Dr Chee, a real threat to PAP... Democratically Speaking

Cruxx said:

If not for Chee's SDP, I would still be a brainwashed sinkie today. No opposition has done more to expose Kuan Yew for the intellectual pygmy that he is. If Chee is a PAPzi mole, he must be the worst mole in the history of double-crossing.

Click to expand...

or is he so good that he can look so bad?

Often in this forum one sees people make these 2 statement ; that Singaporeans do not deserve Chee and that he is ahead of his time.

Chee's approach to politics and application of various tools in his kit in politics is not something that comes close to anything that one sees in mainstream politics in either the Westminister or the the Presidential model. Typically they woo the voters while confronting their opposition. They also carve out an identity or a persona in the process.

Chee I note is taking the road of being or becoming a matyr. The notion that he is being prosecuted, imprisoned and deprived of his rights has been created and it sticks. He has referred to Mandela, Gandhi etc quite regulary. Playing the victim is not a winning formula in politics. NGOs and bleedings hearts from western liberal societies step in and associate with him as they are naturally attracted to victims. They don't play the role of partners but as saviours and providers which further reinforces the profile of a helpess victim.

If you look at both local and foreign politics, no politician has ever played that role and won office. They might have been successful in other ways but certainly not in politics. Gandhi is an example.

The other issue that brings him down is the poor quality of people that he has around him. Except for his sister and recently VW, the rest have been deadweights.

My sense is that Chee and his sister are electable and there is still time. He has profile but he has to change his profile as someone who is keen to represent and confront on behalf of the people. Playing the victim shows weakness. He has to forget the PAP and engage the voters. Confronting security guards and the Poiice has over the years being proven to be petty, unhelpful and shows the genuine lack of ideas and certainly the lack of a cogent strategy.

By the way a matyr is best described as a brave and courageous victim. A victim neverthess. So no arguments that he is brave and courageous.

scroobal said:

The other issue that brings him down is the poor quality of people that he has around him. Except for his sister and recently VW, the rest have been deadweights.

Click to expand...

He does get a portion of good people but they tend to leave not very long after. In the Holland A Team only VW, Tan Jee Say left and Michelle Lee went to WP. Now I'm hearing that Ang Yong Guan left too. They have acquired Prof Paul Tambyah and woman researcher Chong Wai Fung, good assets, but how long will they stay.

scroobal said:

Bro, quite a naive comment. You expect GD to publish his reasons and provide proof as well as an affidavit. GD carries a level of credibility based on his professional background and track record in here. Notice he never give advice on surgery of the eye and did you wonder why.

Click to expand...

He did send me 2 pms with his reasons.
My stand is not that I don't believe his views, it's that I disagree with them.
The disagreement stems from the fact that even the information he had was incomplete or even doctored. He will be surprised to read this, since he knows what he told me, but that is my view.
You may recall that GD once said he had a list of 3 opposition politicians he could consider as bona fide, I added 2 more for my list of 5.
My list does not consist of 10 and I don't even want to discuss those other names that you and GD have mentioned.

Ok, one more thing about you and GD that may offend both, but I have to say this anyway. I'll take the chance since you read my posts since delphi time, and GD also for quite a long time here.
Both of you may disagree with a lot of the pap's actions over the years (and rightly so), but there is also an element of pap government/establishment mentality that is entrenched in both of you as a result of being former government scholars/civil servants/connected to the establishment. That has somehow resulted in a certain level of confidence whenever you have a view of something that the pappies did (or didn't do).
I'm an ordinary Singaporean who never got a government scholarship or was connected to the establishment in any way, but got first class honours in university, and not by rote learning or memorizing the textbook. I have views about what the pappies did (or didn't do) that are sometimes quite different from you two, although somehow we tend to agree that some of their actions border on the atrocious.

