002

I truly respect Dr Chee determination and conviction in fighting for democracy in Singapore.

Unfortunately, his misunderstandings has brought severe penalties upon Mr Chee himself and brought a very bad name to the Singapore Democratic Party. I sincerely hope that Dr Chee would make proper and detailed research before launching statements or accusations on government leaders.

We are living in turbulent times now. The country needs a good and firm government. now. No doubt, we need some opposition voices within the parliament. But, those voices must be equipped with sensibility, responsibility and working towards the benefits of the state.

I personally feel, that too much democracy will not work at times like this. Remember what happened in the Soviet Union during the 1990s? Mikhail Gorbachev introduced reforms within the Soviet Union and democracy was one of them. Guess what happened? This ultimately led to the breakup of the U.S.S.R. Why? The reason is because the private companies set their prices too high resulting in the people being too poor to buy their goods. Political leaders pinpoint and criticized government policies so badly that none of them could be carried out. Although democracy did bring about a better Russia in a sense, it led to the breakdown of a nation.

Forgive my impudence. However, I sincerely wished that Dr Chee being leader of the Singapore Democrats and a loyal patriot would contribute ideas and solutions to the government.

And not add oil to the fire by agitating incites over the Tudung issue or spending all the time in reprimanding PAP leaders. What the country and the people needs now are solutions, not a big debating society or civil war.

These are just some of my suggestions. I may be wrong but I sincerely hope that Dr Chee would seriously look through them.

Mr Qin

SDP: The more important question Mr Qin should ask is not whether Singapore can afford democracy at this stage of its development but whether our nation can continue to prosper without it?

On just the economic front alone, indicators consistently point to the fact that the good and firm government that Mr Qin has presumed PAP to be, has been the cause of much of our present economic woes.

The negative population growth rate, the lack of local talent, inadequate CPF funds for retirement, zero returns on GLC investments, etc. have all contributed and exacerbated the current economic recession that we are facing. The effects of these policies took years to wreak their damage. Without democracy, they were left to fester.

If there had been less firm and more consultative government, Singapore would have been able to avert, or at least minimize the economic problems resulting from the 1997 Asian financial crisis.

This brings us to the issue of Dr Chee contributing ideas and solutions to the government as opposed to criticizing the PAP over the tudung issue. Mr Qin may not be aware that Dr Chee had over the years written books identifying and anticipating the problems that Singapore now faces. Alternative ideas and solutions were proposed. (This website will carry a series of excerpts from Dr Chees latest book Your Future, My Faith, Our Freedom in the near future. The book is available at Kinokuniya Bookstore and Select Books.)

The PAP arrogantly dismissed them and the local media refused to give them publicity. The PAP has presently, but belatedly, used some of the ideas that Dr Chee had proposed. It is therefore incorrect to say that Dr Chee has not provided solutions and ideas.

Reprimanding the government on its policies is the job of the opposition. Without it, policies will not be debated and scrutinized, and problems resulting from bad policies will become so deep-rooted that society will pay a heavy, long-term price for it (as described above).

Mr Qin may be surprised to note that the future of Singapore depends on more democracy, not less. It is incorrect to think that democracy will lead to bad and weak governments. It is not a coincidence that the worlds most prosperous and advanced countries are also the most democratic ones.

28 July 2002

Dear Dr Chee,

I am very encouraged that you are so willing to take the stand to voice out your opinions about Singapore and to share with the world via CNN your views on Singapore as well. I do applaud your courage to stand out like that.

However, I do have a few queries that I would like to hear from you. Firstly, considering the geographical factor of Singapore is it possible to have a multi-party government to run the country? Can a small country like Singapore afford a major upheaval in the light of the current world political situation? (ie the post 9-11 world)

My concern is that being a small country like Singapore, we rely very much on a cordial, conciliatory foreign policy towards our neighbours. In such a case, can we afford to have the views of ALL people being aired publicly? What if these views are thoughtless insensitive remarks about our neighbours? Can we afford that?

And finally, do you think that we are a nation that is 'matured' enough to accept the opposition views and to think 'adults'. In another words, do you think that our government has prepared our people enough to accept criticisms about ourselves?

I know that there are a handful of us who are able to sieve through constructive criticisms and malicious ones, but I am also aware that there are a large number of us out there who are like Orwellian sheep and go on bleating the ingrained propaganda that have been fed to us. With that, do you think it is safe to let opinions of the various groups to run amok, and risk foreign relations with our neighbours?

Of course, my points seem to suggest that I am just as draconian and authoritarian as the current ruling party, but considering our position--the smallness of our country-- what methods should we adopt, in terms of domestic and foreign policies? How different can we run the place?

Lastly, I thank you for taking time out to read this mail. I wish you all the best in all your campaigns.

Angela

SDP: Dear Angela, you are right that being a small nation, Singapores foreign policy needs to be geared towards building bridges with other countries.

However, having a democratic system doesnt necessarily hamper this effort. In fact, it is apparent that democracy fosters peace and prosperity. It remains a fact that no two democracies have ever gone to war with each other.

This is because the majority of humankind does not want to see hostilities breakout. If they have a say in their governments decision-making process, it is most likely that they will pressure their governments into diplomacy and negotiations rather than armed conflict (which will involve their sons, husbands, fathers, and boyfriends risking their lives).

There will always be thoughtless people spewing hate and advocating violence. The good thing about humanity is that most of us are rationale, peace-loving persons and as long as we have the ability to organize ourselves, voice our views, and democratically choose our leaders (as opposed to the current PAP system) good sense and peace will prevail.

It goes without saying that the SDP feels that Singaporeans are mature enough to think for ourselves. We always have been able to do. If we werent, how did we claim independence from the British? Our fathers and mothers rallied behind the David Marshalls, Lim Chin Siongs, and Lee Kuan Yews to wrest political power from our colonial masters. Without the Singaporeans maturity to stand up to the British we would still be a colony today and the PAP would not be an independent government.

It is after it became the government that the PAP became addicted to power and started implementing undemocratic measures to retain its hold on the country. One of the best tactics is to instill doubt and suspicion among the people. A fearful people, lacking in confidence to determine its own destiny, is a people easily controlled and manipulated. This is why it keeps asking the question of whether Singaporeans are mature enough to handle free speech and democracy. Sadly, many Singaporeans have come to believe this propaganda.

