[Breaking News] Chiam See Tong and Kenneth Jeyaratnam to join power gun down GRC!

[scroobal]

Nore sure if morality is in play when it comes to Chiam, Low, JBJ, KJ and most of the opposition candidates etc. Its leadership style. I don't think anyone can questions their morals. Can you?

You must be thinking along the lines of new age christianity where someone who does not speak against gay etc is automatically classified as a sinner and immoral. I don't think thats morality but pure politics. But casting such a person as immoral is well known political tactic that is well associated with the American deep south where education standards are sub-par and worldy ignorance is pretty much a factor of life. Racism is also a bedrock of the bible belt and that again comes from lack of education and ignorance. Just sad that these people use the name of Jesus and religion for their other own political goals.

Its the same thing with islamic fundamentalist and mad mullahs who recite Allah's name after every sentence when they want to carry out a political agenda. Like accepting women and children as collateral damage and the recruitment of suicide bombers. Again, its prevalent in areas where education is lacking and sub-par and the ignorance is order of the day.

However below Mother Teresa, there are different grades of morality.

Thus a more suitable comparison is the moral values across politicians. Unfortunately such conclusions cannot be elaborated.

 

[kakowi]

Nore sure if morality is in play when it comes to Chiam, Low, JBJ, KJ and most of the opposition candidates etc. Its leadership style. I don't think anyone can questions their morals. Can you?

You must be thinking along the lines of new age christianity where someone who does not speak against gay etc is automatically classified as a sinner and immoral. I don't think thats morality but pure politics. But casting such a person as immoral is well known political tactic that is well associated with the American deep south where education standards are sub-par and worldy ignorance is pretty much a factor of life. Racism is also a bedrock of the bible belt and that again comes from lack of education and ignorance. Just sad that these people use the name of Jesus and religion for their other own political goals.

Its the same thing with islamic fundamentalist and mad mullahs who recite Allah's name after every sentence when they want to carry out a political agenda. Like accepting women and children as collateral damage and the recruitment of suicide bombers. Again, its prevalent in areas where education is lacking and sub-par and the ignorance is order of the day.

I would say that your perception of my motives is incorrect.

There are indeed morals within people - from all religions and all occupations, including politics.

I do not agree that the morality of CST, KJ and other politicians can be classified as leadership style.

Morality for anyone including you and me is important, because if ever we enter politics and be given a share of power, all that prevents us from abusing, overusing and misusing our power is our morality. And shades of it.

If ever we consider that morality is unimportant or irrelevant and that our behaviour can be classified as pure politics or leadership style, then it is only a matter of time that power will be used for our own ends.

As i said earlier, there are different shades of morality.

Voters must factor in considerations of morality because if they do not, they may end up with a situation that is worse than what they currently have.

 

[siaosdp]

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Great Depression View Post
As long as non of any SDP member is in the team, it will remain the team of hope..peace



Agreed. once the opposition bring in the so call UNCLE CLOWN ( Harban Singh ) opposition is finnish.
this clown continue to hijack events of the opposition, not only write any posts all the nonsense in this forum as well as flowers next to the toilets at jbj wake. if the opposition going to make in road into the white house ( parleement ) they have to kick him out! otherwise dream on ... my friends. OVER TO YOU!!

 

[Lee Hsien Tau]

Lawyers have no morals. <a href="http://www.slingfile.com/file/nrwCzAK2y7">Chiam See Tong</a> and the Old Fart are scums of the earth.

I would say that your perception of my motives is incorrect.

There are indeed morals within people - from all religions and all occupations, including politics.

I do not agree that the morality of CST, KJ and other politicians can be classified as leadership style.

Morality for anyone including you and me is important, because if ever we enter politics and be given a share of power, all that prevents us from abusing, overusing and misusing our power is our morality. And shades of it.

If ever we consider that morality is unimportant or irrelevant and that our behaviour can be classified as pure politics or leadership style, then it is only a matter of time that power will be used for our own ends.

As i said earlier, there are different shades of morality.

Voters must factor in considerations of morality because if they do not, they may end up with a situation that is worse than what they currently have.

 

[scroobal]

Bro, this has nothing to do with your personal motives. I am puzzled why you even raised this. I was reading your comment about morality and I was addressing it as morality is not issue in Singapore politics. You are actually the first person to raise morality.

I think you are mixing character with morality. There are no shades in morality. Its similar to honesty - you are either honest or dishonest. There are no shades. You are either moral person or immoral.