Last point. In my view, there is only one factor that matters in the political arena: that the government work to make ordinary people's lives better (and certainly not by handing out free cash).
Whch party, who in the party, who leads the party, what they know, who they know, what they studied, what scholarships or honours they got, what occupation they had, who they ARE for or against, who they WERE for or against etc, all don't matter.
EVEN IF they are "moles" (which I still don't agree they are), I say give the "moles" a chance. They'll probably do better than the current lot.

jw5 said:

Last point. In my view, there is only one factor that matters in the political arena: that the government work to make ordinary people's lives better (and certainly not by handing out free cash).
Whch party, who in the party, who leads the party, what they know, who they know, what they studied, what scholarships or honours they got, what occupation they had, who they ARE for or against, who they WERE for or against etc, all don't matter.
EVEN IF they are "moles" (which I still don't agree they are), I say give the "moles" a chance. They'll probably do better than the current lot.

Click to expand...

well said.

Cruxx said:

If not for Chee's SDP, I would still be a brainwashed sinkie today. No opposition has done more to expose Kuan Yew for the intellectual pygmy that he is. If Chee is a PAPzi mole, he must be the worst mole in the history of double-crossing.

Click to expand...

All the things that he has pointed out over the years are exactly those things that the pappies don't want to be mentioned because it would make them lose face in the international arena. Some of these were very personal things and cuts right to the core of individual behaviour and mentality.

Begs the question "What is the "mole" supposed to achieve?"
If the pappy "moles" are supposed to make the pap look good as what they want to appear to be (a wonderful place to live in ) or to help them retain power and as many seats as possible (such that someone had to go and say sorry to try and prevent it), the "moles" are certainly doing a rotten job.

If the "moles" are supposed to turn off the rest of sinkieland against politics and help pap retain power, who are the "few good men" who would have taken power away from the pap, if "not for these moles"? Do they exist?

One thing is for sure. It's certainly no skin off their collective pappy noses to make people think that there are "moles", so that they could use that joker wildcard, if they really need it on the eve of the eve of an expected closely contested election.
And I say this to you too since you believe in "pseudo oppositions": I would prefer a bunch of "moles" or "pseduo oppositions" who could help to make ordinary peoples' lives better, than a bunch of assholes whose priority is their own families.

jw5 said:

All the things that he has pointed out over the years are exactly those things that the pappies don't want to be mentioned because it would make them lose face in the international arena. Some of these were very personal things and cuts right to the core of individual behaviour and mentality.

Begs the question "What is the "mole" supposed to achieve?"
If the pappy "moles" are supposed to make the pap look good as what they want to appear to be (a wonderful place to live in ) or to help them retain power and as many seats as possible (such that someone had to go and say sorry to try and prevent it), the "moles" are certainly doing a rotten job.

If the "moles" are supposed to turn off the rest of sinkieland against politics and help pap retain power, who are the "few good men" who would have taken power away from the pap, if "not for these moles"? Do they exist?

One thing is for sure. It's certainly no skin off their collective pappy noses to make people think that there are "moles", so that they could use that joker wildcard, if they really need it on the eve of the eve of an expected closely contested election.
And I say this to you too since you believe in "pseudo oppositions": I would prefer a bunch of "moles" or "pseduo oppositions" who could help to make ordinary peoples' lives better, than a bunch of assholes whose priority is their own families.

Click to expand...

hey chee bye kia : You shout the fuck up !!!


Dont go around screwing others !!!


Whats go around come around to you : You chee bye !!!


AND FUCK YOUR MOTHER CHOW CHEE BYE !!! PHUI !!!

jw5 said:

Ok, one more thing about you and GD that may offend both, but I have to say this anyway. I'll take the chance since you read my posts since delphi time, and GD also for quite a long time here.

Both of you may disagree with a lot of the pap's actions over the years (and rightly so), but there is also an element of pap government/establishment mentality that is entrenched in both of you as a result of being former government scholars/civil servants/connected to the establishment. That has somehow resulted in a certain level of confidence whenever you have a view of something that the pappies did (or didn't do).

Click to expand...

No worries bro. We will respectfully agree to disagree then. I am sure that won't be a problem over your end.

Have to disagree on the other point you raised wrt 'element of pap government/establishment mentality that is entrenched'. My level of confidence has nothing to do with being a civil servant previously. My level of confidence is the result of my experience and knowledge gained while in service and access to privilege info/intel.

