when we thought that master chee was scheming to discredit master chiam, chee's ex-master another character assasination plot appeared.
again, it was from the SDP CLAN. long lost father ng ah teck found by long lost RP's betrayer son ng JJ. together they teamed up. father told son stories and son JJ who was equipped with golden brush wrote and painted out the colorful misleading story about RP CLAN specially targeting at their chiefy KJ.
interesting!! it always had to be an SDPPY involved in causing some storms and assasination attempts. simply incredible!! by the way the GE could be nearing. perhaps secret edicts had been issued to SDP to do what the LEEgime wanted them to do ..or else!! off with all their heads!!
ormer RP chairman refutes Kenneth Jeyaretnam’s claims
Posted by theonlinecitizen on April 8, 2010 12 Comments Mr Ng Teck Siong, former Chairman of the Reform Party, intends to provide a formal response concerning remarks recently made by Mr Kenneth Jeyaretnam that implied the Reform Party was an empty vessel devoid of leadership when Mr Jeyaretnam took over as Secretary-General last year.
In an exclusive interview with TODAY freelance reporter Loh Chee Kong published on 08 Apr (see here), Mr Jeyaretnam said that when he was elected party chief, the party “was in quite a bad state”, that it was a “drifting, rudderless empty vessel” in which “morale had dwindled, the number of members had decreased and there hadn’t been central executive committee meetings for about four or five months.”
Speaking to TOC’s Political Desk on the same day the TODAY article was published, Mr Ng Teck Siong refuted these assertions, claiming that the party had been healthy and progressing up to the time he resigned as party Chairman.
Mr Ng said that after JBJ passed away, the Reform Party had conducted at least two CEC meetings between October 2008 and April 2009. He had chaired each of the meetings and maintained proper attendance records.
The Reform Party had attracted over 20 members from all walks of life, as of Mr Ng’s departure. During his tenure with the party, Mr Ng had organized several walkabouts at Jurong West and had conducted sales of JBJ’s books at Raffles City Shopping Centre, Speaker’s Corner, Harbour Front, as well as in the HDB heartlands.
The party had also successfully organized a forum in February 2009 analysing the government’s Budget statement. It was attended by about 70 people, including members of the opposition parties such as Mr Steve Chia from the National Solidarity Party (NSP), Mr Sin Kek Tong from Singapore People’s Party (SPP), Mr Gandhi Ambalam, Ms Chee Siok Chin and Dr Chee Soon Juan of the Singapore Democratic Party (SDP), as well as prominent public figures like Mr Tan Kin Lian.
Mr Ng however admitted that he had not been successful in attracting enough capable leaders and members into the party as he would have liked.
The TODAY article quoted Kenneth Jeyaretnam as saying that for the first time, Singapore has an opposition party that “is perceived as economically competent, credible, and proposing alternative policies that could really make a difference or change Singapore”.
But Mr Ng criticised Mr Jeyaretnam for failing to address Singapore’s flawed political system, which if not rectified, would hold back Singapore’s progress in other areas.
Mr Ng also disapproved of Mr Jeyaretnam’s remarks concerning veteran opposition leader Chiam See Tong. Mr Jeyaretnam had said: “In a democratic country, if a party has failed for 25 years to expand its base beyond one seat in Parliament then I think the leaders would have been voted out.”
Mr Ng said that this remark was uncalled for. In the 1991 general elections, the SDP under Mr Chiam See Tong’s leadership had captured 3 parliamentary seats, demonstrating that Mr Chiam had the capability to expand the party’s base.
During his interview with TOC’s Political Desk, Mr Ng also recounted the events leading up to his resignation from the Reform Party. He said that in early 2009, Mr Kenneth Jeyaretnam had approached him and asked to be appointed the Secretary-General. Mr Ng had refused, citing Jeyaretnam’s lack of political experience. However, the party agreed to accept Jeyaretnam as an ordinary CEC member. Shortly thereafter, Mr Jeyaretnam again asked for the post of Secretary-General, and when repeatedly refused by Mr Ng, rallied other CEC members to pass a motion of no-confidence against Mr Ng. Thereafter, Mr Ng resigned from the party, citing that he had lost the confidence of his colleagues.
Mr Ng Teck Siong intends to hold a press conference at Speaker’s Corner on Saturday evening (10 Apr) to make a public statement regarding Mr Jeyaretnam’s remarks about the Reform Party and Mr Ng’s leadership. Details will be announced as soon as they are available.
Ng E Jay
well, the senior ng wasn't anything close to chiam see tong who headed SDP once. much i would like to add that it seem to be a DEJA VU ala carte SDP chee soon juan ousting chiam see tong.
in ng's case, he was a deadwood in RP who persistently obssessed with power.
another thing very interesting to note. this episode was cleverly written by ng ejay, my loose pet snake at large. and ejay by the way had also joined RP briefly. just like his speed of removing his red-t shirt and slithering slippery off before the cops could spot him, he was also the fastest to quit RP as quickly as he was accepted as a RP member.
of course, this beautiful article was written without prejudice. it was written without malice and mischief. how could it be? ng ejay is now the prized darling of the troll, SDP, TOC, TEMASEK REVIEW and etc. he's best a behind the scene scriptwriterof the "highest patriotic level".
wow! i m so proud of my freed pet snake!
Thursday, April 8, 2010
Wednesday, April 7, 2010
edict from LEEgime to master chee
a top secret edict from the LEEgime was issued to master chee ah juan, puppetmaster of SDP CLAN:
OBITERATE MASTER CHIAM ASAP AND WIN BACK POTONG PASIR PROVINCE FOR PAP.....or else!!
note: this message shall self-destruct in 15 seconds - STARTING NOW....
Chee strikes back against PAP’s propaganda of him ousting Chiam See Tong from SDP in 1993
April 8, 2010 by admin
Filed under Headlines
Leave a comment
Written by Our Correspondent
Singapore Democratic Party Secretary-General Dr Chee Soon Juan has struck back at the PAP for perpetuating a “falsehood” about him “ousting” Mr Chiam See Tong from the party 17 years ago.
Mr Chiam founded the SDP in 1980 and led it to its greatest height in 1991 when it won an unprecedented three seats in Parliament.
The historical feud was dredged up again following Dr Chee’s interview with Lianhe Zaobao in February 2010 in which Dr Chee denied plotting to remove Mr Chiam as SDP’s Secretary-General.
Mr Chiam’s wife Ms Lina Loh subsequently contacted Lianhe Zaobao for an interview to dispute Dr Chee’s version of events prompting the latter to write another letter to the Straits Times Forum to clarify his stance.
Dr Chee has written a three part series published on the SDP website giving a detailed explanation of what really transpired in 1993.
He claimed that the PAP had been exploiting the issue after Mr Chiam resigned as Secretary-General of SDP:
“The ruling party knew that it could inflict maximum damage if it pitted Mr Chiam against me. Mr Goh Chok Tong, then prime minister, had once told his party members: Mr Chiam was no threat but had, in fact, been “good” for the PAP as “without him, it would have been more difficult to destroy (Singapore Democratic Party chief) Chee Soon Juan”. (Party sets five goals to win elections in 2002, Straits Times, 12 Jan 98)”
Though Dr Chee has been criticized by some quarters for harping on an old issue, he felt there is a need to speak up now to “set the record straight”:
“Equally important, I want to stop the PAP and its media from resurrecting a falsehood that began nearly 20 years ago and using it the upcoming elections to hammer the SDP and me again…….Some say that the matter happened so long ago and that it is not relevant anymore. I beg to differ. The PAP and the media will trot this issue out from time to time especially when the elections draw near, as is the case now, to jolt the memory of voters, in particular the older ones, of what had happened.”
With the emergence of the internet as an alternative source of information to counter the PAP’s propaganda through the mainstream media, it will become increasingly harder for it to continue to propagate blatant lies and myths without losing credibility itself.
NOTE: notice the highlight in RED: written by our correspondent. why dare not state the name of the writer? i see. it's probably my pet snake who wrote that. the writting style is about the same. my pet snake always plays illusive. he's a coward and therefore would rather do all the "behind the scene" dirty works.
but why now? WHY NOW MASTER CHEE HAS TO DO ALL THESE DIRTY LAUNDRY WASHING? ah.....GE is near. and LEEgime's edict is very very serious. if master chee ah juan doesn't follow, he would have his entire SDP CLAN decapitated!!