Once people start to question their own political maturity and believe that without authoritarian control there will be chaos and despair, it is easy for the PAP to mop up and manipulate society for it own benefit and interests. This is what Singaporeans must resist.

Indeed, the question of whether we Singaporeans are mature enough to deal with democracy and openness is a question the PAP wants to constantly drum into our heads. It is insulting and demoralizing to our society and nation.

The sooner Singaporeans shake off our mental chains and see that democracy is indispensable for our future, the safer and better off our country will be.

28 July 2002

If I did not remember wrongly, when the Government announced the setting up of Speakers' Corner in 2000, SDP chief Chee Soon Juan described the whole issue as a farce. How does Dr Chee now view the setting up of the Remaking Singapore Forum, where surfers are free to provide their views/feedback? Does Dr Chee or any of his party members visit the site regularly or even once so far?

J. Lee

SDP: Most people will agree that the Speakers Corner is a farce. The place is deserted and hardly anyone bothers to speak there anymore. The SDPs view has been vindicated.

The major cause of the failure of Speakers Corner (or any attempt to create a so-called free speech venue) is that if there is not a genuine respect for freedom of speech by the authorities, people will see it for what it is - a fa?de and nothing more.

Freedom of speech is not just a gimmick for people to vent their frustrations and complain about society. It is a means to which the people, by coming together, can express their will and bring it to bear on a government unwilling to care and listen.

For example, most Singaporeans feel that the election system, with all the gerrymandering, GRC system, HDB upgrading intimidation, etc. is unfair. So many write into the forums and complain. Will this be sufficient to make the PAP become more democratic and make elections in Singapore genuinely free and fair? The answer is an obvious no.

The same can be applied to the Remaking Singapore Forum. The government can create all kinds of channels and avenues for citizens to write in. But all this will come to nought when people feel that all they do is write and post, and the government continues to do as it pleases.

The danger of the Speakers Corner and Remaking Singapore Forum is that it may lull Singaporeans into thinking that the system is opening up, when in fact nothing substantial has changed. In such a scenario, the PAP would have its cake and eat it too.

28 July 2002

I refer to this Straits Times article on the purchase of the SingTel stocks by its CEO and CFO.

This is a sad reflection of the management of the company. They can say what they like about their company, what being the no.1 in this and no.1 in that, but the fact remains that their stock price is soon becoming a penny stock! Surely the stock price is a reflection of the state of the company. That rule has always been the case in the US stock market.

And let us not be fooled by the PAP's explanation that Spore is any different. They talk so grandly about how Spore is "short" of people as if they are the only smart people around. So the rest of us are idiots?

Look at the state of our economy. So they blame it on the US? On Sep 11? What else? And when our economy did well did they attribute it to the US economy? If they are so good, they should stop using excuses.

You guys would be wise to use these in your campaign to unseat the PAP. Wake up the people of Spore that there is more to life than just PAP.

heartlander

7 June 2002

I would be interested to know what the SDP would do should it become the ruling party one day. This is of course unlikely to happen in the near future, but it is something worth discussing. Can we have the assurance from the SDP that you will not persecute the other opposition parties, to truly bring about democracy during the elections as well as every normal day?

Some Singaporeans still continue to vote and support the SDP as they believe in the principles democracy. If the SDP becomes the ruling party one day, it is not impossible for you to withdraw what you claim to believe and abuse your power on other parties as well as the citizens. Should this happen, it would make no difference to vote the SDP or the PAP.

Ang

SDP: It is important for Singaporeans not to continue to play the passive role in politics. The SDP can give all the assurances that it will abide by democratic principles whether in opposition or government but this cannot be what safeguards Singapore from authoritarianism.

It is important that the media, judiciary, military, etc. remain free from government control in order to protect democracy. But these institutions can be undermined and subjugated by a government bent on autocratic control.

The best tool to protect democracy is the people themselves. Citizens must be free to organize and be able to stand up to governments that do not respect democratic practices. For this to happen the right to freedom of speech, assembly and association must be jealously and zealously guarded. If Singaporeans refuse to be cowed by any party that is in power, then no government can subject the country to authoritarian rule.

This is what has happened in many countries throughout the world. When citizens lay claim to the fact that they are the boss and are courageous and determined enough to ensure that they are not enslaved by any one politician or political party, then it is extremely difficult for a government to exert any form of autocracy.

The cases of Taiwan and South Korea are good examples in Asia. Taiwanese and Koreans bravely opposed the autocrats in their countries in the 1970s and 1980s, and today enjoy a political 'and economic' system that benefits the people, not just the ruling elite.

This is why the SDP speaks up so strongly on protecting the fundamental political and civil rights of Singaporeans and will continue to do so. Whether we can become a democracy and remain that way cannot be left just to political parties and politicians. Every citizen must do his or her part.

7 June 2002

I feel that the many acts done by the SDP and Dr Chee to the PAP have been in vain. This includes the May Day rally outside the Istana as well as the speeches at Speakers' Corner which violated Singapore's entertainment laws. What is being done is useless. Furthermore, it has caused the party to become a less respectable by Singaporeans, despite your good motives.

It can be said that carrying out physical protests are useless in Singapore. During the first parliament sitting in Singapore, the Barisan Sosialis, which held several seats, decided to boycott parliament as way to voice their discontentment. They staged a street protest. They thought they would gain more support but instead they lost all their seats and never had a chance to have any more seats.

Such protests carried out by the SDP are ineffective in Singapore. The only way to bring true democracy in Singapore is to win seats in Parliament. Protests carried out in other countries may be effective, but Singapore is different.

Be more sensible and don't do such stupid things. You will win more respect from Singaporeans and it can definitely increase the chance of winning seats in Parliament.

Chan WJ

SDP: The SDP agrees with Chan WJ that the only way to bring democracy to Singapore is to win seats in Parliament. We assure him or her that our ultimate goal is to institute change through the ballot box.