When it comes to police matters, investigation, intel, nightlife, SS and the 'phien khai', I think I am far ahead of many bros here. Scroobal's right. I don't comment on many other matters. If I did, it's only to tcss. Eye surgery? Hahahahaaa. I know zero on that!

scroobal said:

Chee's approach to politics and application of various tools in his kit in politics is not something that comes close to anything that one sees in mainstream politics in either the Westminister or the the Presidential model. Typically they woo the voters while confronting their opposition. They also carve out an identity or a persona in the process.

Click to expand...

That's because our system is not based on a mainstreamed Westminster model. Some checks may be in place but there are absolutely no balances.

GoldenDragon said:

When it comes to police matters, investigation, intel, nightlife, SS and the 'phien khai', I think I am far ahead of many bros here.

Click to expand...

This point above I agree completely. And not only this, some of your arguments on "side issues" like licensed moneylending and ah longs, gang related killings, cases of injustice, and as I said earlier, some of the actions and inactions of the government, are second to none.

But I would like to give a few examples of the difference in mentality that I referred to:

1. You have on a few occasions mentioned businessman who are also politicians. I find it perfectly logical that many opposition politicians are businessman. It makes sense because you won't expect someone currently in the civil service, GLC, stat board, or even someone in the corporate private sector to be an opposition politician without considering for a really long time. The circumstances in SG are not conducive to this, shall we say.

2. As I said to you in a previous post, you or even your boss will not have been privy to the most complete and perhaps even correct information. Perhaps you find that hard to accept, but I don't. These are not people who will cause harm to just anybody, in fact you can argue that information should not even be collected on them. I'm sure your info relating to potential and actual criminals are spot on and accurate, but perhaps not where it comes to these chaps. Not trying to demean what u knew, I can assure u that managers in the private sector have the same problem. Unless u are the absolute top guy, u only know what u need to know or what they want u to know. And we know who the top guy in SG is, don't we.

3. In his previous post to me, scroobal indicated that CSJ's behavior through the years seems illogical for someone wanting to be in opposition politics. (Perhaps he can confirm my understanding). I found CSJ's behaviour perfectly logical, of course it's not the way a more savvy opposition politician would behave or the way a pap candidate/mp would behave. Felt he was wronged, tried to complain, when the failed, tried to get peoples' sympathy, gradually got more and more angry with his "opponents", started to say all sorts of things about them, some of them possibly true, others probably not. Under slightly different circumstances and with a different mentality, I could have been him.

4. The point about being on whose side, for whom or against whom. I don't really see a big problem, if they help to make peoples' lives better, who cares who they are for or against.

The main reason I continue to debate this is that it is grossly unfair on the man/men if he/they are bona fide.
Please note that this is 100% not a knock on people like you and their experience, knowledge or access to info.
It's not a "civil servant" mentality, more an "establishment" mentality, where it could be that having LESS knowledge gives you a clearer picture of the different possibilities and options. Just a few thoughts and sorry for the long winded post.

The people that you mentioned are new. And they are birds of passage who were looking for a party to support their campaign. The exception is Prof Paul.

tanwahp said:

He does get a portion of good people but they tend to leave not very long after. In the Holland A Team only VW, Tan Jee Say left and Michelle Lee went to WP. Now I'm hearing that Ang Yong Guan left too. They have acquired Prof Paul Tambyah and woman researcher Chong Wai Fung, good assets, but how long will they stay.

Click to expand...

Bro, your points noted.

This is a very grey area. There are no black or white. The term mole is very loose and it ranges from fully involved to being manipulated without realising it.

Without breaching the OSA and the ISA, very little can be said.

Look at the stats. He and the party have tdeteriorated at each every election until he went bankrupt. His last showing was against a team that was led by an Indian. And he did badly and in ward that has low minority component. This by a man who had a higher profile than LTK and that year CIA book had him as one of two key opposition political figures with Chiam but left out LTK completely.