I am puzzled as none of the opposition candidates are immoral. Who did you have in mind?

I pointed out the use of morality label as a political tactic to smear a candidate which is common since elected office replaced monarchy but less so in modern society. I cited the issue of uneducated and ignorant people who are asked to vote against a candidate using hot topics such as homosexuality, abortion, gun control, consumption of alcohol, women, gambling, who don't have tudungs etc and casting immoral labels on such candidates who don't oppose such things. You see that in the bible belt, the middle east and the closest would be PAS in underdeveloped states such as Kelantan, Perlis etc.

Once again, who among the opposition is immoral? I am sure everyone reading this post is curious. I can't recall anyone ever mentioning morality all these years when singapore politics is concerned.

No issues if you say character is important.

I would say that your perception of my motives is incorrect.


There are indeed morals within people - from all religions and all occupations, including politics.

I do not agree that the morality of CST, KJ and other politicians can be classified as leadership style.

Morality for anyone including you and me is important, because if ever we enter politics and be given a share of power, all that prevents us from abusing, overusing and misusing our power is our morality. And shades of it.

If ever we consider that morality is unimportant or irrelevant and that our behaviour can be classified as pure politics or leadership style, then it is only a matter of time that power will be used for our own ends.

As i said earlier, there are different shades of morality.

Voters must factor in considerations of morality because if they do not, they may end up with a situation that is worse than what they currently have.

 

[Ramseth]

There are no shades in morality. Its similar to honesty - you are either honest or dishonest. There are no shades. You are either moral person or immoral.

There is, and there's a word for it too. It's amoral.

 

[scroobal]

Amoral means denying the concept of morality altogether. Nothing to do with shades.

There is, and there's a word for it too. It's amoral.

 

[Ramseth]

Amoral means denying the concept of morality altogether. Nothing to do with shades.

What about shades like, say, it's okay to drink alcohol but don't get drunk versus it's not okay to drink alcohol at all? What about gambling is a form of entertainment as long as one's not addicted or banking on it as source of income? What about collecting interests for money one lends out to compensate for the use of that sum? What about worshipping dead hetherparents and ancestors is wrong or right?

Morals are the businesses of religions, communal and personal. Politics and laws of a country as a whole, especially in a multi-religious society, should concentrate on practicalities.

 

[scroobal]

Don't waste your time talking about morality in Singapore politics unless you seriously think that someone is immoral and tell us to what to what degree if you think shades are applicable.

The term immoral is basically a damaging slur and there are no shades involved. If you live on the income of a prostitute, thats immoral. If you live on the income of your wife who is a secretary it is not . There is huge gap between the two.

The term Morality is very closely linked with 3 world religions - Judaism, Christianity and Islam. All three heavily use the term to proscribe behaviour of its followers. Things like gambling, alcohol consumption etc are things that are considered immoral to one or more of these religions. Hinduism, Taoism, Buddhism however are based on value philosophy. Good and bad, right and wrong. Its is applied at the base level where a wrong occurs when someone suffers and some else gains from that suffering. Very similar to modern law where the terms wrongful gain and wrongfull loss are commonplace.

Note the first 3 religions rely heavily on written doctrine.

To cut a long story short, who do you think is immoral in Singapore politics. Many drink, smoke, gamble etc. Many don't smoke, gamble or drink but they are not reliable, capable or have the people's welfare at heart.

What about shades like, say, it's okay to drink alcohol but don't get drunk versus it's not okay to drink alcohol at all? What about gambling is a form of entertainment as long as one's not addicted or banking on it as source of income? What about collecting interests for money one lends out to compensate for the use of that sum? What about worshipping dead hetherparents and ancestors is wrong or right?

Morals are the businesses of religions, communal and personal. Politics and laws of a country as a whole, especially in a multi-religious society, should concentrate on practicalities.

 

[Watchman]

Chiam should be careful of where he eats and who serve him food !

He looks always in a state of poisoning !

 

[Porfirio Rubirosa]

perhaps 'young' calvin and gerrard 'charity genes'

The NMP thing is seriously out of whack. Who did you have in mind that can cut the mustard?

 

[Porfirio Rubirosa]

insightful......

My view has always been that if a leader turns off his entire party executive, it's quite a feat, so perhaps he should examine himself. Even if a portion but less than half of a party's executive leave, it might not be so much of a leader issue. WP under Low and SDP under Chee had people leaving their leaderships but not to that magnitude, and both parties were able to renew to an extent.