This is why it is so important that elections must be genuinely free and fair. This is also why the PAP makes sure that it continues to alter the electoral system in such a way as to ensure the kind of results we see election in and election out.

Introducing and enlarging GRCs, blatant gerrymandering, threatening voters with HDB upgrading, giving out money through shares during elections are just some examples of how unfree and unfair the entire system is. During the Barisan Sosialis days (since the writer brought it up), the PAP was even bolder. It arrested and detained Barisan leaders under the ISA and then held elections.

For 40 years the opposition has had to play the game under rules set out by the PAP. The problem is that every time the opposition gets better at it, the PAP changes the rules to make sure we don't succeed. The ruling party is only too happy for Singaporeans to continue to believe that change can be brought about through the vote once every four or five years even without a free media and a fair electoral system.

And after each election, the PAP claims a mandate for another five years. Before one realizes it, decades have passed without any change in the government. The most troubling fact is that Singaporeans continue to think (and hope) that change will somehow come about despite the absence of a democratic system.

There is nothing not respectable about exercising our right to assemble and speak freely. Singaporeans must get away from the mentality that things are "good" and "respectable" only when the PAP says they are so.

If the opposition in Singapore is going to make any significant headway (not the kind prescribed by the PAP through NMPs and NCMPs), we must not only fight hard but also fight smart. If we continue to play the game under the ever-changing rules of the PAP, then we will be like kittens chasing after a ball of string tugged by the PAP to keep it just beyond our grasp.

Mirroring this danger is the economy. If our economy continues to take directions from the PAP and be controlled by the Government-linked companies, we are going to get into deeper trouble that we're already in. If Singapore is going to survive, the people must be able to think creatively, analyse critically and act independently traits that so lacking in our society because of our inability to think out of the PAP box but yet are so vital for our economy to succeed in this globalised age.

If we keep thinking along the PAP lines and have this desire to be "respectable", or at least be seen to be so, then we are going to suffer as a society both politically and economically.

7 June 2002

This is with regards to some issues that I have noticed lately which I sincerely wish someone would take issue with the proper authorities: One, The Straits Times (June 8, 2002)reported that "LTA car-auction steal: A $1,800 Toyota." My question here is very simple. What right has the LTA to effect a sale over the ownership of the vehicle without prior consent of the owner simply because the owner failed to pay his/her road tax. I feel that, as a car owner (unfortunately I'm not), the individual's right has been violated.

Two, a MediaCorp artist (Angela De Cruz) had a go ahead from the authorities to perform the liver surgery, the donor being her boyfriend. However another lesser-known lady died when the authorities did not give a similar approval for her liver transplant. I have read the response given by the authorities in the "Today" paper. Right away I felt that the Indian lady was not even given a chance despite offers from people to save her life (a distant relative and a monk had offered to donate their livers to the Indian lady). I personally feel that our system has failed us.

Three, I have noticed that when our cabinet conducts a sitting in parliament, our representatives merely wear a jacket over their shirts. Some would wear the three-piece suits but without the tie. I feel that our representatives in the cabinet do not show much respect for Parliament, being the highest office in the land. This is in stark contrast to other parliamentary meetings in the West.

Jiew Lim

9 May 2002

I have just been watching CNN. An interview took place with Mr.Chee Soon Juan. I am really suprised to see that there is somebody with b**** in Singapore to actually stand up to Lee Kuan Yew.

I have lived in Singapore for 11 years, am of English origin, have a Singapore wife, but after years of having a company in Singapore, making jobs for Singaporeans etc., I think I am one of many that in the end had to throw in the towel for being a decent "Ang Mo" trying to make a living and being part of a community in probably what must be as I rate the most "racist, anti-everybody, uptight" country on earth.

Hopefully, freedomists will knock BG Lee into the hedges forever and start a new re-think. I now live in Thailand. A much better country, more risk maybe, but more opportunity too. How the hell will Singapore survive the future?

Singapore, you have got to wake up, do it now or you are finished. Hong Kong will become just another part of China, do you lot want to become just the old finance centre of Malaysia? What options have you got?

For your own sakes you must stand up and fight for what is right. Don't be scared, follow Dr.Chee. I'd love to meet this guy for a chat.

Rick Francis

Note: Parts of this letter was edited out as the PAP leaders would sue if they read it. Apologies to the author and reader

9 May 2002

As a casual observer of events outside the Istana on May 1 involving leaders of the Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) and the police, I couldn't help but wonder whether I'm living in a police state.

It all started at 12.20 pm when Dr Chee Soon Juan, accompanied by Mr Gandhi Ambalam, arrived at the scene where men in blue overwhelmingly outnumbered those in civvies, mostly reporters and cameramen from local and foreign media and of course men and women from Singapore's intelligence, the Internal Security Department.

Scores of reporters with tape recorders and cameramen in tow zeroed in on Dr Chee. "What's it that you are going to speak on?" A reporter was clearly heard asking while the SDP leader was seen surveying the place for the scheduled exhibition on the plight of Singapore workers to be followed by the rally at 2.00pm.

Dr Chee, already swarmed by reporters, said since it was May Day, an auspicious occasion for workers throughout the world, he would be highlighting the plight of 'our workers'. More questions followed, but Dr Chee told the reporters to wait till the rally began.

Noticing all this from a distance, Acting Deputy Superintendent of Police Lim (can't remember his full name), moved in followed by a couple of uniformed policemen. The guy was visibly trembling and words refused to come out from his mouth. Plucking up enough courage, the DSP recited the Public Entertainment and Meetings Act and told Dr Chee that he should leave the place immediately.

Dr Chee thanked the officer for the reminder. DSP Lim then repeated his order. Then a voice from another police officer was heard loud and clear: "Is he refusing to leave? Then move in and take him." With clock-work precision, almost a dozen men in uniform moved in and grabbed Dr Chee by his arms and marched him towards a parked police van a few meters away.

Seeing all this, Mr Gandhi, spoke up in a voice few decibels higher for the people to hear: "We are peaceful and non-violent!" Soon, the same plain-clothed officer who had earlier ordered the arrest of Dr Chee yelled: "Take him in. He is also part of it." Immediately, Mr Gandhi was also brought into the dragnet.