In 2011, the SDP was the most improved party. The revival was because of a dream team that did not include him or any of the usual SDP identities. I revealed that an emmisary made an offer to get him out of bankruptcy. So why did GCT and man make that offer. Why are they keen to have him back. And sure as the sun rises in the east, within a week of OA confirmation, he is back to fighting security guards and patrolmen.

Many moons ago, a court interpreter and 2 RI boys were detained by ISD around the same time for questioning. One of the RI boys went to OCS, went to NUS, started to run for office in socio political groups that were senstive. He became a lawyer. He then became a PAP MP. He was however struck off the rolls. The other RI boy served his NS as VC and was probably the best educated VC. He went on to do architecture ini NUS. The Court interpreter is now the chairman of the SDP. Yet another chap had a father who ran a union which cheated uneducated pregnant workers of 50% of the retrenchments because they could not read the retrenchment letter. The son is now in SDP and stood for elections. He also damaged another party during the 2006 elections and was told to move on. That party also had the chairman as a candidate and a member in the past.

You simply cannot this up.

Just before GE2011, I was first to reveal that LTK would leave Hougang and go for GRC. All the WP guys here including Ramseth said that CEC will not allow it. Where did I get the info. Well it did not come from WP or the opposition. Then during the Hougang GE husting, the existence of a secret squirrel became known. And it had to be a CEC member.

Its a high stakes game. The PAP does not play clean. It has been said that in a 10 member party, 11 will be working for the state. 5 will know that they are working for the state, the other 6 think they are working for the party. The innocent observer will be wondering why there are are 11 members in a 10 member party. What I can guarantee you is that all 11 will not know the role of the others.

jw5 said:

He did send me 2 pms with his reasons.

Ok, one more thing about you and GD that may offend both, but I have to say this anyway. I'll take the chance since you read my posts since delphi time, and GD not by handing out free cash).
Whch party, who in the party, who leads the party, what they know, who they know, what they studied, what scholarships or honours they got, what occupation they had, who they ARE for or against, who they WERE for or against etc, all don't matter.
EVEN IF they are "moles" (which I still don't agree they are), I say give the "moles" a chance. They'll probably do better than the current lot.

Click to expand...

Just for the fun of it.

scroobal said:

Many moons ago, a court interpreter and 2 RI boys were detained by ISD around the same time for questioning. One of the RI boys went to OCS, went to NUS, started to run for office in socio political groups that were senstive. He became a lawyer. He then became a PAP MP. He was however struck off the rolls. (Ahmad Khalis?) The other RI boy served his NS as VC and was probably the best educated VC. He went on to do architecture ini NUS. (Chan Chun Sing?) The Court interpreter is now the chairman of the SDP. (Jufrie Mahmood?) Yet another chap had a father who ran a union which cheated uneducated pregnant workers of 50% of the retrenchments because they could not read the retrenchment letter. The son is now in SDP and stood for elections. He also damaged another party during the 2006 elections and was told to move on. (James Gomez?) That party also had the chairman as a candidate and a member in the past.

Click to expand...

scroobal said:

Bro, your points noted.
This is a very grey area. There are no black or white. The term mole is very loose and it ranges from fully involved to being manipulated without realising it.

Its a high stakes game. The PAP does not play clean. It has been said that in a 10 member party, 11 will be working for the state. 5 will know that they are working for the state, the other 6 think they are working for the party. The innocent observer will be wondering why there are are 11 members in a 10 member party. What I can guarantee you is that all 11 will not know the role of the others.

Click to expand...

Thanks for your post and your points noted too.
Bottom line for me is this: vote out all the pappy mps or as many of them as possible.
Give the opposition a chance to make peoples' lives better, whoever the opposition members may be. They may try their best after seeing what happened to the pappies. If they don't, give them the same figurative kick up the arse that the pappies were given.
Let the pap be the opposition and possibly come back more humble, empathetic and altruistic. It may also be clearer who are the "better" pappies when they become the opposition.

tonychat said:

I got the book... so who has it too

Click to expand...

where to find the EBook version ? tks