The bid to expel Chiam as a member was carried by all except one who was Sin Kek Tong and now the SPP chair. And then years later today Sin has also been criticizing Chiam incessantly. Chee alone couldn't have had the power to oust Chiam. Also that the majority stuck to SDP. All the time SDP has remained bigger compared to SPP and is renewing still but not the latter.

My bottomline point is that for Chiam to "hold" he needs not veto power but understand where he has gone wrong. Then you can hold or lose some loose cannons and retain the good ones.

 

[Porfirio Rubirosa]

yes...but what happened to chiam after he left SDP?...he has yet to even find a credible heir to PP...however to be fair to chiam, age is not on his side...

INote that when Chiam was kicked out, SDP went no where while under Chee. Chiam has wins under his belt including the 1991 3 seats. Not an easy achievement by any means. Also note that none of the chaps from Chiam's disgruntled team ever went on to set up another party or did anything as an independent worthwhile forsaking your coffee for. Thats ample evidence after all these years.

 

[scroobal]

Well, Chiam continued to retain his seat and isn't that the goal. Chiam has always been a loner. Pretty much a control freak. He was never cut out for anything more.

yes...but what happened to chiam after he left SDP?...he has yet to even find a credible heir to PP...however to be fair to chiam, age is not on his side...

 

[Lee Hsien Tau]

Not just a control freak.

Also very the kiasu, kiasi, kiasai. Old Fart open his mouth only, and his fellow lawyer by profession will crap in his pants, stammering.

Will grab any deal that benefits him without negotiating.

:oIo::oIo::oIo::oIo::oIo::oIo::oIo::oIo::oIo:

Well, Chiam continued to retain his seat and isn't that the goal. Chiam has always been a loner. Pretty much a control freak. He was never cut out for anything more.

 

[Lee Hsien Tau]

So we know now why the meeting was scuppered. Because SDA is one hell of a broken umbrella.




Home &gt; Breaking News &gt; Singapore &gt; Story

Sep 3, 2009
<font size="6">3 hurt in fight at PKMS office</font>
By Jennani Durai and Wendy Hui

<img src="http://www.straitstimes.com/STI/STIMEDIA/image/20090903/fight-bryanvanderbeek.jpg" alt="" border="0">
Police investigators take down notes at the scene of a fight on Changi Road. -- ST PHOTO: BRYAN VAN DER BEEK


AN ONGOING leadership tussle within opposition political party Singapore Malay National Organisation (PKMS) turned violent on Thursday when the two factions got into a brawl outside its office building in Eunos.

Four men had to be sent 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, which included the four sent to hospital, were aged between 27 and 69. They were said to have used weapons such as hammers and screwdrivers in the fight.

Anyone convicted of rioting with dangerous weapons can be jailed up to 10 years and caned.

For the last three years, 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.

Madam Lella Mardiiiah Mohamed, who introduced herself as the party's deputy president, said eight members of her team had gone to the PKMS premises on Thursday to change the locks.

She said they had sent an e-mail to the police as well as the current council to inform them of their plans to do so.

Thursday was supposed to be the day the term of the current council, led by president Osman Hassan, ended, she said.

http://singaporeenquirer.sg/?p=4457


Chiam and Jeyaretnam in talks over GE tie-up

August 28, 2009 by admin
By Kor Kian Beng from Straits Times

TWO of the most familiar names in Singapore’s opposition scene -Jeyaretnam and Chiam – are in talks on joining forces for the next general election.

MP Chiam See Tong told The Straits Times he has his eye on getting Mr Kenneth Jeyaretnam, the elder son of late opposition leader J.B. Jeyaretnam, to make up a team to contest a GRC in the election due by early 2012. ‘We hope to get Kenneth on to the GRC team,’ he said last night at his Meet-the-People session.

Mr Chiam, 74, who has been MP of the Potong Pasir single-seat ward since 1984, had declared last year his intention to form a GRC team for the next election.

When contacted, Mr Jeyaretnam, chief of the one-year-old Reform Party, said meetings had been held to discuss possible areas of cooperation. ‘We considered options but things are at an exploratory stage,’ said the 50-year-old.

He added that the talks reflect his party’s keenness to promote cooperation among the opposition parties.

Sources close to both sides said at least two meetings have been held since June, to explore ways for closer collaboration. The most recentwas held early last month at the building in Eunos that is owned by the Singapore Malay National Organisation or PKMS.

However, a meeting slated for last Saturday was scrapped at the last minute. Mr Chiam, when asked for a reason, declined to comment.

No further dates have been set.