As both Dr Chee and Mr Gandhi were led towards the parked vehicle under police cordon, reporters and cameramen were prevented from getting closer.

A few voices from the crowd, including one wanting to know the charge under which the men had been detained, were heard as the two were bundled into the van to be driven out of sight from the curious onlookers at the entrance to the Istana.

Soon, there was a heavy downpour as if the heaven was weeping for the two who had stood their ground for their beliefs. I then headed towards Plaza Singapura, the departmental store building next to the Istana.

As I hurried to avoid getting wet, I couldn't stop wondering the excessive display of force by our men in blue who are supposed to carry out their duties "without fear or favour". Who's it that they are trying to favour in this instance?

A casual observer

9 May 2002

I want Dr. Chee Soon Juan to know that a lot of Singaporeans are behind him inspite of his arrest. The arrest is expected as only a repressive regime would do this sort of thing.

In Africa, tyrants and dictators employ goons and thugs with AK47. In South America, opponents are taken away in the middle of the night and never to be seen again. Here in Singapore, legal terrorism is the law of the land. At every election, the PAP hijacks the mandate to rule with legal terrorism.

Here is my message...Dr. Chee, be strong! I have no doubt that someday you will be the Prime Minister of Singapore and expose all the things which the PAP has covered up over the years.

My heart goes out to your wife. I want her to know that I will be praying for her and your unborn child. May God give you and your family the strength and greater conviction to carry on with the good cause.

The PAP may make you a bankrupt, but the PAP cannot take away your fighting spirit. May God help you in your battle.

Roland Soh

9 May 2002

After meeting with Dr Chee in Budapest during the Congress of Liberal International recently, I strongly sympathize with him and the movement he represents and I am certain every person present that day in Budapest, felt the same way.

As an active member of Hollands Liberal Party, VVD, I will most certainly bring this scandalous incident to the attention of the party leadership and our Minister of Foreign Affairs.

We are in the course of founding a support group for Dr Chee here in this country. Keep up the good work and stay firm.

George van Capelle

9 May 2002

I read from the AP news that you were seen weeping and following Dr. Chee as he went into the police van outside the Istana. What I want to say is this: Do Not Weep! This is part of the process, which is needed to attain what is noble and ideal; without which, the ideal will not be attained. Dr. Chee has decided to go into a political struggle, and as the word pertains, a struggle is not without effort and toil.

I understand that you are disoriented and sadly affected, but this is what your husband has decided to do and I dare say that it is a noble one. Do not for once think that he is isolated, desolate or forgotten, he is definitely not. There is a silent crowd in the population, and the wind is brewing in the right direction - the liberal direction. And your husband is on the right track, definitely. Whether he will catch it galantly and rightly in his lifetime is still undecided, but one thing is for sure, it is indeed going his way.

The PAP government, if still unchanged, will one day be down, with no sympathy and no pity, because the relentless hardness of the people is cultivated by them in the first place. This relentless hardness will one day come down hard on them, and all who have suffered indignantly under them, all shall be expiated and restored.

As the saying goes, the national register is being recorded; the day will come. Tell your husband that you are proud of him.

Someone who still cannot be named

Reply from Huang Chih-Mei (Mrs Chee)

Thank you for your kind words and encouragement.

I have to admit that I do feel a bit embarrassed when I read about news reports describing me as 'tearful' or 'weeping' over the incident. It was actually our 3-year-old daughter and not me who was crying, and that made me very upset.

We had intended to go to the Istana to watch the rally. But things happened very fast (and quite unexpectedly) when the police took my husband away. Chee Siok Chin, my sister-in-law who was carrying my daughter at that time, got caught up in the crowd. Being surrounded by so many policemen, my daughter cried: 'Mommy, hold my hands!' So I had to follow from behind. It was chaotic and very confusing, but everything was over in about 5 minutes.

Then it started to rain very heavily. I stood there and held her in my arms and didn't quite know what to do for a while. But she recovered very quickly (children at that age do) and was happily prancing around again when we were at the Tanglin police station.

Personally, I am not faint-hearted and I do understand and support what my husband is doing. My daughter and I go with him to his office, meetings and activities whenever the situation allows us. In fact, it has become our way of life. We live modestly but we are quite happy with what we have. The most important thing is that we do things and go through the ups and downs together as a family.

I just want you to know that we are doing fine, and I appreciate very much your thoughtfulness and your effort in writing to me. Although I am not from Singapore, I see this place as my home, as the roots and the future for our children.

Thank you & best wishes,

Huang Chih-Mei

7 May 2002

I guess the government has its reason to have restrictions for speech but I feel we should have a more open mind about free speech.

What's the use of Hong Lim Park where you can speak but must be cautious not to provoke the government? If that's the way, I don't see the point of the place.

Maybe the government could hear what Singaporeans really have to say and learn from it.

And another thing, why does the news only air speeches that promote the PAP, especially during elections? What about the opposition?

The PAP says it welcomes the opposition but that's not what I see. I hope to see improvement in the years to come.

A young citizen

7 May 2002

To put it simply, you are an example to us to follow but your actions have shown nothing much but childish behaviour. Getting yourself locked up time and again is like trying to show off. You get locked up then what can you do while you are inside?

And you have obtained the title of Doctor, but your actions are really deplorable. Please do something about it. Try to stay out of trouble and help us. That is not very hard is it?

Cheryl Tong

5 May 2002

Dr. Chee,

You say that the local media is controlled by the government and they decide what gets published. Therefore Singaporeans should not believe everything that is in the papers.

Now if what you say is true, can you tell me why I should instead, believe the supposedly true stories you alleged have been censored?

I watched your interview on CNN. Some of the things you mentioned are not true. When are non-graduate mothers with more than 3 kids penalised? Which specific 'government controlled' newspaper reported that 93% of Singaporeans are afraid to speak up? No bookstore in Singapore is willing to sell your books? Isn't Select Bookstore carrying them?

And of course, the Speakers Corner came about because of you? Please. I hope you will address the facts rather than twist them to spite at the government and gain foreign sympathy.