Tuesday, April 6, 2010
GCT:without chee, it's very difficult to get rid chiam
Re: Part 3: Goh Chok Tong - Without Chiam, harder to destroy Chee
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
why is chee so specific in telling his side of story until now? when people asked him about the nature of his "foreign source of income" he just blah blah a few words. this one nobody asked him to narrate and yet he blaaaaaaaahhhhhhhh....until part how many already. very cartoon chee!!
the title should be:
PART 3: GOH CHOK TONG - WITHOUT CHEE, IT WOULD BE VERY DIFFICULT TO KICK OUT CHIAM and regain potong pasir.
.....and shit!!! still failed. chee u better perk up, shape out or ship out of the pap's secret service to rid chiam once and for all....OR ELSE!
Chee Soon Juan
When Mr Chiam's resignation as secretary-general was made public, the PAP wasted no time in exploiting the issue. The ruling party knew that it could inflict maximum damage if it pitted Mr Chiam against me. Mr Goh Chok Tong, then prime minister, had once told his party members:
Mr Chiam was no threat but had, in fact, been "good" for the PAP as "without him, it would have been more difficult to destroy (Singapore Democratic Party chief) Chee Soon Juan".
During a Parliament sitting in Jun 93, PAP Ministers ad MPs took to the floor to pile it on, extolling Mr Chiam and skewering the SDP. One even called the situation "a coup" against Mr Chiam. There was no question whose side the PAP was on:
Mr Wong Kan Seng stated: “Without him (Mr Chiam), what is the SDP?”
Former PAP MP Mr Tan Cheng Bock: “Mr Chiam appreciates the whole political scene, I think he did not want to rock the boat although he genuinely believed that certain things must be changed, which is fair enough.”
Former PAP MP Mr Loh Meng See: “It is sad because the whole event sounds like a coup against Mr Chiam.”
Even former Nominated MP, now Attorney-General, Mr Walter Woon weighed in: “He (Mr Chiam) founded the SDP and I don't see that he should give it up.”
As I mentioned in Part 1, the PAP even published cartoons in its party magazine, Petir, depicting me as an ingrate whom Mr Chiam brought in to the party only to be kicked out by me.
Of course the media got the cue and has since been ruthless in doing anything and everything to make me look as evil as possible vis-a-vis Mr Chiam. In the months following the split, headline after headline portrayed the SDP and me as the bad guy:
The PAP did not let up. In November 1994 during a Parliament sitting Mr Goh Chok Tong, then prime minister, further goaded:
I am surprised that SDP MPs are prepared to work for somebody who has been called a cheat and a liar and who has not sued. The system, which we want to work, is to keep out such people from Parliament.
A few weeks later at the party elections in January 1995, Mr Chiam tabled a resolution that
This conference notes with regret that our acting secretary-general has been called a cheat and liar in public more than once and he has not taken any legal action to clear his name. As such his name and consequently also that of the party's name is tainted, and accordingly, I move that this conference calls on Dr Chee Soon Juan to forthwith undertake to commence a court action to clear his name, failing which, he shall not be allowed to hold office in the SDP.
It is true that Mr Chiam's repeated attacks though the years, widely publicised by the media, have taken its toll. It was no wonder that Mr Goh told his party members that without Mr Chiam, it would have been more difficult to destroy me.
Even today the Straits Times is still at it. Take a look at these two photographs that the newspaper used last week in its report Chiam's SDP exit: Wife speaks up (29 Mar 10). While it picked a picture of a smiling and friendly Mrs Chiam, the editor deliberately chose one of me that looked anything but normal.
For years the media have been doing this. Photographs, more than words, create impressions in readers and the Singapore Press Holdings knows this. This is why it goes to great lengths to make sure that Singaporeans continue to get the worst possible impression of me.
Just yesterday, the Straits Times published a letter lambasting me for my confontational style while holding in high regard Mr Chiam's. The propaganda continues.
Mr Chiam's scorched-earth tactics culminated in the 1997 general elections when he quit the SDP to join the Singapore People's Party as its leader.
He then sent a Mr Farid to contest in Bukit Gombak to force a three-cornered fight with Mr Ling How Doong who stood under the SDP banner. Both opposition candidates lost, of course, with Mr Farid having his election deposit forfeited as he polled below the minimum required of one-eighth of the total votes.
Living with the burden
Through all these years, I have not said much about the split. For 17 years I have had to live with the perception that I was the villain in this episode. I still do because most Singaporeans still don't klnow the truth, and the PAP media seems determined to keep it that way.
A sliver of hope that I have is that with the Internet, the truth will slowly begin to emerge.
To be sure, I have had various opportunities to return fire. The Singapore Press Club's invitation to speak was one (see Part 2). But I declined them because I did not want to let the PAP capitalise on the split and be accused of breaking up the opposition.
In addition I have written several books but, again, I have stayed away from being critical about Mr Chiam because I did not want the PAP to further exploit it. In my first book Dare To Change which I wrote immediately after the saga in 1994, I made only one mention of Mr Chiam and even then it was to call for opposition unity:
The two main opposition parties, the Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) lead by Chiam See Tong until 1993 and the Workers' Party (WP) led by the determined Joshua B. Jeyaretnam has been challenging the PAP on similar issues with similar viewpoints...It would make much sense for both camps to pool their resources together with the ultimate and over-riding objective to entrench the Opposition in Singaporean politics.
When the SDP organised an official visit to Australia in September 1994, I telephoned Mr Chiam to invite him along. I was still hoping that we could mend the differences. He declined saying that he had to attend an inter-parliamentary conference.
I have long been wanting to tell Singaporeans about Mr Goh's admission that the PAP had used Mr Chiam to destroy me. Remember, he made this statement in Jan 1998. It has been 12 years since. I have kept this under wraps and not mentioned it in public for reasons cited above.
So why now?
But last week after so many years, Mrs Chiam continues to tell the public that it was I who ousted her husband. Even after Today published Mr Chiam's comments that were critical of the SDP in February last year, I still held back and wished Mr Chiam well.
I had attended Mr Chiam's 25th anniversary dinner as MP of Potong Pasir last year. Again I wished him well. The SDP organised two public forums and invited leaders of the other opposition parties, Mr Chiam included, to speak. No one can accuse me of not trying to bury the hatchet with Mr Chiam.
But my overtures continue to be met with the untrue statement that I kicked him out of the SDP.
The last straw came recently when a student at the NUS, who had read about Mrs Chiam's interview, informed me on my Facebook that her political science textbook, Politics and Governance in Singapore (McGrawHill) written by Associate Professor Bilveer Singh, also said that Mr Chiam had been ousted by me:
This prominent and popular leader (Mr Chiam) of the opposition party has worked hard to present a credible alternative to the PAP. However, he has not always been successful in this endeavor. He left the Singapore Democratic Party following the challenge by Dr Chee Soon Juan.
...Some of the leading opposition political parties are 'wracked by internal dissension.' A case in point includes the ousting of the most senior opposition member, Chiam See Tong from his post in the SDP by a then relative novice, Chee Soon Juan.
Then textbooks start to write such inaccuracies and students are taught them, it is no longer just rhetorical back and forth between politicians.
Without correction, these untruths get passed down from university textbooks to secondary textbooks and before long, it becomes historical fact that I was actually the one who schemed to oust Mr Chiam from the party when nothing could be further from the truth.
Bilveer Singh
Unlike other researchers such as Dr Hussein Mutalib, who had interviewed me for his work, I have never spoken or been interviewed by Dr Bilveer Singh.
This is why I have chosen to speak up now. I do this not to attack Mr or Mrs Chiam; I continue to wish them well. I do it because I need to set the record straight so that teachers like Dr Singh will get the history right.
Stop the lie
Equally important, I want to stop the PAP and its media from resurrecting a falsehood that began nearly 20 years ago and using it the upcoming elections to hammer the SDP and me again.
My only regret is that I did not do this sooner. I have retreated time and again, and kept silent all these years about this issue. After a whle it becomes dishonest for me to continue to hide the truth. Our supporters deserve to know what really went on.
Some say that the matter happened so long ago and that it is not relevant anymore. I beg to differ. The PAP and the media will trot this issue out from time to time especially when the elections draw near to jolt the memory of voters, in particular the older ones, of what had happened.
I want to put a stop to this once and for all. The PAP and the media must not be allowed to continue to use this falsehood against me and the SDP.