During the talks, the two leaders indicated that one option for collaboration is for the Reform Party to join the Singapore Democratic Alliance (SDA), led by Mr Chiam. The SDA is a grouping of three political parties: Mr Chiam’s Singapore People’s Party, PKMS and the Singapore Justice Party.

The first public hint of Mr Chiam’s support for the Reform Party was his presence at Speakers’ Corner in Hong Lim Park on Aug 10 when Mr Jeyaretnam delivered the party’s National Day message.

Snagging a GRC seems to be the driving force behind both sides’ desire to team up.

Mr Chiam feels that the chances of winning a GRC would be higher with Mr Jeyaretnam on his team, said the source.

The hedge fund manager obtained a double first-class degree in economics from Cambridge University and had worked in London’s financial sector.

Married with a 12-year-old son, Mr Jeyaretnam returned with his family to Singapore in April last year.

Five months later, his father died at age 82. In March this year, he joined his father’s Reform Party and took over as secretary-general a month later.

It is believed to have at least 20 members and wants to work with the SDA to tap on its resources for the next election.

Mr Jeyaretnam said his party is attracting interest from Singaporeans with its message of change and reform.

Last year, merger talks between former SDA member National Solidarity Party and Mr Chiam’s SPP were scuppered after it met with resistance within the SDA.

 

[Lee Hsien Tau]

Just found this. JBJ would not have approved!

Listen to what he said at 05:10.

<object width="800" height="600"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/DJCpCzgbdk8&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/DJCpCzgbdk8&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="800" height="600"></embed></object>​

Part II.

<object width="800" height="600"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/m7RKQzxFQGw&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/m7RKQzxFQGw&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="800" height="600"></embed></object>​

 

[Lee Hsien Tau]

More of where that came from:


http://wherebearsroamfree.blogspot.com/2009/08/chiam-and-kenneth-jeya-tie-up-is.html


Friday, 28 August 2009
Chiam and Kenneth Jeya tie up is political suicide
at 2:24:00 PM
(Some amendment of the dates were made to correct errors in this post, at 1725h on 28 Aug 2009)

There are those who rejoice the possible union of 2 opposition politicians to contest in a GRC next General Elections.
http://temasekreview.com/?p=12549

I am of the opinion that this is a bad move - in fact, suicidal for both Chiam and Jeya Jr.

With all due respect to Chiam, I feel he is not a very good team player. He is dedicated, sincere towards his constituents, hardworking, very close to the ground - but a lousy team player.

It must be remembered that it was because of his unwillingness to share power, being drowned in his own success of being the unofficial leader of the opposition, that led to the slow decay of the very party he founded, The Singapore Democratic Party.

For those who are too young to know the history of the rise of Chiam, or those who can't recall, here is the history of the Chiam's rise (and decline) in the political arena.


Some Background History -
Let's go way back to 1981. Before this, PAP has had a clean sweep for many years since the 1960s. The breakthrough for an opposition member to enter Parliament was not made by Chiam. It was Kenneth's dad, the respected and late JB Jeyaratnam. A by-election was held in Anson. At that time all wards were single wards.

JBJ won, and that was when we saw the first non-PAP candidate in Parliament in I think over 3 decades. I was born in the time where I could not remember a non-PAP candidate in Parliament before JBJ won in Anson. Of course, the PAP, led by then Prime Minister Monster Lee KY, was less than pleased by the by election results.

The next GE was in 1984. PAP did some "massaging" in Anson, causing the number of Indian voters to fall, and the number of Chinese voters to increase. As always, LKY used the race card. That's the only card he knows how to play.

The results of the 1984 brought another non-PAP candidate into Parliament. This time, Chiam See Tong joined JBJ to be the only 2 opposition MPs. Again, of course, LKY was not pleased. Even his race card tactic failed. He failed to realise that the voters did not vote on race, but on how the PAP governed.

Incidentally in that 1984 Election, Chiam beat Mah Bow Tan, a "heavyweight" picked up personally by LKY himself. LKY actually compared Mah to Chiam, ridiculing Chiam's dismal GCE O Level results, which he had to take a second time, to allow him to be admitted to Law Faculty. Voters were not impressed by LKY's jibe at Chiam and ditched Mah Bow Tan.

JBJ beat Ng Pock Too, another "handpicked" candidate by LKY. So you can imagine how infuriated LKY was, when voters kicked his 2 favourite pickings. To LKY, it was an affront to his "good judgement".