Your style of opposition does not appeal to me and most of my friends here at NUS. When you lost the elections, you put the blame on unfair competition. I have no doubt that if you are in power, you will make things difficult for those in opposition too.

If opposition members like Low Thia Kiang and Chiam See Tong can go against the odds and win a seat in parliament, then please stop giving excuses for your failure. Singaporeans have rejected you. This is a fact, face it.

Jienin

SDP: Jienin must keep himself better informed.

The Graduate Mothers Scheme proposed in the late 1970s raised much debate (and not a few eyebrows) in Singapore. The survey that he refers to (which revealed that 93 percent of Singaporeans were afraid to speak up) was conducted by the Straits Times in 2001.

A check with the Times, Borders, Popular, Kinokuniya, MPH, and WHSmith will confirm that none of them will sell Dr Chees To Be Free and/or Your Future, My Faith, Our Freedom. The fact that Jienin chooses not to question why bookstores will not selling Dr Chees books but instead mentions Select Books, a small, non-popular bookshop speaks volumes of his/her political persuasion.

It remains a fact that Speakers Corner was set up after Mr William Safire question Mr Lee Kuan Yew at in Davos, Switzerland during a World Economic Forum conference. Mr Safire had questioned Mr Lee at length about the Singapore governments prosecution of Dr Chee for speaking without a permit at Raffles Place. When subsequently asked whether the Singapore government would establish a free speech venue, Mr Lee said maybe.

Jienin is certainly entitled to his opinion about the SDP. It seems, however, that his views are coloured by misconceived notions. Hopefully, by pointing out these errors, Jienin can become more balanced in his thinking and viewpoints.

4 May 2002

I write in admiration of Dr Chee, Mr Gandhi and all the members of the SDP. Your persistence and insistence on bringing democracy and human rights issues to the forefront of Singapore politics is worthy of recognition by all Singaporeans.

I have no formal political affiliations, but I am a keen observer of Singapore politics, and certainly exercise my votes very wisely. I also follow both sides of the political spectrum to keep a balanced view of what is really going on.

In my opinion, there is no doubt that the actions initiated on Labour Day by Dr Chee and his team will bear fruit one day, in whatever form it may take in the future. Even if it means just changing the policies and mindsets of the PAP government, it would have been a worthy victory in itself. (Admittedly, you can't expect them to give you any credit though)

Keep it up. For a spectator, nothing is more exciting than to witness a good showdown!

Ed

2 May 2002

During the 2001 GE, SDP claimed to have done grassroots work in Jurong. Many residents and I from Jurong want to know where exactly did the SDP do their grassroots work in Jurong?

And may I know where is the SDP in Jurong now? From what residents of Jurong had observed, the Singapore Democratic Party disappeared as fast as their sudden appearance in Jurong.

What about the SDP's call for full pay when retrenched? If not, has the SDP helped in any form in the assistance of the 'new poor'? Has Dr Chee Soon Juan and SDP done any work in assisting the poor? Or is it all talk and no action.

I was a resident of Bukit Gombak some years back. SDP's second man Ling How Doong won the seat in Bukit Gombak. One of the many things Mr Ling asked at the rally at Bukit Gombak then was how many times did the residents see its then MP Mrs Seet Ai Mei.

Well, Mr Ling How Doong's office was below my block, Blk 524 Bukit Batok Ave 5 but I did not see Mr Ling How Dong once. Well Mr Ling did a big mess of Bukit Gombak and was voted out by a very large majority at the next GE.

SDP and Dr Chee Soon Juan talk a lot, write a lot and appear on TV a lot. But what has the SDP and Dr Chee done for the citizens? Why must Dr Chee always get himself arrested when he knows he will be handcuffed and the world's press will be there to see him handcuffed.

Is Dr Chee trying to show that the government are thugs bullying him? Oh poor thing! But please, we are not fools. Actions speak louder than words. Dr Chee can write lots of books, have many many ideas, have many many dreams of 'freeing' Singaporeans from the PAP.

Well they are talk. But was there ever action? Or does Dr Chee and SDP expect the people to vote for a party that appears suddenly during elections but leaves as soon as results are known.

Where is the SDP in Jurong? What are the grassroots work SDP claimed to have done? Are the SDP doing anything to help the unemployed? Is the SDP doing anything about its mandate SDP said at rallies at Jurong during the 2001 GE?

Or is the SDP been doing what it is always been doing, talk, talk and a lot of talk. Everyone knows how to talk.Where is the SDP?

Eric Lim

SDP: We thank Mr Lim for his letter.

The SDP has worked and will continue to work in the vicinity of what is now Jurong GRC. We have been doing this for more than 10 years. We have been selling our newspaper, The New Democrat, at the various hawker centres, markets, and MRT stations there. When Mr Lim doesn't see us, it doesn't mean we are not there.

Admittedly, we are unable to make our presence felt the way the PAP does. The PAP has resources of the state at its disposal and is not shy about using them for its own purposes e.g. CCCs, CCs, RCs, etc. We can't even rent space from the HDB. And don't forget about the ban on public speeches and gatherings, which the PAP doesn't apply to its members.

The gist of Mr Lim's letter is that the SDP is all talk and no action. Our work is hampered by the lack of resources that we face. The PAP makes sure of that (think Political Donations Act as one example).

But this is not an excuse. We will continue to do everything to reach out to Singaporeans the best we know how.

If Mr Lim is genuinely concerned about the SDP improving itself, then we invite him to come and help us do what he sees as lacking. We could certainly do with more help. But if he is intent of just offering criticisms, then that's another story altogether.

9 April 2002

Dear Dr Chee,

Hi to you and your party.

I applaud your actions and your courage to stand against this authoritarian government. Why I resist joining your party is because I don't see enough being done on your side.

I voted for your party in Hong Kah and I am very dissapointed to see such a result.

I have just watched the CNN's interview with Dr. Chee and applaud his direct answers to the questions. In this short interview there were so many topics touched on and what intrigued me was the question on media.

Why is SDP not using Straits Times to their own advantage? For example, two days after polling day, the Straits Times, under Apologies section, said that Associate Professor Ho Peng Kee didn't promise to build a hospital but only mentioned it to the cabinet.