I owe it to my party, my colleagues and supporters, and my family to clear the air. I have to relate the details of the matter in this series of articles so that Singaporeans, and academics who write history, will know the truth of what happened in those fateful few months in 1993.
In 4th and final Part, I explain why I took over as secretary-general following the departure of Mr Chaim.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
why is chee so specific in telling his side of story until now? when people asked him about the nature of his "foreign source of income" he just blah blah a few words. this one nobody asked him to narrate and yet he blaaaaaaaahhhhhhhh....until part how many already. very cartoon chee!!
the title should be:
PART 3: GOH CHOK TONG - WITHOUT CHEE, IT WOULD BE VERY DIFFICULT TO KICK OUT CHIAM and regain potong pasir.
.....and shit!!! still failed. chee u better perk up, shape out or ship out of the pap's secret service to rid chiam once and for all....OR ELSE!
Chee Soon Juan
When Mr Chiam's resignation as secretary-general was made public, the PAP wasted no time in exploiting the issue. The ruling party knew that it could inflict maximum damage if it pitted Mr Chiam against me. Mr Goh Chok Tong, then prime minister, had once told his party members:
Mr Chiam was no threat but had, in fact, been "good" for the PAP as "without him, it would have been more difficult to destroy (Singapore Democratic Party chief) Chee Soon Juan".
During a Parliament sitting in Jun 93, PAP Ministers ad MPs took to the floor to pile it on, extolling Mr Chiam and skewering the SDP. One even called the situation "a coup" against Mr Chiam. There was no question whose side the PAP was on:
Mr Wong Kan Seng stated: “Without him (Mr Chiam), what is the SDP?”
Former PAP MP Mr Tan Cheng Bock: “Mr Chiam appreciates the whole political scene, I think he did not want to rock the boat although he genuinely believed that certain things must be changed, which is fair enough.”
Former PAP MP Mr Loh Meng See: “It is sad because the whole event sounds like a coup against Mr Chiam.”
Even former Nominated MP, now Attorney-General, Mr Walter Woon weighed in: “He (Mr Chiam) founded the SDP and I don't see that he should give it up.”
As I mentioned in Part 1, the PAP even published cartoons in its party magazine, Petir, depicting me as an ingrate whom Mr Chiam brought in to the party only to be kicked out by me.
Of course the media got the cue and has since been ruthless in doing anything and everything to make me look as evil as possible vis-a-vis Mr Chiam. In the months following the split, headline after headline portrayed the SDP and me as the bad guy:
The PAP did not let up. In November 1994 during a Parliament sitting Mr Goh Chok Tong, then prime minister, further goaded:
I am surprised that SDP MPs are prepared to work for somebody who has been called a cheat and a liar and who has not sued. The system, which we want to work, is to keep out such people from Parliament.
A few weeks later at the party elections in January 1995, Mr Chiam tabled a resolution that
This conference notes with regret that our acting secretary-general has been called a cheat and liar in public more than once and he has not taken any legal action to clear his name. As such his name and consequently also that of the party's name is tainted, and accordingly, I move that this conference calls on Dr Chee Soon Juan to forthwith undertake to commence a court action to clear his name, failing which, he shall not be allowed to hold office in the SDP.
It is true that Mr Chiam's repeated attacks though the years, widely publicised by the media, have taken its toll. It was no wonder that Mr Goh told his party members that without Mr Chiam, it would have been more difficult to destroy me.
Even today the Straits Times is still at it. Take a look at these two photographs that the newspaper used last week in its report Chiam's SDP exit: Wife speaks up (29 Mar 10). While it picked a picture of a smiling and friendly Mrs Chiam, the editor deliberately chose one of me that looked anything but normal.
For years the media have been doing this. Photographs, more than words, create impressions in readers and the Singapore Press Holdings knows this. This is why it goes to great lengths to make sure that Singaporeans continue to get the worst possible impression of me.
Just yesterday, the Straits Times published a letter lambasting me for my confontational style while holding in high regard Mr Chiam's. The propaganda continues.
Mr Chiam's scorched-earth tactics culminated in the 1997 general elections when he quit the SDP to join the Singapore People's Party as its leader.
He then sent a Mr Farid to contest in Bukit Gombak to force a three-cornered fight with Mr Ling How Doong who stood under the SDP banner. Both opposition candidates lost, of course, with Mr Farid having his election deposit forfeited as he polled below the minimum required of one-eighth of the total votes.
Living with the burden
Through all these years, I have not said much about the split. For 17 years I have had to live with the perception that I was the villain in this episode. I still do because most Singaporeans still don't klnow the truth, and the PAP media seems determined to keep it that way.
A sliver of hope that I have is that with the Internet, the truth will slowly begin to emerge.
To be sure, I have had various opportunities to return fire. The Singapore Press Club's invitation to speak was one (see Part 2). But I declined them because I did not want to let the PAP capitalise on the split and be accused of breaking up the opposition.
In addition I have written several books but, again, I have stayed away from being critical about Mr Chiam because I did not want the PAP to further exploit it. In my first book Dare To Change which I wrote immediately after the saga in 1994, I made only one mention of Mr Chiam and even then it was to call for opposition unity:
The two main opposition parties, the Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) lead by Chiam See Tong until 1993 and the Workers' Party (WP) led by the determined Joshua B. Jeyaretnam has been challenging the PAP on similar issues with similar viewpoints...It would make much sense for both camps to pool their resources together with the ultimate and over-riding objective to entrench the Opposition in Singaporean politics.
When the SDP organised an official visit to Australia in September 1994, I telephoned Mr Chiam to invite him along. I was still hoping that we could mend the differences. He declined saying that he had to attend an inter-parliamentary conference.
I have long been wanting to tell Singaporeans about Mr Goh's admission that the PAP had used Mr Chiam to destroy me. Remember, he made this statement in Jan 1998. It has been 12 years since. I have kept this under wraps and not mentioned it in public for reasons cited above.
So why now?
But last week after so many years, Mrs Chiam continues to tell the public that it was I who ousted her husband. Even after Today published Mr Chiam's comments that were critical of the SDP in February last year, I still held back and wished Mr Chiam well.
I had attended Mr Chiam's 25th anniversary dinner as MP of Potong Pasir last year. Again I wished him well. The SDP organised two public forums and invited leaders of the other opposition parties, Mr Chiam included, to speak. No one can accuse me of not trying to bury the hatchet with Mr Chiam.
But my overtures continue to be met with the untrue statement that I kicked him out of the SDP.
The last straw came recently when a student at the NUS, who had read about Mrs Chiam's interview, informed me on my Facebook that her political science textbook, Politics and Governance in Singapore (McGrawHill) written by Associate Professor Bilveer Singh, also said that Mr Chiam had been ousted by me:
This prominent and popular leader (Mr Chiam) of the opposition party has worked hard to present a credible alternative to the PAP. However, he has not always been successful in this endeavor. He left the Singapore Democratic Party following the challenge by Dr Chee Soon Juan.
...Some of the leading opposition political parties are 'wracked by internal dissension.' A case in point includes the ousting of the most senior opposition member, Chiam See Tong from his post in the SDP by a then relative novice, Chee Soon Juan.
Then textbooks start to write such inaccuracies and students are taught them, it is no longer just rhetorical back and forth between politicians.
Without correction, these untruths get passed down from university textbooks to secondary textbooks and before long, it becomes historical fact that I was actually the one who schemed to oust Mr Chiam from the party when nothing could be further from the truth.
Bilveer Singh
Unlike other researchers such as Dr Hussein Mutalib, who had interviewed me for his work, I have never spoken or been interviewed by Dr Bilveer Singh.
This is why I have chosen to speak up now. I do this not to attack Mr or Mrs Chiam; I continue to wish them well. I do it because I need to set the record straight so that teachers like Dr Singh will get the history right.
Stop the lie
Equally important, I want to stop the PAP and its media from resurrecting a falsehood that began nearly 20 years ago and using it the upcoming elections to hammer the SDP and me again.
My only regret is that I did not do this sooner. I have retreated time and again, and kept silent all these years about this issue. After a whle it becomes dishonest for me to continue to hide the truth. Our supporters deserve to know what really went on.
Some say that the matter happened so long ago and that it is not relevant anymore. I beg to differ. The PAP and the media will trot this issue out from time to time especially when the elections draw near to jolt the memory of voters, in particular the older ones, of what had happened.