The GRC System -
The victories of JBJ and Chiam stunned PAP, so much that they had to come up with a system to stem the rising dissent against PAP. There was talk about tweaking the one-man-one vote system. There was talk about preserving the rights or minority. There was talk about making MPs manage Town Councils. Finally, it was decided to have the GRC system.

(After the 1984 GE, JBJ was fined by the courts and lost his seat, making Chiam the sole opposition MP. JBJ was also barred from 1988 and 1991 GE because of that fine.)

The GRC System was thus born in the 1988 Elections. In the 1991 GE, more surprise was waiting for the PAP.

The SDP won three seats. Chiam See Tong for Potong Pasir, Ling How Doong for Bukit Gombak (I think) and another guy whom I cannot rememebr his name, won (Nee Soon). Ling beat Dr Seet Ai Mee, (the lady who washed her hands after shaking her hands with a hawker). The Nee Soon guy beat Ng Pock Too - again - and that was the end of Pock Too's political career, as it was with Seet Ai Mee's.

Incidentally, Mah Bow Tan was placed in a safe GRC (Tampines) in 1988, because Mah was earmarked to be a minister.

The WP nearly captured Eunos GRC in 1988. It lost by the thinnest of margins. Francis Seow headed that GRC. Low Thia Kiang captured Hougang for WP in 1991.

In the end, when GE 1991 results were returned, we had 3 SDP and 1 WP (Low Thia Kiang) candidates. It was downhill for the opposition from here on.


The Decay of the Opposition, starting with the SDP -
I really do not know, but somehow, within a short time, Chiam seemed to be intoxicated with the new power he had. All along since JBJ's 1981's by election win at Anson, it was JBJ who was seen as the leader of the opposition. Suddenly, in 1991, Chiam was hailed as the "new opposition leader" - by the PAP!

After the 1991 GE, PAP promised to have a By Elections to allow JBJ to make a comeback, having completed serving his disqualification period, due to the fine by the court. At the same time, the PAP hinted that Chiam was the one voters could be comfortable with. The idea was to create a rift amongst the opposition camp.

Chiam could have ignored it. However, he appeared to have suddenly become interested in holding onto power. The final showdown and collapse of the SDP was being played out.


1992 By Elections: The final nail in SDP's coffin which broke up the opposition -
By now, the PM was Goh CT. It was Goh who promised on behalf of the PAP, a by-election after 1991. This was a brilliant calculated move on the part of the PAP to weaken WP's influence and at the same time, effectively destroying the SDP.

Goh "sacrificed" his own Marine Parade GRC (a 3-seat ward then) to be set as the by election show down. He said that since he made the promise, he would take the responsibility.

The promise by GCT was actually to quell the disquiet that PAP was afraid of JBJ. JBJ was fined and disqualified from being an MP and was prevented from contesting in 1988 and 1991. The Privy Council later found that JBJ did no wrong, but was not in a position to undo all the wrongs PAP did.

Hence, the intention of the By Election in 1992, was actually meant for JBJ to make a comeback, after he had served out his disqualification period.

At this stage, I am going to risk putting up on my blog some info which was privy at that point of time. I was one of many who were invited to have lunch with then Dep PM LHL, just before that By Election was to be held. It was arranged that I was seated next to him at the table.

LHL, upon being seated, made a comment (jokingly) and said that he would love to take any questions, but not about the coming By Elections, because for the last few days, he was bombarded with that and hence, now needed a "rest" from the topic. Oh well, I was a little disappointed.

The lunch meeting carried on as per normal and when it reached its closing stages, I couldn't help myself. I finally asked him, "Mr Lee, I hate to ask this, but really, how is the By Elections?"

As usual, he let off his hearty ha-ha-ha-ha laugh which nearly burst my eardrums. I was seated next to him, remember? Anyway, he said, "I leave that to the Prime Minister (GCT). Don't worry, Chiam is not very clever."

I left thinking...Chiam not clever? Why mention Chiam? What about JBJ? Isn't this by election meant for JBJ to make a comeback, having served out his disqualification period?

That was the brilliant tactic of the PAP. Had they put up a single ward for the by election, even if WP had won, it would be 3 SDP MPs with with 2 WP MPs. Chiam would still be the unofficial leader of the opposition, which the PAP has hailed.

Now that it was a GRC, if WP won, it would be 4 WP MPs to Chiam's 3. Chiam would have lost that leadership.

PAP had actually put up a very smart and slick move, pitting Chiam against JBJ, and at the same time, come out smelling sweet, keeping to the promise of by elections to have JBJ to have a shot.