Just recently, the headlines in Straits Times read "PAP MPs To Vote with Conscience."

And then, Mr Tan Soo Khoon spoke on the budget and the 7 wonders of Singapore.

Why don't you cut these articles out and show them during your rallies? Even if the election is 4-5yrs from now it will be of much use. Then you can ask Singaporeans: Do you want to vote for a government who has to be told to vote with conscience?

Dr Chee himself has said how much the media affects Singaporeans. So use the media against the PAP. It's free.

Before I sign off, I hope Dr Chee will remember to bring up topics on GLCs and Statutory Boards. These companies employ so many Singaporeans. Do you think they will vote against the PAP when their rice bowls are there?

Bring up the topic of why retired colonels/generals must be placed as chairman, directors or even board members of companies in which they do not have any experience.

I really think our opposition parties should firstly be more organised. I truly hope SDP will be a force to be reckoned with.

J Tan

Again, parts of this letter had to be edited out because of the use of defamation laws by the PAP. Apologies.

7 April 2002

I am very grateful to you and your party for what you have done in the political scene of Singapore. I greatly admire your courage in the fight for democracy, and I would give you my praise.

However, I am concerned about your relationship between the other opposition parties and leaders. I understand that Chiam See Tong was the founder of the SDP, and that you have strained relations with him due to the leadership of the SDP.

I give respect to all opposition parties and leaders and take a neutral stand on this, but I feel that in order to unite the opposition, you would have to patch up with Mr Chiam.

The fact that Mr Chiam See Tong spoke against you when brought up the Indonesia loan issue during the 2001GE proves that it has not been resolved. I do not have much to comment about what you did, but that is not a good sign to the opposition.

I would be interested to know what you have to say about this, Dr Chee, and I would like to wish you the best in your political struggle.

Mr Lau

SDP: The SDP concurs with Mr Lau about a united opposition. In our manifesto Dare To Change, Dr Chee wrote: It would make much sense [for the SDP and WP] to pool their resources together with the ultimate and overriding objective to entrench the Opposition in Singapore politics.

To show that we meant what we said, the SDP signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with the PKMS in 1995. Other opposition parties were invited to the signing ceremony where the SDP called for other opposition parties to sign the MOU as well.

Dr Chee and Mr Jeyaretnam, then secretary-general of WP, had visited the United States together in 1999 and later co-operated to form the Open Singapore Centre. The initiative is further evidence of the SDP willing to work closer with other opposition parties.

At the last GE, the SDP stood by its stand and called for voters to vote in all 29 opposition candidates even though Mr Chiam See Tong changed his mind mid-way through the campaign and called for voters to support only his party.

On the matter of the Indonesian loan, the SDP raised the issue because it concerned huge amounts of funds that belonged to the public. Whether other opposition parties support or criticize the SDP's stand should not deter us from raising issues of intense national interest.

The SDP opens its meetings and activities to members of other opposition and NGOs. We do this because we believe that a party grows when there is participation from the bottom the up, not direction from the top down.

The SDP has said it before and will say it again: We stand ready to cooperate with any opposition party to bring about democracy to our nation. However, as from the recent comments made by the National Solidarity Party following the resignation of one of its leaders, it is clear that opposition unity still has some ways to go.

While the SDP respects the views of other opposition parties on the best strategy to adopt in the fight for democracy, we must also do what we believe is right and to bring out the issues we believe must be raised regardless of how other opposition parties feel.

The PAP defines and controls almost every facet of life in Singapore. It would be dangerous for the ruling party to do the same with the Opposition.

12 March 2002

Dear Dr Chee,

I hope you had a pleasant trip to Hong Kong, which I read from your party's report, turned out to be a success. I truly hope that your CNN Interview will be viewed by many and that even more will understand your cause. Till then, may you be blessed with good health and happiness. God Bless.

G. Chen

10 March 2002

Dear Democrats,

I look forward to the CNN's interview with Dr Chee! I really love what you guys are doing for our country and the way you reason with us through logic and reason.

I was there when Dr Chee was expounding on the tudung issue. I see nothing malicious in his speech. On the contrary, I feel that he was just encouraging us to go one step further by recognizing our fellow Singaporeans beyond creed, language, religion and race. What's wrong with that honorable goal?

I can't understand why the press (I saw several reporters taking notes) did not air the speech and let Singaporeans decide if he is in fact uttering nonsense.

March on Dr Chee and the Democrats! Though I may not support everything the party proposes but I will always support the foundation that Dr Chee and the SDP works on: openess, debate, justice and accountability.

I am often ridiculed by my colleagues for speaking up for the 'shameful, attention grabbing' Dr Chee but I do know deep inside what I believe in.

March on SDP!

Harry

SDP: It is sad - and dangerous - that the PAP continues to divide and rule Singaporeans according to race. The local media's refusal to report Dr Chee's speech at Hong Lim Park on the tudung issue is a good example. The Chinese-language newspapers continue to publish letters critical of the SDP even as they refuse to publish his speech. Such letters are absent from the English- and Malay-language newspapers perhaps because they know that the SDP will reply and they don't want such discussions to be read by Malays.

Dr Chee had pointed the folly of the PAP's policy on the matter and called for Singaporeans of all races to be tolerant and to speak up for each other regardless of ethnicity or religious beliefs. But alas many Singaporeans will not know the SDP's reasons and arguments (not only for this issue but for others as well) and continue to believe what the PAP says as it is the only viewpoint that get to read and hear. Such a political arrangement will not do our country any good.

9 March 2002

My heart goes out to you on hearing that the courts have turned down your application for QCs. The reasons put forth by Judicial Commissioner Tay Yong Kwang are lame and utterly disgraceful.

It seems to me that this time round, he has failed to discredit the 2 lawyers of your choice by way of their conduct in the eyes of the judiciary here, and chose instead to question the necessity for their appointments. If it is unnecessary, then why wasn't this the reason given for the rejection of Mr Littlemore as your QC in your initial application? I am sure that deep down, many Singaporeans and international observers who are following this case closely are interested to know.