I want to put a stop to this once and for all. The PAP and the media must not be allowed to continue to use this falsehood against me and the SDP.
I owe it to my party, my colleagues and supporters, and my family to clear the air. I have to relate the details of the matter in this series of articles so that Singaporeans, and academics who write history, will know the truth of what happened in those fateful few months in 1993.
In 4th and final Part, I explain why I took over as secretary-general following the departure of Mr Chaim.
Monday, April 5, 2010
news....and more news!! mah peow poh....!!
Why can’t Singapore’s opposition parties remain united?
Instead of slugging it out with the People’s Action Party (PAP) in Parliament and arguing about government’s policies in the public sphere, opposition parties in Singapore are fighting amongst themselves.
1st match: Chiam See Tong vs Dr Chee Soon Juan
The feud between both of them can be traced back to the 1993 election. According to the Singapore Democratic Party website. the feud started when Dr Chee was sacked by NUS and went on a hunger strike:
Dr Chee was sacked by the National University of Singapore where he was a Lecturer. Dr Chee went on a hunger strike as a mark of protest. He was subsequently sued by his department head, Dr S Vasoo, faculty dean, Dr Ernest Chew, and secretary, Ms Janice Chen, when he disputed his sacking.
Mr Chiam first supported Dr Chee’s action but later changed his mind and called for the Party to censure the assistant secretary-general (Dr Chee was elected to the post in February 1993). None of the Central Executive Committee (CEC) members supported Mr Chiam’s motion whereupon the Party leader tended his resignation, citing that he had lost the confidence of his colleagues.
A few of the CEC members, including Dr Chee, tried to persuade Mr Chiam to remain as secretary-general. However, Mr Chiam stated that he would do so only if he could be granted the power to appoint and dismiss the Party’s cadre members. He also wanted the removal of Mr Wong Hong Toy as vice-chairman.
Under the Party’s constitution a simple majority of the CEC was needed to appoint cadre members, not any one individual leader. The CEC did not have the constitutional power to accede to Mr Chiam’s demands. A few weeks later, Mr Chiam gave a speech at the Singapore Press Club attacking the Party’s leadership. It was only then that the CEC voted to expel him.
The Press Club had extended a similar invitation to Dr Chee to counter Mr Chiam. Knowing that the PAP-controlled media had every intention to fan the flames, Dr Chee declined the invitation. But when he subsequently informed the organizers that he would speak but on the Party’s alternative policy ideas instead of the altercation with Mr Chiam, the Press Club withdrew the invitation.
Mr Chiam sued the CEC for wrongful dismissal and won. He remained with the Party until the 1997 general elections when he resigned to form another party.
Mr Chiam went on to form the Singapore People’s Party and together with the Singapore Malay National Organisation (PKMS) and the Singapore Justice Party (SJP), they formed the Singapore Democratic Alliance.
Fast forward seven years later.
In a 28 February 2010 interview with Lianhe Zaobao, Dr Chee claimed that in the 1993 dispute, he had pleaded with Mr Chiam to stay on in the SDP.
A few days later, after reading the interview, Mr Chiam’s wife, Ms Lina Loh contacted Lianhe Zaobao herself to rebuff Dr Chee’s claims that he wanted Mr Chiam to stay. She said:
If he really wanted to keep Mr Chiam, he coulld well reject the position of the Secretary-General or object to his expulsion when the CEC moved a motion to do so.
She went on to explain her decision in coming out to defend Mr Chiam:
I am only saying the truth for my husband to let the younger generation to understand Uncle Chiam, I need to step forward to clarify that he did not abandon SDP, when we were forced to leave, we were in so much pain in our hearts.
Dr Chee felt that the response from Ms Loh was a ‘personal attack’ on him as she was accusing him of ousting Dr Chiam. He responded in kind by writing ‘An open letter to all opposition supporters’.
He wrote that he bear no grudge against Mr Chiam and that he was misunderstood:
At the Reform Party dinner in 2009, I approached Mr Chiam to wish him well.
I attended his 25th anniversary dinner as an MP because I bore him no grudge and I was hoping the same from him.
The Singapore Democrats had even organised two public forums in 2008 and 2009 where we invited all the opposition party leaders, including Mr Chiam, to see how we could cooperate. We also invited him to our 30th anniversary dinner.
I did all this in the hope of burying the hatchet with Mr Chiam.
Unfortunately today’s outburst published in the Straits Times, Lianhe Zaobao and My Paper where Mrs Lina Chiam made a host of personal attacks against me were untrue. It has poisoned the well again.
This must stop. I have been demonised by the PAP and its media for long enough. I have been accused of ousting Mr Chiam which is a blatant lie. Records will show this.
I have refrained from answering my critics on this matter because I was hoping that the past would remain where it belongs, and that we can look ahead and focus on our fight for a democratic Singapore.
Depending on the developments over the next day or so, it may be necessary to set the record straight over the episode of Mr Chiam’s departure from the SDP.
I say “may be” because even at this late stage I am hoping that something can still be done to avert any open clash with Mrs Chiam. Suffice it to say that the ball is in her court.
I want to put a stop to the lies propagated by the PAP and the media that I had entered the SDP and ungratefully usurped Mr Chiam’s position as leader. Nothing could be further from the truth.
There are many details that hitherto Singaporeans do not know because they have been obscured or covered by the SPH in the past.
Sometimes it takes more courage to walk away from a fight. But there comes a time when one has to turn around and face one’s accusers and say “No more.”
2nd match: Singapore Malay National Organisation (PKMS) vs..itself
Since 2006, PKMS has been split into two groups which have been at loggerheads with each other.
The police have been called in several times in the past over previous bust-ups involving PKMS leaders. The party’s leadership dispute was also brought before the Subordinate Courts.
Things came to a head in 2009.
The two factions got into a brawl outside its office building in Eunos. Four men had to be taken to hospital with head and arm injuries, with one of them warded in intensive care with a fractured skull.
Police arrested a total of 21 people, two of them women, for rioting with dangerous weapons in relation to the incident, which happened around noon.
Those arrested, who include the four taken to hospital, are aged between 27 and 69 and were all PKMS members. Weapons such as hammers and screwdrivers were said to have been used in the fight.
This is the sorry state of the opposition parties in Singapore.
Amidst trading barbs in the mainstream media and declaring war on each other, one wonders if they realised that the ruling party, the People’s Action Party (PAP) is still in power and laughing at all the drama.
But that is some light at the end of the tunnel. Opposition parties like The Workers’ Party of Singapore and the newly-formed, Reform Party are quietly going about with their activities and working the ground.
We need to have opposition parties to keep the PAP on their toes and make sure that PAP does not forget its responsibility to serve Singaporeans.
In order to do that, opposition parties must remain united and take the fight to the PAP instead of fighting among each other. But judging from the two episodes highlighted above, they still have a long way to go.
It is also important to note that the mainstream media chooses what it wants to report. Putting opposition parties in a bad light is part of the ruling party’s propaganda.
from: http://tauhuayboy.wordpress.com/
for every one supporter of SDP, there are at least 50 who are pissed with chee!
Instead of slugging it out with the People’s Action Party (PAP) in Parliament and arguing about government’s policies in the public sphere, opposition parties in Singapore are fighting amongst themselves.
1st match: Chiam See Tong vs Dr Chee Soon Juan
The feud between both of them can be traced back to the 1993 election. According to the Singapore Democratic Party website. the feud started when Dr Chee was sacked by NUS and went on a hunger strike:
Dr Chee was sacked by the National University of Singapore where he was a Lecturer. Dr Chee went on a hunger strike as a mark of protest. He was subsequently sued by his department head, Dr S Vasoo, faculty dean, Dr Ernest Chew, and secretary, Ms Janice Chen, when he disputed his sacking.
Mr Chiam first supported Dr Chee’s action but later changed his mind and called for the Party to censure the assistant secretary-general (Dr Chee was elected to the post in February 1993). None of the Central Executive Committee (CEC) members supported Mr Chiam’s motion whereupon the Party leader tended his resignation, citing that he had lost the confidence of his colleagues.
A few of the CEC members, including Dr Chee, tried to persuade Mr Chiam to remain as secretary-general. However, Mr Chiam stated that he would do so only if he could be granted the power to appoint and dismiss the Party’s cadre members. He also wanted the removal of Mr Wong Hong Toy as vice-chairman.