The Confusion and Aftermath within the Opposition -
There was talk from the ground that Chiam should have stayed out, giving way to JBJ and team to allow a very strong opposition to tackle one to one with the PAP. Chiam simply could not accept that if JBJ had won, his unofficial status as leader of opposition would be lost. And that title was given to him by non other than PAP itself!


WP, sensing it was a lost cause, did not submit their nomination, citing a technicality. It was then a straight fight between SDP and PAP. PAP won - as expected. (2 other opposition parties were just minnows.)

That was not the end. What was to follow after the by election was total mayhem for the opposition. The SDP team that contested was headed by Dr Chee. Chee himself was seen as a heavyweight. And what happens when we have two heavyweights that clash?

Many are still familiar with Chee's hunger strike. Chiam opposed it and they fought openly without shame. The cracks in the SDP has been exposed in public. Chee engineered Chiam's ouster. Chiam publicly said that he was ousted and more dirty linen came to light.

The internal strife between Chiam's craze for power and the other members of the SDP cannot be covered anymore. Ling and Chiam even had a wordfight in Parliament. Ling had to apologise to Chiam right in front of TV in parliament for that!

Come the next GE, (I think it was 1997), only Chiam (now under a new party) and Low were returned. Ling and the other SDP candidate lost and Chee lost at McPherson on a one to one basis. In the eyes of the public, the SDP had lost all credibility. As for Chiam, his majority was cut.

 

[Lee Hsien Tau]

My Analysis -
I feel that Chiam, with all due respect to him, is not a politically savvy person. He is hardworking, yes. But to be a politician, you must be able to read the ground. Here are two fatal mistakes he made.

1. He was too intoxicated with the new found "power" in 1991, having three seats compared to WP's one seat. He did not wish to let that power go in 1992, causing a major rift between SDP and WP, as well as himself and his party members.

2. He brought in Dr Chee, who eventually engineered Chiam's ouster from SDP. Didn't he do a background check on who to bring on board?


My Conclusion -
Again, with all due respect to Chiam, I feel that he cannot share power. By tying up with Kenneth, he is making the same mistake a second time. This time, I think it would be the last we see of Chiam.

At least, against Chee, he still was "young" enough to survive. PAP's continued onslaught against Chee as well, ensured Chiam managed to scrape through.

Against Kenneth, I see no chance for Chiam. He is now much older than what he was in 1991. And Kenneth, unlike Chee, has no baggage of bad history for PAP to hammer on.

Chiam-Kenneth a good combination? I don't think so.

To sum up LHL's words, "Don't worry, he (Chiam) is not very clever."

I fully agree now.




52 comments:

Anonymous said...

Could be that Chiam considers himself to old and would like to retire but have no promising successor.

Maybe they have in mind a certain GRC to contest in that would render a major blow to the PAP.

If Chiam is not politically clever, then it might have occurred to him to team up with someone who might be cleverer?
28 August 2009 5:15 PM
Anonymous said...

Got to disagree totally.

To say Chiam is not clever is to ignore his results as singapore's most successful opposition politician. He has beaten every challenger that has come his way, against tremendous odds.

Like saying GWBush is not clever when he prosecuted the war against the AlQaeda so well. Few people know that Bush was a very successful businessman before he was a politician, his biggest investment made him almost a 1000% return, but people call him stupid because he can't speak smoothly. Yet he is a fighter pilot and can run marathons in 3 and a half hours.

Contrast him to Obama who speaks smoothly(with a teleprompter), but an undistinguished lawyer with no case record to speak of, a legislator with no legislation passed, a basic degree holder with no honours, and entry into Harvard Law School because he was sponsored by a rich donor. Obama's support is dropping so fast now it is incredible.

By the way, did you know that Chiam is related to the Lee family by marriage???

Bet you didn't know that one, right???

Chiam is the top-brand blue-chip opposition of singapore. He's run PPasir well and seen of every effort to unseat him.

Unlike JBJ who went a bit nutty(until his own som does not want to represent him in court), Chiam was not eaten up with desire to destroy the PAP, but has always seen the opposition as a check on the PAP.

Chiam is singapore royalty, and everytime he wins in PP, the people hold him on their shoulders like a king, a rockstar, chanting his name for hours, like prayer.

I respect both, admire their guts, but I would vote for Chiam, but not for JBJ.

sig
30 August 2009 9:58 PM
Anonymous said...

Now going back to Chiam vs JBJ and Chiam vs Chee.

