Not rants Bob, just the TRUTH, sorry if that hurts
Oh and I never mix VIRTUAL reality with REALITY
Also I tend to agree with Alex Au's take on Dr Chee although once again I say that I do not agree with his political strategies/tactics. But to me Dr Chee appears to pro Singapore and pro Singaporean and in this regard I wish him well.
The Singapore Democratic Party: method or madness?
Esther (not her real name) sat opposite me at lunch. Somehow, the topic of conversation got to the multiple trials involving Chee Soon Juan, Yap Keng Ho and Chee Siok Chin of the Singapore Democratic Party (SDP). These were for speaking in public without a police permit, for libel against Singapore strongman Lee Kuan Yew and Prime Minister Lee Hisen Loong, and finally for contempt of court.
More generally, Chee and the SDP have acquired a reputation for attempting street protests, and hurling belligerent accusations at the People's Action Party (PAP) government.
"I don't believe in what he is doing," Esther said, referring to Chee. "I don't think there'll ever be a substantial number of people supporting him. He'll get nowhere."
I daresay she spoke for a lot of Singaporeans. In fact, if you scan through various blogs, you'll find similar opinions expressed, either disapproving of Chee's high-decibel methods or stressing the futility of such a strategy.
At the last general election in 2006, the main SDP team stood in Sembawang Group Representation Constituency. They received only 23% of the vote, which from previous elections we know is roughly the irreducible fraction of the electorate that will never vote for the PAP. Mostly, that 23% vote-share represented not any love for the SDP, but visceral rejection of the government party. As one unkind soul said, even if you put a troupe of monkeys up for election, 23% would still vote for them.
While looking at vote-share might have been a relevant gauge when the SDP was standing for elections, things have changed, and understanding this change is necessary for a proper measure of what they are now doing. Thus, to point out that the majority of Singaporeans will never be able to bring themselves to support them is in a large way, off the mark.
Extra-parliamentary struggle
The SDP arrived at the conclusion a few years back that the PAP will never allow themselves to be defeated electorally. The rules will be rewritten as necessary, the levers of mass communication will always be used to advantage and as many people as they can entice will be co-opted (with high salaries) to deprive opposition parties of talent.
I don't think anyone can prove the contrary. Certainly, none of the other opposition parties have yet made any significant inroads to even begin to cast doubt on this reading of the PAP's bottom line. In fact, I would say, at least half, if not three-quarters of Singaporeans would generally agree with this analysis.
What the SDP has done is to take the analysis further. If the PAP will never allow themselves to be defeated through the electoral route, what else can be done?
The answer: They have to be defeated morally. This in a nutshell is what the SDP's tactics are designed to do, and their success or failure should be measured by how much moral opprobrium sticks to the PAP.
If you look at it from this angle, you find yourself conceding, grudgingly perhaps, that the SDP is not completely unsuccessful. Time and again, they bring out the worst in the PAP for everyone to see. The police overreact at Hong Lim Green. Four people standing on the sidewalk saying nothing but wearing similar T-shirts (i.e. less than the minimum five that require a police permit) are nevertheless arrested for refusing to disperse. Judges are made to look like hatchet men for the PAP and both the Attorney-General and the Law Minister have recently been provoked to say outrageous things, making themselves look quite unbecoming. Lee Kuan Yew himself is made to look the bully that he is while on the witness stand.
The SDP strips the PAP of their smiling mask, and reminds us that while we may be fearful of the government party, there is no reason to love them. More, the PAP's power is maintained by a perversion and corruption of many institutions of state. In short, the SDP cast doubt on the moral legitimacy and long-term wisdom of the government.
That is what the SDP has set out to do, and fair credit should be given to them for achieving it, at least to a degree (and I say "them" because it is not just Chee Soon Juan alone, but many equally dedicated confederates of his too). No doubt, they have done it at great personal cost, but instead of dismissing their efforts as pointless, I think we ought to reflect on how our views of the PAP are shaped by the SDP's determination and sacrifice, however loath we are to credit them for it.