Under the Party’s constitution a simple majority of the CEC was needed to appoint cadre members, not any one individual leader. The CEC did not have the constitutional power to accede to Mr Chiam’s demands. A few weeks later, Mr Chiam gave a speech at the Singapore Press Club attacking the Party’s leadership. It was only then that the CEC voted to expel him.
The Press Club had extended a similar invitation to Dr Chee to counter Mr Chiam. Knowing that the PAP-controlled media had every intention to fan the flames, Dr Chee declined the invitation. But when he subsequently informed the organizers that he would speak but on the Party’s alternative policy ideas instead of the altercation with Mr Chiam, the Press Club withdrew the invitation.
Mr Chiam sued the CEC for wrongful dismissal and won. He remained with the Party until the 1997 general elections when he resigned to form another party.
Mr Chiam went on to form the Singapore People’s Party and together with the Singapore Malay National Organisation (PKMS) and the Singapore Justice Party (SJP), they formed the Singapore Democratic Alliance.
Fast forward seven years later.
In a 28 February 2010 interview with Lianhe Zaobao, Dr Chee claimed that in the 1993 dispute, he had pleaded with Mr Chiam to stay on in the SDP.
A few days later, after reading the interview, Mr Chiam’s wife, Ms Lina Loh contacted Lianhe Zaobao herself to rebuff Dr Chee’s claims that he wanted Mr Chiam to stay. She said:
If he really wanted to keep Mr Chiam, he coulld well reject the position of the Secretary-General or object to his expulsion when the CEC moved a motion to do so.
She went on to explain her decision in coming out to defend Mr Chiam:
I am only saying the truth for my husband to let the younger generation to understand Uncle Chiam, I need to step forward to clarify that he did not abandon SDP, when we were forced to leave, we were in so much pain in our hearts.
Dr Chee felt that the response from Ms Loh was a ‘personal attack’ on him as she was accusing him of ousting Dr Chiam. He responded in kind by writing ‘An open letter to all opposition supporters’.
He wrote that he bear no grudge against Mr Chiam and that he was misunderstood:
At the Reform Party dinner in 2009, I approached Mr Chiam to wish him well.
I attended his 25th anniversary dinner as an MP because I bore him no grudge and I was hoping the same from him.
The Singapore Democrats had even organised two public forums in 2008 and 2009 where we invited all the opposition party leaders, including Mr Chiam, to see how we could cooperate. We also invited him to our 30th anniversary dinner.
I did all this in the hope of burying the hatchet with Mr Chiam.
Unfortunately today’s outburst published in the Straits Times, Lianhe Zaobao and My Paper where Mrs Lina Chiam made a host of personal attacks against me were untrue. It has poisoned the well again.
This must stop. I have been demonised by the PAP and its media for long enough. I have been accused of ousting Mr Chiam which is a blatant lie. Records will show this.
I have refrained from answering my critics on this matter because I was hoping that the past would remain where it belongs, and that we can look ahead and focus on our fight for a democratic Singapore.
Depending on the developments over the next day or so, it may be necessary to set the record straight over the episode of Mr Chiam’s departure from the SDP.
I say “may be” because even at this late stage I am hoping that something can still be done to avert any open clash with Mrs Chiam. Suffice it to say that the ball is in her court.
I want to put a stop to the lies propagated by the PAP and the media that I had entered the SDP and ungratefully usurped Mr Chiam’s position as leader. Nothing could be further from the truth.
There are many details that hitherto Singaporeans do not know because they have been obscured or covered by the SPH in the past.
Sometimes it takes more courage to walk away from a fight. But there comes a time when one has to turn around and face one’s accusers and say “No more.”
2nd match: Singapore Malay National Organisation (PKMS) vs..itself
Since 2006, PKMS has been split into two groups which have been at loggerheads with each other.
The police have been called in several times in the past over previous bust-ups involving PKMS leaders. The party’s leadership dispute was also brought before the Subordinate Courts.
Things came to a head in 2009.
The two factions got into a brawl outside its office building in Eunos. Four men had to be taken to hospital with head and arm injuries, with one of them warded in intensive care with a fractured skull.
Police arrested a total of 21 people, two of them women, for rioting with dangerous weapons in relation to the incident, which happened around noon.
Those arrested, who include the four taken to hospital, are aged between 27 and 69 and were all PKMS members. Weapons such as hammers and screwdrivers were said to have been used in the fight.
This is the sorry state of the opposition parties in Singapore.
Amidst trading barbs in the mainstream media and declaring war on each other, one wonders if they realised that the ruling party, the People’s Action Party (PAP) is still in power and laughing at all the drama.
But that is some light at the end of the tunnel. Opposition parties like The Workers’ Party of Singapore and the newly-formed, Reform Party are quietly going about with their activities and working the ground.
We need to have opposition parties to keep the PAP on their toes and make sure that PAP does not forget its responsibility to serve Singaporeans.