JBJ was a bit nutty at the end, but he had integrity and guts.

But Chee is something else. The way Chiam was ousted by Chee from the SDP after Chiam took in Chee was very telling for most watchers, IMHO.

Every singaporean would then say(IMHO), Chee is not trustworthy, he stabbed the man who took him in.

Most singaporeans despise Chee and this is very sad because he gives the opposition a bad name.

As for Chiam now, he is getting old and while PAP support is decreasing, I don't think he will make any more waves as he has made enough already. Thus if he can give some legitimacy to a new candidate, maybe it will workout rather than fail.

I've voted PAP everytime so far in my life. But I respect Chiam and if I lived in PP, I might vote for him, because in my eyes, he is Singapore Royalty, a class act all the way.

Long Live Chiam, the King.

sig
30 August 2009 10:09 PM
Anonymous said...

Oh, and I had a look at the student paper, KentRidgeCommon.

Rather dull--stock opposition, pro-gay, anti-PAP stuff.

Don't you boys have any creativity? At all?

sig
30 August 2009 10:56 PM

 

[Lee Hsien Tau]

solo bear said...

Sig
>>
To say Chiam is not clever is to ignore his results as singapore's most successful opposition politician.
>>

Me:
"Not clever" were LHL's words. I thought "not polilticallly astute", rather than "not clever" would be a more accurate description.

>>
He has beaten every challenger that has come his way, against tremendous odds.
>>

Me:
He had a lot of help from the PAP. The PAP does not see him as a threat because they are confident he is not anywhere near the cut of a "game changer" - unlike JBJ, Chee, Francis Seow or even TLH.

>>
Like saying GWBush is not clever when he prosecuted the war against the AlQaeda so well. Few people know that Bush was a very successful businessman before he was a politician, his biggest investment made him almost a 1000% return, but people call him stupid because he can't speak smoothly. Yet he is a fighter pilot and can run marathons in 3 and a half hours.
>>

Me:
Bush is an army AWOLee. Please!

>>
Contrast him to Obama who speaks smoothly(with a teleprompter),
>>

Me:
The Republicans and Democrats are no different from each other. They are like The GCT Camp and LHL Camp in the PAP. The real difference in PAP is the OTC Camp, which now is no more.

>>
By the way, did you know that Chiam is related to the Lee family by marriage??? Bet you didn't know that one, right???
>>

Me:
You think you are the only one who knows "inside stories". I was working very closely with government agencies and organisations with close ties with the government, more than a decade ago, before calling it quits from the high flying political arena.

How do you think I know so much about PAP's strategy in the 1991 by election?

I left the scene because as a young guy at that time, I was disappointed that nothing changed, even after GCT took over.

Wanna know more inside stories? Sorry, but that would make me sound like a dog in a manger, bitching about people and episodes I decided to put behind me.

>>
Chiam is the top-brand blue-chip opposition of singapore. He's run PPasir well and seen of every effort to unseat him.
>>

Me:
All I can tell you is that there is some truth in the rumour that Chiam is there, because PAP wants him there. Note the dismal PAP candidate that has been contesting in Potong Pasir, to ensure Chiam has it easy over there.

Compare the treatment JBJ had, when he had his Anson constituency cut up and abolished, the suits to ensure him a bankrupt etc. Also take a look at how much trouble PAP went through to make sure Francis Seow and TLH never got a chance at all.

Chiam had it easy. Chiam is not a game changer. JBJ, Chee, Francis Seow, Tang LH are. That's why PAP gave Chiam an easy time, while the rest had hell.


>>
I respect both, admire their guts, but I would vote for Chiam, but not for JBJ.
>>

Like I said, all due respect to Chiam, I don't think he is a good team player. He should have allowed WP to contest one on one in the 1991 by election, if he was serious about some real opposition being in Parliament.

I don't doubt his sincerity serving his constituents. It is just that I feel he is not politically astute enough to run a big political party.
31 August 2009 1:48 PM
solo bear said...

Sorry, the by election was held in 1992, not 1991.
31 August 2009 2:19 PM
Anonymous said...

I think the reason why Chiam doesn't get serious challengers nowadays is because nobody dares to take the chance of losing to him. Why risk their big risk-free salaries on the whims of the PP electorate that dares to vote in Chiam repeatedly even after being repeatedly threatened with no upgrading, no funds, everytime around?

Whovever is there, Chiam will kill him, or at least stress or embarass him.