To me at least, it is irrelevant whether your lawyers are QCs or not. And if your case is not deemed complex enough, I can't think of any other that qualifies

Outraged

8 March 2002

I am a Singaporean and I have been living abroad for the last 15 years. It was only this year that I came about to know about Dr. Chee via the media and the Internet.

I may not be a supporter for any of the political parties in Singapore, opposition or otherwise, but I am compelled to agree with much, if not all, of what Dr. Chee has written and said in his articles and speeches.

The PAP has always consistently stressed (to its citizens) that the opposition does not have the capability and the experience to effectively run the country. Sure, the PAP has the experience, three decades of it, to be exact; but the ruling party should not comment on something which has not been proven.

How does the PAP know? It doesn't, because it (opposition coming to power) has yet to happen. The PAP should also not be the spokesman for the people. Let Singaporeans decide for themselves, without influence, about the credibility of the opposition.

The PAP may, judging by the recent poll results, say, "See, the majority has spoken." Yes, and only because PAP used the upgrading (of HDB) as a weapon in the election against the opposition. This is nothing new.

Contrary to what the PAP has mentioned in the past, I do not believe that Singaporeans do not care about politics. It is either they are too afraid to support the opposition, or they cannot be bothered with it because the election results is so routinealways a PAP victory.

For any government to be effective, it needs to have a strong opposition. It must be kept in mind that the PAP is no God. After all, ministers are just humans and people make mistakes. If the opposition parties cannot participate freely and fairly, then the government may as well be a regime, dictatorship or otherwise.

The PAP should remember that this is 21st century, not the 1960s. So whatever way (of governing) SM Lee and our forefathers have used in the past might not be as effective in the new era.

Dr. Chee, I wish you every success in your fight for democracy, and I will be following your struggle wherever I am. Take care and God bless.

An observer

5 March 2002

I have read the speech that was delivered by Dr Chee Soon Juan, on Feb 15 2002, in support of a Singaporean's right to wear a tudung. In his speech Dr Chee Soon Juan says, "For almost 40 years, we have allowed Sikh boys to wear turbans."

Let me give the background of this custom:

Guru Nanak founded the Sikh religion in Punjab, India in the 15th century. He preached a message of love and understanding and criticized the blind rituals of the Hindus and Muslims. The Sikhs lived in relative peace with the political rulers until the time of the Moghal Emperor, Aurangzeb, who used force to make his subjects accept Islam. Aurangzeb had the ninth Guru, Tegh Bahadur, arrested and executed in 1675. The tenth Guru, Gobind Singh, recreated the Sikhs as a military group of men and women called the Khalsa in 1699, with the intention that the Sikhs should for ever be able to defend their faith.

Gobind Singh established the Sikh rite of initiation and the 5 Ks, which give Sikhs their unique appearance. The Khalsa uphold the highest Sikh virtues of commitment, dedication and a social conscious. The Khalsa are men and women who have undergone the Sikh baptism ceremony and who strictly follow the Sikh Code of Conduct and Conventions and wear the prescribed physical articles of the faith. One of the more noticeable being the uncut hair (required to be covered with a turban for men). The wearing of turbans by Sikhs was the outcome of the tyranny of Aurangzeb. The Sikh wanted to stand up and oppose tyranny.

There is worldwide acceptance of Sikh's wearing turban , and as Dr. Chee says Singapore has allowed this practice for 40 years. To equate this practice with allowing Muslim girl students of Singapore, to wear tudung at the present juncture, is not correct. This issue has been brought up now to cause mischief. I do not agree that wearing this head dress will promote better inter-religious understanding. The school uniform is to bring uniformity among the students; no one should be made to stand out by wearing something different, whether a designer watch, jewelry, or a tudung.

If Singapore Government gave in the next demand would be the segregation of sexes in schools as is the practice in Islamic countries. The Singapore Government has done the right thing by nipping this issue in the bud.

Arup Bose

SDP: The SDP is not comparing the relative importance of the turban or the tudung. We respect the right of Sikhs to don the turban as they are doing now and would fight just as hard if the Government decided to ban Sikh boys from wearing the turban to school.

The only reason why the turban issue was raised was to counter the PAP's argument that the wearing of a form of religious wear would cause social division. The obvious answer is that it does not and that is why there should be no fear of the tudung causing racial disharmony.

Whether the tudung to the Muslim is as important as the turban to the Sikh is not for the SDP, nor Mr Bose, to say. Furthermore, for him to allege that the tudung issue "has been brought up now to cause mischief" is a serious charge that needs substantiating.

What the SDP is concerned about is that if the wearing of the tudung does not infringe upon the rights of non-Muslims (and it doesn't) and if it doesn't cost the Government anything (and it doesn't), then the Government must respect their rights as guaranteed by the Constitution.

Mr Bose gives the example that if the Government allows Muslim schoolgirls to wear the tudung, then that would open the floodgates for other, even unreasonable, demands. Ironically the SDP brought up the point about Sikh wearing turbans, which has been the practice for decades, to show that this has not led to other religions asserting their own demands.

Mr Bose brings up the example about Muslims wanting to segregate sexes in school. If this question did in fact arise, the SDP would not support it because this would mean building separate facilities, or even separate schools, that would cost public money. It would not be a reasonable demand. Besides, there are already all-boys and all-girls schools that parents can send their children to if they don't want co-ed schools.

The SDP believes that based on the principles of freedom and democracy, the donning of tudung should be left to the parents of the girls to decide. The PAP Government has no right to ban the girls from school and coerce the parents to conform to its idiosyncratic decisions. This is precisely why we have a constitution in the first place.

4 March 2002

I contributed the following letter to Straits Times (Forum Page), though I think it is unlikely to get published:

I am somewhat perplexed that Dr Chee's recent application for a Queen's Counsel was turned down by our High Court on the basis that "the cases were not so complex as to warrant the expertise of a Queen's Counsel". On the contrary, the High Court has allowed this "straightforward" case to be handled by Senior Counsel Davinder Singh (representing PM Goh and SM Lee).

Even though the title of "Senior Counsel" was established to be our local equivalent for the Queen's Counsel, it seems that the High Court may have inadvertently committed an act of great injustice to our local legal profession by giving undue recognition to those "foreign QC talents" (by implying that QCs have a higher level of expertise than our "local Senior Counsels").