In order to do that, opposition parties must remain united and take the fight to the PAP instead of fighting among each other. But judging from the two episodes highlighted above, they still have a long way to go.
It is also important to note that the mainstream media chooses what it wants to report. Putting opposition parties in a bad light is part of the ruling party’s propaganda.
from: http://tauhuayboy.wordpress.com/
for every one supporter of SDP, there are at least 50 who are pissed with chee!
mah piew poh....mah piew poh....
Zaobao Interview with Dr Chee Soon JuanShare
by Yew Lun Tian (notes) Sunday, February 28, 2010 at 1:18pm
Please hit me with your comments and critic. Apologise for English translation not available yet.
Headline: 徐顺全：现在是民主党30年来巅峰时刻
Byline: 游润恬
Publication: ZB
Date: Sunday, 28 February 2010
Page: 6
Picture Caption: 徐顺全表示民主党过去五年吸引了许多新人，党员的整体素质也比从前高了。（邬福梁摄）
@游润恬
徐顺全，一个因官司不断而令大家似乎熟悉又很陌生的政治人物，其言行举止往往引来诸多议论。
新加坡民主党昨晚庆祝成立30周年，他加入这个反对党从政也已18年，人们脑海中至今还在问他当年到底有没有逼走一手创立民主党的波东巴西区议员詹时中？本报记者日前趁30年党庆，邀他作访谈，希望他能对读者的诸多疑问作出答复。
民主党成立30年，巅峰时刻是什么时候？最低潮的时刻又是什么时候？
徐顺全博士（48岁）的答复似乎会让人们大感意外。他说现在是它的巅峰时刻。
“我相信民主党还没有达到真正的顶峰，不过到目前为止，现阶段必然是最光辉的。”
他表示民主党过去五年吸引了许多新人，党员的整体素质也比从前高了。这些新人不但可提供新的政治视角，还懂得善用新媒体进行宣传，使民主党可以做很多以前做不成的事。
五年前没有资源 办25周年晚宴
比方说早在五年前，他就想举行民主党25周年晚宴，却因缺乏资源，只好打消念头。今天，民主党不但能在乌节路的凯煌酒店办30周年晚宴，还能出版第一本纪念特刊，80页全彩色印刷。
他认为最重要的是全体中央执行委员的团结。
“对他们来说，集体奋斗的目标，凌驾于个人理想之上。”
民主党在1991年大选时，一举把当时的秘书长詹时中（波东巴西区）、主席林孝谆（前武吉甘柏区）和蒋才正（义顺中区）三名候选人送入国会。自从詹时中在1996年离开后，民主党在国会里再也没有代表。照理说，上世纪90年代在詹时中领导下的民主党，应该已达到巅峰，徐顺全却认为那是最低潮的时刻。
“我加入民主党不到几个星期，就已感觉到党内领导人之间强烈的紧张关系。当时的民主党不是一个党，它从来就不是一支有共同理念的团队，只不过是一群同床异梦的人凑在一起。出现状况时，大家各有主张，要往不同的方向走，结果是树倒猢狲散。”
詹时中在1992年一手把当时在新加坡国立大学担任心理学讲师的徐顺全带进民主党，参加马林百列集选区补选。当时的总理吴作栋为了把现任副总理张志贤引进国会，而让马林百列集选区的议员集体辞职，以举行这次补选。
徐顺全竞选失败，隔年因呈报德士车资不实等遭国大开除。詹时中原本支持他，后来却动议中委会谴责他。党内其他中委不赞成詹时中的做法，民主党于是陷入分裂。詹时中跟着辞去秘书长职务。
徐顺全追述道：“当年他提出辞职的那场会议，是在我家召开的。过后的一个月，我三番四次上他的办公室请他收回辞职信，并表示他仍然是我们心目中的领导。”
尽管徐顺全如今这么解释，但不争的事实是民主党中委当时却做出了比接受詹时中辞去秘书长职位更为严重的决定——投票将他逐出党。詹时中一旦失去党籍，也将丧失国会议席，反对党在国会里也将少一把声音。我国宪法不允许议员在任内跨党。詹时中尽力保留党籍，直到1997年大选才离开民主党，转以新加坡人民党秘书长的身份竞选。
詹时中事后对外表示他是被徐顺全逼走的。
徐顺全辩称詹时中的“一言堂”作风，才是其他中委背弃他的原因。
“即使在林孝谆等党领导人眼里，詹时中的领导地位也是毫无争议的。不过，我们希望他能以更加民主的方式做事。”
他说：“直到今天，我仍对詹时中不怀芥蒂，还出席了他担任议员25周年的晚宴。如果在外头碰面，我也会跟他打招呼。”
詹时中在1992年把徐顺全引进民主党时，他一时被视为反对党的希望及一颗闪亮的政治新星。如今，被他取代的詹时中仍保住国会议席，自己却始终无缘进入国会。
问他如今是否后悔从政，他说：“绝不。我这么说不是为了逞英雄。我的确喜欢教书和做研究，那是我的初恋，但是为新加坡争取民主是一个更大、更迫切的使命。我一点也不后悔。”
他在2006年破产，一家现在住在大巴窑的三房式组屋。妻子黄志美（48岁）留在家里照顾三个分别是10岁、7岁和5岁的孩子。
夫妇没有工作 怎么养家？
夫妇俩都没有工作，那怎么养家？询及收入来源时，他表示多数从卖书赚来，偶尔也接受亲戚朋友的接济。
“我们过着简单的生活。有多余的资源，我都会投入民主抗争。”
坊间流传他是拿了外国机构的资金，所以才能继续在新加坡无后顾之忧地进行公民抗争式的斗争。左问右问，他回答说：“我是学者，偶尔也领一些外国的研究基金。我的著作有时获奖，有时也参加海外的研究计划。”
哪方面的研究，是有关民主的研究吗？他含糊地说：“嗯，或者是人类行为之类的。”
“打不打算脱离穷籍 这个问题不应该问我”
跟已故反对党巨人惹耶勒南一样，徐顺全也是因被政府领导人起诉诽谤而拖欠巨额名誉损失赔偿金，最终在2006年2月被高庭宣判破产，失去参加同年5月大选的资格。不同的是惹耶勒南生前无时无刻不在努力筹钱偿还债务，终于在生前脱离穷籍，还成立了新的政党，开始为参加大选部署。而徐顺全却不打算这么做。
他说：“打不打算还清债务以脱离穷籍，这个问题你不应该问我，而应该去问李光耀。如果他不怕我，大可行使债权人的权利把我所欠的债务一笔勾销。只要他不挡住我参选的去路，对我亮绿灯，我马上就去提出脱离穷籍的申请。”
民主党在2006年大选时的得票率是反对党中平均得票率最低的，徐顺全把这都怪到主流媒体头上。
他认为主流媒体刻意丑化他，以致至民主党在大选时的表现不如其他反对党。
“因为民主党提出有别于政府的可行经济方案，我们也提倡要对现有的机制进行大刀阔斧的改革，因此被行动党政府视为威胁，要把我们铲除。主流媒体也把攻击的矛头对准我们。”
下次大选将以网络作为主要竞选渠道
为突破主流媒体的局限，他声称民主党在下次大选时将以互联网作为主要的竞选渠道。
尽管如此，他还是认为民主党要在大选中获胜，必须靠主流媒体。
“我非常有信心，主流媒体如果肯公平地报道我们的想法和信息，民主党肯定可以把候选人送入国会。”
民主党的作风比较强硬，工人党的作风比较中庸。几年前一个对政党政治提出尖锐批评的“大戏党”（Wayang Party）网站出现，不客气地指工人党根本是在作戏，不是真正在搞反对党政治。
大戏党后来改名为淡马锡评论（Temasek Review），对其他反对党的批评也有所收敛，不过网主的身份依然神秘。针对大戏党网站是由民主党幕后操纵，目的是打击其他反对党并提升民主党地位的传言，徐顺全矢口否认。
他说：“我们不做诋毁其他反对党的事。”
那他跟其他反对党领袖的关系有多好？他表示虽不至于称兄道弟，但彼此都不时保持联系，也依然遵守不在大选时进行三角战的游戏规则。
....and more news coming.
by Yew Lun Tian (notes) Sunday, February 28, 2010 at 1:18pm
Please hit me with your comments and critic. Apologise for English translation not available yet.
Headline: 徐顺全：现在是民主党30年来巅峰时刻
Byline: 游润恬
Publication: ZB
Date: Sunday, 28 February 2010
Page: 6
Picture Caption: 徐顺全表示民主党过去五年吸引了许多新人，党员的整体素质也比从前高了。（邬福梁摄）
@游润恬
徐顺全，一个因官司不断而令大家似乎熟悉又很陌生的政治人物，其言行举止往往引来诸多议论。
新加坡民主党昨晚庆祝成立30周年，他加入这个反对党从政也已18年，人们脑海中至今还在问他当年到底有没有逼走一手创立民主党的波东巴西区议员詹时中？本报记者日前趁30年党庆，邀他作访谈，希望他能对读者的诸多疑问作出答复。
民主党成立30年，巅峰时刻是什么时候？最低潮的时刻又是什么时候？
徐顺全博士（48岁）的答复似乎会让人们大感意外。他说现在是它的巅峰时刻。
“我相信民主党还没有达到真正的顶峰，不过到目前为止，现阶段必然是最光辉的。”
他表示民主党过去五年吸引了许多新人，党员的整体素质也比从前高了。这些新人不但可提供新的政治视角，还懂得善用新媒体进行宣传，使民主党可以做很多以前做不成的事。
五年前没有资源 办25周年晚宴
比方说早在五年前，他就想举行民主党25周年晚宴，却因缺乏资源，只好打消念头。今天，民主党不但能在乌节路的凯煌酒店办30周年晚宴，还能出版第一本纪念特刊，80页全彩色印刷。
他认为最重要的是全体中央执行委员的团结。
“对他们来说，集体奋斗的目标，凌驾于个人理想之上。”
民主党在1991年大选时，一举把当时的秘书长詹时中（波东巴西区）、主席林孝谆（前武吉甘柏区）和蒋才正（义顺中区）三名候选人送入国会。自从詹时中在1996年离开后，民主党在国会里再也没有代表。照理说，上世纪90年代在詹时中领导下的民主党，应该已达到巅峰，徐顺全却认为那是最低潮的时刻。
“我加入民主党不到几个星期，就已感觉到党内领导人之间强烈的紧张关系。当时的民主党不是一个党，它从来就不是一支有共同理念的团队，只不过是一群同床异梦的人凑在一起。出现状况时，大家各有主张，要往不同的方向走，结果是树倒猢狲散。”
詹时中在1992年一手把当时在新加坡国立大学担任心理学讲师的徐顺全带进民主党，参加马林百列集选区补选。当时的总理吴作栋为了把现任副总理张志贤引进国会，而让马林百列集选区的议员集体辞职，以举行这次补选。
徐顺全竞选失败，隔年因呈报德士车资不实等遭国大开除。詹时中原本支持他，后来却动议中委会谴责他。党内其他中委不赞成詹时中的做法，民主党于是陷入分裂。詹时中跟着辞去秘书长职务。
徐顺全追述道：“当年他提出辞职的那场会议，是在我家召开的。过后的一个月，我三番四次上他的办公室请他收回辞职信，并表示他仍然是我们心目中的领导。”
尽管徐顺全如今这么解释，但不争的事实是民主党中委当时却做出了比接受詹时中辞去秘书长职位更为严重的决定——投票将他逐出党。詹时中一旦失去党籍，也将丧失国会议席，反对党在国会里也将少一把声音。我国宪法不允许议员在任内跨党。詹时中尽力保留党籍，直到1997年大选才离开民主党，转以新加坡人民党秘书长的身份竞选。
詹时中事后对外表示他是被徐顺全逼走的。
徐顺全辩称詹时中的“一言堂”作风，才是其他中委背弃他的原因。
“即使在林孝谆等党领导人眼里，詹时中的领导地位也是毫无争议的。不过，我们希望他能以更加民主的方式做事。”
他说：“直到今天，我仍对詹时中不怀芥蒂，还出席了他担任议员25周年的晚宴。如果在外头碰面，我也会跟他打招呼。”
詹时中在1992年把徐顺全引进民主党时，他一时被视为反对党的希望及一颗闪亮的政治新星。如今，被他取代的詹时中仍保住国会议席，自己却始终无缘进入国会。
问他如今是否后悔从政，他说：“绝不。我这么说不是为了逞英雄。我的确喜欢教书和做研究，那是我的初恋，但是为新加坡争取民主是一个更大、更迫切的使命。我一点也不后悔。”
他在2006年破产，一家现在住在大巴窑的三房式组屋。妻子黄志美（48岁）留在家里照顾三个分别是10岁、7岁和5岁的孩子。
夫妇没有工作 怎么养家？
夫妇俩都没有工作，那怎么养家？询及收入来源时，他表示多数从卖书赚来，偶尔也接受亲戚朋友的接济。
“我们过着简单的生活。有多余的资源，我都会投入民主抗争。”
坊间流传他是拿了外国机构的资金，所以才能继续在新加坡无后顾之忧地进行公民抗争式的斗争。左问右问，他回答说：“我是学者，偶尔也领一些外国的研究基金。我的著作有时获奖，有时也参加海外的研究计划。”
哪方面的研究，是有关民主的研究吗？他含糊地说：“嗯，或者是人类行为之类的。”
“打不打算脱离穷籍 这个问题不应该问我”
跟已故反对党巨人惹耶勒南一样，徐顺全也是因被政府领导人起诉诽谤而拖欠巨额名誉损失赔偿金，最终在2006年2月被高庭宣判破产，失去参加同年5月大选的资格。不同的是惹耶勒南生前无时无刻不在努力筹钱偿还债务，终于在生前脱离穷籍，还成立了新的政党，开始为参加大选部署。而徐顺全却不打算这么做。