Just like the WP sent a bunch of teenagers to AMK("Mordor" they called it)to fight LHL and got a big cut of the votes, stressing LHL, some ppl even reported that LHL's face distorted when he heard the big percentage the teenies got, cause he was hoping to crush them with 90%????

Thus I diagree with LHL's assessment of Chiam. If Chiam is not very clever, how come he is singapore's most successful opposition politician?

LHL made a mistake--it is always a mistake to think your opponent is dumb, usually it means you are kinda dumb yourself, at least in that case. I am sure LHL does not think Chiam is dumb now, cause LHL is too smart to remain stupid for that long a time.
----------------
Going back to GWBush being a AWOLee, sorry, but to follow that up, the docu used to make that allegation was found to be written on MicrosoftWord? which did not exist at the time Bush was serving his NS. So it was a poorly conceived false attack on Bush.
-------------------------
As for Chiam, he remains the only gladiator who has defeated the PAP despite its best efforts to defeat him and humiliate him.

They always say, the PAP actually wants Chiam there. I say, the PAP CAN'T get rid of him.

Look at how LHL cleverly sent GCT to PP to try and unseat Chiam the last election. He knew GCT might fail and would lose influence.

Chiam said(by paraphrasing a constiuent), if GCT comes here, we will win for sure.

True enough, GCT used his oversize mallet to attack Chiam and the electorate which was already moving away from Chiam, responded by voting Chiam in.

Chiam is the gladiator of gladiators in singapore's political arena. He has a blur look, but next moment he kill you.

And up to now, you didn't know Chiam was related to the Lees by marriage, right?

sig
31 August 2009 4:08 PM
Anonymous said...

Thank you for this Solo Bear.

Remember that at a forum after RP's registration, the late JBJ said that "if you're interested in reforming the system, join RP. If you're interested in maintaining the current system, please join Chiam or Low."
31 August 2009 5:18 PM
Anonymous said...

Here is the video evidence: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DJCpCzgbdk8

At 4:50 JBJ says, "If any Singaporean is happy with the system in Singapore at the moment... Shouldn't come to us. Go and see Mr Chiam See Tong, or Low Thia Kiang, who are happy with the system."

PLEASE TELL ALL SINGAPOREANS.
31 August 2009 5:30 PM
Anonymous said...

I agree that Chiam is not politically smart or savvy. The PAP never wash its dirty linen in public, but Chiam did great damage
to the opposition cause by sparring with them and even members of his own party for all to see.
Actually, I was quite disappointed him. Compare to JBJ in Parliament, he is just a shade of the former
No wonder he's been called he PAP
approved Opposistion.
31 August 2009 7:05 PM
Anonymous said...

What JBJ said might not necessarily be Philip J's stand. Otherwise, why would they think of collaborating with Chiam?

I will welcome the collaboration because it shows they have a common goal and are willing to put aside party differences. Such are the tell-tale signs of sincerity.

As for CSJ, he has shown to be too individualistic and his party is supportive of homosexuality. Their source(s) of funds are secretive and questionable. I sense they are very angry people in it for revenge instead of serving the people. I will choose PAP any time over SDP.
31 August 2009 7:14 PM
Anonymous said...

Oh yes Sig, KentRidgeCommon is all smoke and no fire, very definitely gay positive IMO.
31 August 2009 7:16 PM
solo bear said...

Sig:
>>
I think the reason why Chiam doesn't get serious challengers nowadays is because nobody dares to take the chance of losing to him.
>>

Me:
You worship Chiam too much. Chiam makes a better social worker than a politician. The PAP does not have to put up a credible candidate. All it has to do is redraw Potong Pasir, absorb it into a GRC and Chiam's political career is gone.

They have done it so many times, they can always do it for Potong Pasir. The point is the PAP WANTS him there, to show the electorate they have an opposition MP. If they take him out, the electorate will choose another person, and who knows that person might be

Better for PAP to handle a known dud, than an unknown wild card.


>>
Thus I diagree with LHL's assessment of Chiam. If Chiam is not very clever, how come he is singapore's most successful opposition politician?
>>

Me:
If you ask me, I don't even think that was LHL's assessment. He was probably echoing what the PAP thought. LHL in my opinion doesn't really have an opinion on his own. He is just there so that his father can exercise authority.

>>
And up to now, you didn't know Chiam was related to the Lees by marriage, right?
>>

Me:
What makes you so sure? I have had lunches with LHL's cousin on a regular basis, if you want to talk about being on the "inside". His cousin and I were working in the same company for 15 years, before I quit for another company.
31 August 2009 7:41 PM