On a related issue, I hope that in the quest for recruiting more "foreign talents", our Government will not give any undue preferential treatment to the "foreign talents" by assuming that they have a higher level of expertise (unless proven).

It is time that our "local talents" should be given equal recognition for their important contributions.

Cheong

4 March 2002

I have some comments about your articles on the tudung issue. In order to beat PAP, let it have a taste of its own medicine. I would like to draw readers' attention to Article 15 of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (which states that "every person has the right to profess and practice his religion and to propagate it" and that "every religious group has the right to manage its own religious affairs.")

DJ

SDP: For readers' information, two other articles in the Constitution are also relevant:

Article 12 Equality

(1) All persons are equal before the law and entitled to the equal protection of the law.

(2) Except as expressly authorized by this Constitution, there shall be no discrimination against citizens of Singapore on the ground only of religion, race, descent or place of birth in any law or in the appointment to any office or employment under a public authority or in the administration of any law relating to the acquisition, holding, or disposition of property or the establishing or carrying on of any trade, business, profession, vocation or employment.

(3) This article does not invalidate or prohibit

(a) any provision regulating personal law; or

(b) any provision or practice restricting office or employment connected with the affairs of any religion, or of an institution managed by a group professing any religion, to persons professing that religion.

Article 16 Rights in Respect of Education:

(1) Without prejudice to the generality of Article 12, there shall be no discrimination against any citizens of Singapore on the grounds only of religion, race, descent or place of birth

(a) in the administration of any educational institution maintained by a public authority, and, in particular, the admission of pupils or students or the payment of fees; or

(b) in providing out of the funds of a public authority financial aid for the maintenance or education of pupils or students in any educational institution (whether or not maintained by a public authority and whether within or outside Singapore).

(2) Every religious group has the right to establish and maintain institutions for the education of children and provide therein instruction in its own religion, and there shall be no discrimination on the ground only of religion in any law relating to such institutions or in the administration of any such law.

(3) No person shall be required to receive instruction in or to take part in any ceremony or act of worship of a religion other than his own.

(4) For the purposes of clause (3), the religion of a person under the age of 18 years shall be decided by his parent or guardian.

4 February 2002

I'm glad to find that your website is updated. Mr Chee seems to be an energetic man, believing in your dreams. So are the members. Talking about the polls of Nov 3, 20 % + 20 % voted for SDP. This means that 20,000 + 20,000 = 40,000 people voted for SDP. Further more, SDP took back its deposit for the election. Compare 40,000 with 500 or 1,000, the figure is very high. The PAP has talked about reviving the economy. Look, the unemployment rate has shot up to 4.7 per cent and this is not the highest rate yet.

Teo

22 December 2001

I was brought up believing that the PAP is doing a fantastic job of governing Singapore. But when I entered the workforce, I discovered there are many flaws in the way the government rules.

And due to the hardworking members of SDP selling informative newspapers, books at Tampines MRT, I grabbed a copy, did some research on the Internet. I found out there is little distinction between PAP and communism except during polling day. The problem is that during polling, voters are likely to be intimidated.

During my trip to work, I had passed by Tampines MRT on 5th Oct 7pm. I saw SDP including Dr Chee selling his newly published book. I was awed by the tremendous effort and sacrifice they had made trying to improve Singapore. I'm sure SDP will be successful in the coming election. I would like to applaud the efforts made by SDP to promote true democracy in Singapore. Keep up the good work!

Berger

12 October 2001

Dear Dr Chee

Perhaps you could help Singaporeans fight for our right to vote. Currently as I understand, it is a "privilege". Perhaps it is time our voting system is challenged.

Many countries around us get to vote for a leader who then decides his/her cabinet e.g. Japan, Indonesia, USA, UK to name a few. Why can't we be given the same right? I wonder when Singaporeans will get to vote as others in the world do.

Government leaders like to say that they are the "best" there is, and that they are "voted" into power. But, really, how many of us get to vote? I think I speak for many Singaporeans when I say that election day is another holiday because many constituencies are simply walk-overs.

Not many country run elections like ours, could we be the one and only unique country, I wonder? Many countries have opposition parties with significant number seats in the parliament. What about ours? Singapore, a "unique" place resided by "unique" people. We are not even allowed to consume chewing gum!

I just want to wish you and the SDP all the best in the coming elections.

A fellow Singaporean

5 May 2000

Singapore's judicial process is based on the assumption that an accused person is 'presumed innocent until proven guilty.'

However, this cardinal principle of our justice system invariably takes a backseat whenever it comes to dealing with oppositionists.

A case in point is the recent arrest of Dr Chee Soon Juan and Mr Gandhi Ambalam, outside the Istana on l May when workers the world over came out in full force to mark May Day.

Dr Chee is being investigated for 'trespass' and Mr Gandhi 'disorderly behaviour'. The charges are without doubt part of the ongoing attempt by the PAP to criminalise genuine opposition politics in Singapore.

But how do our police and the local media, in particular the Straits Times, project the arrests is an interesting study in the 'art of misinformation' by an regime that uses the entire state machinery to further its agenda?

The newspaper seems to have ignored the fact that the case against the leaders has not gone before a court of law. Under such a scenario, newspaper reports should only say that they have been 'alleged' or 'claimed' by the police to have committed the said offences under the penal code.

But a report in the Straits Times on May 15, said: "Dr Chee ignored police warnings to stop an illegal rally outside the Istana on Labour Day. Mr Ambalam shouted at police officers leading Dr Chee away to the station, and obstructed them from carrying out their duties."

It is clear that the Straits Times, which claims to be a national daily, is ever ready to charge, try, and convict the two in the editors' offices. Basic, decent journalism (if there has ever been such a thing in our state media in the first place) does not seem to be a concern.

The charges against the two are still being investigated (why must the police take such a long time to probe a simple, straightforward case?) and yet local media keeps referring to them as persons who are already guilty of the crime.

The way the Straits Times bends over backwards to please its masters is nothing but a classic case of a PAP spin machine in overdrive. Times like these, I am really ashamed of my own country.

A Singapore Worker