他说：“打不打算还清债务以脱离穷籍，这个问题你不应该问我，而应该去问李光耀。如果他不怕我，大可行使债权人的权利把我所欠的债务一笔勾销。只要他不挡住我参选的去路，对我亮绿灯，我马上就去提出脱离穷籍的申请。”
民主党在2006年大选时的得票率是反对党中平均得票率最低的，徐顺全把这都怪到主流媒体头上。
他认为主流媒体刻意丑化他，以致至民主党在大选时的表现不如其他反对党。
“因为民主党提出有别于政府的可行经济方案，我们也提倡要对现有的机制进行大刀阔斧的改革，因此被行动党政府视为威胁，要把我们铲除。主流媒体也把攻击的矛头对准我们。”
下次大选将以网络作为主要竞选渠道
为突破主流媒体的局限，他声称民主党在下次大选时将以互联网作为主要的竞选渠道。
尽管如此，他还是认为民主党要在大选中获胜，必须靠主流媒体。
“我非常有信心，主流媒体如果肯公平地报道我们的想法和信息，民主党肯定可以把候选人送入国会。”
民主党的作风比较强硬，工人党的作风比较中庸。几年前一个对政党政治提出尖锐批评的“大戏党”（Wayang Party）网站出现，不客气地指工人党根本是在作戏，不是真正在搞反对党政治。
大戏党后来改名为淡马锡评论（Temasek Review），对其他反对党的批评也有所收敛，不过网主的身份依然神秘。针对大戏党网站是由民主党幕后操纵，目的是打击其他反对党并提升民主党地位的传言，徐顺全矢口否认。
他说：“我们不做诋毁其他反对党的事。”
那他跟其他反对党领袖的关系有多好？他表示虽不至于称兄道弟，但彼此都不时保持联系，也依然遵守不在大选时进行三角战的游戏规则。
....and more news coming.
Sunday, April 4, 2010
so it was all along SDP CLAN that helped LEEGIME won!
SDPhopelessParty
Alfrescian Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 39
Infractions: 0/4 (11)
My Reputation:Points: 161 / Power: 0
Re: Walkabout in West Coast GRC
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Sir,
At the time of writing this, the Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) is known to be preparing for a General Election (GE) which is expected to be held within the few months. For the past 30 years the SDP has been active in GE. In 1991 it rose to prominence by winning 3 seats.
Since the 1990s, Dr Chee Soon Juan has continuously held the position of secretary-general in SDP. Dr Chee and his sister Ms Chee Siok Chin has tried to raise the profile of SDP by being more directly critical of the ruling People’s Action Party (PAP). This has resulted in the SDP being involved in a series of civil and criminal lawsuits.
Between 1984 and 1991, the PAP had seen its share of valid votes decreased from 78% to 61%. The actions of the Chee siblings had been to the advantage of the PAP. It had managed to portray the SDP and other critics as an assembly of hot-headed radicals. As a result, the SDP had been indirectly helping the PAP to win votes.
In the 1997 GE, the PAP reversed the decreasing vote trend by winning 65% of valid votes. In the 2001 GE, the PAP increased its valid vote share to 75%. In the 2006 GE, the SDP received approximately of 25% of valid votes in its contests. This was far below the 33% average for all opposition candidates.
Currently the SDP may be able to increase its vote share or even win a parliamentary seat due to apparent rising anti-PAP sentiments. It is essential the SDP should maintain contact with the masses through cool-headed rational discussion.
The Chee siblings had been associated with confrontational methods and this had almost certainly put off many voters. Therefore the writer urged the Chee siblings to maintain a low profile in the expected 2010 GE. It can still play a role as mentors to potential candidates.
With the large inflow of immigrants which are expected to more supportive of the PAP, this opposition would had to be very careful
not to give away any advantage to the PAP.
Yours truly,
Mr Chua Yuankai
Alfrescian Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 39
Infractions: 0/4 (11)
My Reputation:Points: 161 / Power: 0
Re: Walkabout in West Coast GRC
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Sir,
At the time of writing this, the Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) is known to be preparing for a General Election (GE) which is expected to be held within the few months. For the past 30 years the SDP has been active in GE. In 1991 it rose to prominence by winning 3 seats.
Since the 1990s, Dr Chee Soon Juan has continuously held the position of secretary-general in SDP. Dr Chee and his sister Ms Chee Siok Chin has tried to raise the profile of SDP by being more directly critical of the ruling People’s Action Party (PAP). This has resulted in the SDP being involved in a series of civil and criminal lawsuits.
Between 1984 and 1991, the PAP had seen its share of valid votes decreased from 78% to 61%. The actions of the Chee siblings had been to the advantage of the PAP. It had managed to portray the SDP and other critics as an assembly of hot-headed radicals. As a result, the SDP had been indirectly helping the PAP to win votes.
In the 1997 GE, the PAP reversed the decreasing vote trend by winning 65% of valid votes. In the 2001 GE, the PAP increased its valid vote share to 75%. In the 2006 GE, the SDP received approximately of 25% of valid votes in its contests. This was far below the 33% average for all opposition candidates.
Currently the SDP may be able to increase its vote share or even win a parliamentary seat due to apparent rising anti-PAP sentiments. It is essential the SDP should maintain contact with the masses through cool-headed rational discussion.
The Chee siblings had been associated with confrontational methods and this had almost certainly put off many voters. Therefore the writer urged the Chee siblings to maintain a low profile in the expected 2010 GE. It can still play a role as mentors to potential candidates.
With the large inflow of immigrants which are expected to more supportive of the PAP, this opposition would had to be very careful
not to give away any advantage to the PAP.
Yours truly,
Mr Chua Yuankai
fools of APRIL'S FOOLS is real!
USD or U SEE DITDIT was not a joke. it was a real fool of APRIL'S FOOL!!
lamui had been manipulated by master chee to set up this sure-die clan, U SEE DITDIT as SDP CLAN after having caused so much public nuisance would very well be soon as compelled to close shop. it might be closed but SDP disciples and especially master chee ah juan hadn't have enough of his nonsensical trick.
USD was a set up as a standby refuge for the SDP disciples to second should the inevitable occur. it should be pretty sooner than one thinks.