And I understand why too we are loath to give credit to them: Because of fear. Subliminally perhaps, we fear being associated with them and the risks posed to ourselves. It may even get to the point where we refuse to believe that our views of the PAP are partly shaped by the way the SDP has shown them up
The die was cast long ago
The other thing to watch out for is the tendency to treat the SDP as irrational. I see, for example, Lee Kuan Yew trying to character assassinate Chee by asserting that he fits the description of a psychopath, and as you might have noticed, the mainstream media dutifully played it up.
Chee strikes me as intensely rational. While he is unusually single-minded and almost unimaginably brave -- and these traits make him not like 99.9% of us, which is rather alarming -- they do not mean he is mad.
Furthermore, one can even argue that he didn't really choose this course of action, and that to a large part, Lee Kuan Yew chose it for him. The moment Lee chose, I think in 1994, to persecute him by hauling him over the coals over a taxi fare claim when Chee was still teaching at the National University of Singapore, and then attacking him relentlessly over some health care statistics in 1996, the die was cast.
Lee had made up his mind that Chee must be "demolished", to use a word that Lee rather favours, and from that point on, it was only a matter of waiting for Chee to trip up, which he did -- perhaps foolishly -- in the 2001 general election. He said something defamatory during the hustings and the PAP leaders sued and bankrupted him.
As a bankrupt he cannot stand for election until he is discharged, so what is he to do?
The future
The big unknown is: Where will this lead? What changes will any of this bring about? Won't the stranglehold that the PAP has on power remain as tight as ever?
This feeling lies behind the "It's all so futile" opinion that we see around us.
Indeed the SDP has burnt so many bridges -- it is likely to be deregistered as a result of one of the recent court cases -- that it is extremely improbable that it will ever participate in, let alone win, elections again. That being the case, one might say: Isn't that a dead-end road?
But that is linear thinking, which tends to blind us to other effects and outcomes. History, in fact, has many examples of how political agitation of this kind, even without mass support, can break down a political system.
In essence, to succeed the agitation has to provoke an over-reaction by the regime. It need not be a single event, but can be cumulative. Typically, the regime does not even realise that it is over-reacting; it is just acting according to its instincts or doing what it has successfully done before. But at some point, it is seen as excessive, self-serving and immoral, either by a plurality of the people, or within the elite.
The rarer consequence is for people to speak out and say, "Enough. Things must change".
The more common consequence, but also less headline-making, which is why most people are not even aware of such processes, is for rumblings within the elite to cause soul-searching. A few members of the elite may speak out publicly, but most will either speak privately, or act tacitly, distancing themselves from the core group of power-players. In other words, an unspoken mark-down of loyalty.
Then two alternative scenarios can arise. Either a moderate faction emerges within the ruling clique and tussles for power with the hardliners thereby destabilising what had hitherto been a solid regime, or the top man himself, worried about rumblings among the elite and softening of support, decides to change course. He embarks on what my friend Russell Heng has coined "the politics of retreat".
Like military retreat, political retreat too is fraught with risks. The very fact that it is ordered is a major confession that the previous position has become untenable. It blows away the aura of invincibility that leaders have come to rely on for amassing either support or acquiescence. Arguments break out over where the second line of defence ought to lie. Opponents are emboldened to demand more. Too many times in history, what is planned as an orderly retreat quickly becomes a rout. And a new political system is born.
That's Chee's and the SDP's hope. And frankly, it would be churlish to deny that such an end result -- a freer, more normal political system -- is generally ours too. We may be afraid to stand with them, but at least for the sake of our own moral integrity if nothing else, we shouldn't disparage or discourage them.
© Yawning Bread
before u continue your further ranting. just answer a simple YES or NO.
HAVE YOU BEEN CONTACED BY THE F4? if no, good. if yes, u could enlighten everyone which member of the F4.