United Singapore Democrats — a new political party
Posted: 01 Apr 2010 01:26 PM PDT
By Ng E-Jay
The registration of a new political party, the United Singapore Democrats (USD), has caused much buzz in cyberspace.
The party members, however, are keeping mum for now. They will disclose further details about the new party at a press conference that will be held at a later date.
It is understood that the time taken for the Registrar of Societies to approve the new party was only three months, and that the application came with 10 names.
It is also understood that the party will soon hold an extraordinary general meeting with the view of electing new office bearers, and also apply for a permit to publish a newsletter. The party has yet to design a logo.
According to the Straits Times, the President of the USD is Ms Narayanasamy Gogelavany (Monica Kumar), who stood as an SDP candidate in Sembawang GRC during the 2006 general elections. [1]
The Party Secretary is Ms Jaslyn Go Hui Leng, an activist who frequently represents the Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) at international conferences. She represented the SDP at the Council of Asian Liberal Democrats’ (CALD) Women’s Caucus that was held at the Philippine island of Batanes in May 2009, and attended CALD’s general assembly held in Colombo, Sri Lanka, earlier last month. She also represented the SDP at Liberal International’s (LI) annual congress that was held at Cairo, Egypt in November 2009, during which SDP was formally accepted as an LI observer.
Ms Sophia Tan is the treasurer. Other pro tem committee members of the party include Mr Chong Kai Xiong, Mr Muhd Shamin, Mr Palay Kulandaivelu and Ms Rachel Zeng Rui Qing.
Mr Muhd Shamin is an up and coming political activist who is currently on a three-month internship with the European Parliament in Brussels, Belgium. He represented the SDP Youth Wing at the invitation of Malaysia’s Parti Keadilan Rakyat (PKR) to observe the Permatang Pasir by-election held in August 2009 which resulted in a handsome win for the Parti Islam se-Malaysia (PAS).
The mainstream media has speculated that the party could serve as a vehicle for existing SDP members or supporters should the latter be wound up due to the legal damages from a defamation suit brought against it in 2006 by Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong and Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew.
The USD has chosen not to comment on this.
When quizzed about unsubstantiated remarks made about the party on certain websites which include talk about a possible split within the SDP, the party rubbished those comments as being so far off the mark as to be unworthy of attention.
Apr 1, 2010
New political party formed
By Sue-Ann Chia
A NEW political party - the United Singapore Democrats (USD) - has just been registered last week.
At least four of its leaders have links to the Singapore Democratic Party (SDP), with one of them contesting the 2006 General Election as part of the SDP's six-man team in Sembawang GRC.
The Straits Times understands that Ms Narayanasamy Gogelavany, who stood as an SDP candidate, is the president of the new USD.
The party's secretary is Ms Jaslyn Go, who regularly attends SDP events and represented it at an overseas conference last November.
The other two USD party members with SDP ties are: Mr Muhd Shamin, who is a member of SDP's youth wing and began a three-month internship in the European Parliament in January; and Mr Chong Kai Xiong, who was involved in SDP-led events such as the Tak Boleh Tahan protests against rising living costs two years ago.
The formation of the new political party was published in the Government Gazette yesterday.
Read the full story in Thursday's edition of The Straits Times.
partyless pantyless has ascended finally to gain some dreadfully needed attention courtesy from my pet snake ngejay. but wait! where's the other 2 components of F4 - the FANTASICK 4 of martials arts in local politics.
all this are but a farce of pawning movements executed by master chee ah juan. it would soon that these bunch of clowns would just hobble into the big longkang. there are just too much notoriety about them to enable them to really win the trust of peasants.
this should answer your question. SDP is facing closing shop. the troll was manipulated by chee soon juan to set up new shop so that all their scanty members wouldn't be scattered. there are limited sdp members to begin with and once those are gone, they shall be gone for good. then csj would be very lonely looking stupid ranting on his own.
The mainstream media has speculated that the party could serve as a vehicle for existing SDP members or supporters should the latter be wound up due to the legal damages from a defamation suit brought against it in 2006 by Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong and Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew.
lamui had been manipulated by master chee to set up this sure-die clan, U SEE DITDIT as SDP CLAN after having caused so much public nuisance would very well be soon as compelled to close shop. it might be closed but SDP disciples and especially master chee ah juan hadn't have enough of his nonsensical trick.
USD was a set up as a standby refuge for the SDP disciples to second should the inevitable occur. it should be pretty sooner than one thinks.
United Singapore Democrats — a new political party
Posted: 01 Apr 2010 01:26 PM PDT
By Ng E-Jay
The registration of a new political party, the United Singapore Democrats (USD), has caused much buzz in cyberspace.
The party members, however, are keeping mum for now. They will disclose further details about the new party at a press conference that will be held at a later date.
It is understood that the time taken for the Registrar of Societies to approve the new party was only three months, and that the application came with 10 names.
It is also understood that the party will soon hold an extraordinary general meeting with the view of electing new office bearers, and also apply for a permit to publish a newsletter. The party has yet to design a logo.
According to the Straits Times, the President of the USD is Ms Narayanasamy Gogelavany (Monica Kumar), who stood as an SDP candidate in Sembawang GRC during the 2006 general elections. [1]
The Party Secretary is Ms Jaslyn Go Hui Leng, an activist who frequently represents the Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) at international conferences. She represented the SDP at the Council of Asian Liberal Democrats’ (CALD) Women’s Caucus that was held at the Philippine island of Batanes in May 2009, and attended CALD’s general assembly held in Colombo, Sri Lanka, earlier last month. She also represented the SDP at Liberal International’s (LI) annual congress that was held at Cairo, Egypt in November 2009, during which SDP was formally accepted as an LI observer.
Ms Sophia Tan is the treasurer. Other pro tem committee members of the party include Mr Chong Kai Xiong, Mr Muhd Shamin, Mr Palay Kulandaivelu and Ms Rachel Zeng Rui Qing.
Mr Muhd Shamin is an up and coming political activist who is currently on a three-month internship with the European Parliament in Brussels, Belgium. He represented the SDP Youth Wing at the invitation of Malaysia’s Parti Keadilan Rakyat (PKR) to observe the Permatang Pasir by-election held in August 2009 which resulted in a handsome win for the Parti Islam se-Malaysia (PAS).
The mainstream media has speculated that the party could serve as a vehicle for existing SDP members or supporters should the latter be wound up due to the legal damages from a defamation suit brought against it in 2006 by Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong and Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew.
The USD has chosen not to comment on this.
When quizzed about unsubstantiated remarks made about the party on certain websites which include talk about a possible split within the SDP, the party rubbished those comments as being so far off the mark as to be unworthy of attention.
Apr 1, 2010
New political party formed
By Sue-Ann Chia
A NEW political party - the United Singapore Democrats (USD) - has just been registered last week.
At least four of its leaders have links to the Singapore Democratic Party (SDP), with one of them contesting the 2006 General Election as part of the SDP's six-man team in Sembawang GRC.
The Straits Times understands that Ms Narayanasamy Gogelavany, who stood as an SDP candidate, is the president of the new USD.
The party's secretary is Ms Jaslyn Go, who regularly attends SDP events and represented it at an overseas conference last November.
The other two USD party members with SDP ties are: Mr Muhd Shamin, who is a member of SDP's youth wing and began a three-month internship in the European Parliament in January; and Mr Chong Kai Xiong, who was involved in SDP-led events such as the Tak Boleh Tahan protests against rising living costs two years ago.
The formation of the new political party was published in the Government Gazette yesterday.
Read the full story in Thursday's edition of The Straits Times.
partyless pantyless has ascended finally to gain some dreadfully needed attention courtesy from my pet snake ngejay. but wait! where's the other 2 components of F4 - the FANTASICK 4 of martials arts in local politics.
all this are but a farce of pawning movements executed by master chee ah juan. it would soon that these bunch of clowns would just hobble into the big longkang. there are just too much notoriety about them to enable them to really win the trust of peasants.
this should answer your question. SDP is facing closing shop. the troll was manipulated by chee soon juan to set up new shop so that all their scanty members wouldn't be scattered. there are limited sdp members to begin with and once those are gone, they shall be gone for good. then csj would be very lonely looking stupid ranting on his own.
The mainstream media has speculated that the party could serve as a vehicle for existing SDP members or supporters should the latter be wound up due to the legal damages from a defamation suit brought against it in 2006 by Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong and Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
