John Tan speaks his mind

[Porfirio Rubirosa]

No need "courage", just rational maturity.

Don't be afraid to vote opposition. Build that courage now.

 

[scroobal]

Perhaps Jaslyn's lawyer, Thiru, may now be having 2nd thoughts about taking on such an 'excruciatingly painful' case after just one tranche of court hearing. Ng E-Jay's lawyer may be thanking his lucky stars that E-Jay PGed on the 1st day..

You bet. Best decision he made but do feel pity for those who are incurring the expenses.

Good point. But to be fair, I think everyone is entitled to have a change of 'heart' provided one is sincere and genuine about it.

I am aware that many ambitious people who joined the PAP, leave because they will not make it as the party tends to opt from outside. That seems to be the driving factor for the "change of heart"

When they joined the PAP, it was a lot nastier and more autocratic then now. What drove them to join the PAP. Why not the SDP, why not WP and why not create your own roundtable with like minded people.

I can't see even a small hole in the PAP past that was positive in term of humans rights, freedom of speech etc. Why suddenly the urge to do all these.

Its not that they joined arsenal supporters club and now want to join Man U.

One of the biggest challenges that the PAP and NTUC faced was recruiting good people and most Singaporeans who are educated will shudder at the thought of joining them.

Yes, I will continue to have reservations about their motives unless I get a damn good excuse. Look at Yaw and his vote for his so "so called ex-party". Look at Ti Lik despite being a lawyer trying to hoodwink singaporeans into thinking that no practising lawyer was prepared to defend them. Thats touching on integrity and attemtping to paint the law fratenity as a bunch of cowards. Looks like a leopard will not lose it spots neither will the tiger the stripe.

One must be careful not to assume that someone who opposes the PAP is good and honest. That is a fallacy.

Any good reason that you can suggest for their "change of heart" .

However not to worry, I will still vote "bicycle thieves" before the PAP.

 

[scroobal]

No need "courage", just rational maturity.

Well put bro.

 

[scroobal]

Not forgetting the more recent Operation Spectrum, the 'fixing' of Francis Seow and the political 'epiphany' of Devan Nair after his fall from grace.

One act that truly tells the colour of old man and the PAP is bringing in the tax dept to sniff tax evasion. CPC clearly requires reasonable belief before someone can be investigated, detained or arrested, yet they went after Tang and Seow.

Its was a clear sign and signal to the well heeled and the professionals that any attempt to take on the PAP will be met with tremendous force. People may have been dutiful citizenz in fulfilling their tax obligations but a slip up or an error can be turned against them.

In professionals circles this was the single factor that impeded good professionals from stepping forward.

 

[Porfirio Rubirosa]

Oh I well agree with you, that is why I also used the words "sincere and genuine".

I have long since made my views known on Yaw Shin Leong, to me he is irrelevant as an oppo, period.

Chia Ti Lik? Well perhaps he may be an equivocator, I have not come to a firm conclusion one way or the other as yet. However I think he appears to be overzealous and perhaps tries too hard too fast without fully thinking through consequences, needs to learn how to walk before running.

Oh and glad to see that you too subscribe to my "bicycle thief" proposition. That shall give LKY and PAPs the 'right' message:oIo:

One must be careful not to assume that someone who opposes the PAP is good and honest. That is a fallacy.

Any good reason that you can suggest for their "change of heart" .

However not to worry, I will still vote "bicycle thieves" before the PAP.

 

[scroobal]

Dear Scroobal

The law society was constrained by law courtesy of LKY. SL as a lawyer herself made an argument in parliament for greater freedom for the law society for which I believe little credit was given.

As to CTL and weasly lawyers. You might want to add apart from jumping political boats he has a prediliction for jumping " Political Causes" boats. IE from defending G Nair to defending the TBT 18 because of an inability to do all the work. But then again defending the TBT gets one a trip to UK whilst defending G N does not garner as high a profile.
Locke

If you have followed the historical relationship between PAP and the law fraternity, its has been really bad with snipes and innuendos. The last real attempt was Francis Seow's committee while he was the Society's president to take on the govt when it went after the Press with the new press laws. The debate was lost when old man and glenn knight (his sidekick then) began the debate conducting character assasinations.

The end result was stripping the law society of all its meaningful powers and creating the law academy.

Can you imagine the anger within the law society when SDP tried to paint them as cowards. To many this was the last straw. Ghandi Amabalam was press journalist at that time and of all people would have known that it was the law society that attempted to protect their rights by fighting the Newspaper and Printing Presses Act of 1986. For which some of the lawyers like Francis and Teo Soh Lung were detained. They paid a heavy price, Ghandi did not, he chose to go prison by refusing to pay the fine for marthydom. People can tell the difference and sadly he bit the hand that tried to feed him.

 

[Porfirio Rubirosa]

Yes, yes, yes.

One act that truly tells the colour of old man and the PAP is bringing in the tax dept to sniff tax evasion. CPC clearly requires reasonable belief before someone can be investigated, detained or arrested, yet they went after Tang and Seow.

Its was a clear sign and signal to the well heeled and the professionals that any attempt to take on the PAP will be met with tremendous force. People may have been dutiful citizenz in fulfilling their tax obligations but a slip up or an error can be turned against them.

In professionals circles this was the single factor that impeded good professionals from stepping forward.

 

[scroobal]

Oh I well agree with you, that is why I also used the words "sincere and genuine".

I have long since made my views known on Yaw Shin Leong, to me he is irrelevant as an oppo, period.

Chia Ti Lik? Well perhaps he may be an equivocator, I have not come to a firm conclusion one way or the other as yet. However I think he appears to be overzealous and perhaps tries too hard too fast without fully thinking through consequences, needs to learn how to walk before running.

I put both Yaw and Chia in the same boat. Both are keen to be on the pulpit but very weak on principles and ideology. That places them on a very grey zone and fits the bill that one associates with most politicians . Chia however went one step further with his omission on seeking free legal help painting the law fraternity as cowards. Thats tells you alot about integrity and no different to the ways of the PAP.[/QUOTE]

Oh and glad to see that you too subscribe to my "bicycle thief" proposition. That shall give LKY and PAPs the 'right' message:oIo:

You convinced me and credit does go to you. I started on spoiling the vote category but have moved to reduce the PAP numbers approach

 

[Porfirio Rubirosa]

I recall a young Namazie being raked over the coals for apparently "copying the answers" in the PLC exams before being called to the Singapore Bar, when actually it appeared that all the candidates were given the answers.

AG Tan Boon Teik playing 'St Peter' by denying knowing JBJ very well in UCL, "I saw you, you saw me" when in fact they were apparently quite good mates in UCL.

Speaker Yeoh Ghim Seng being 'instructed' via whsipers from the late Eddy Barker.

Late CJ Wee squirming in the 'stand' while giving testimony even thinking that he was still a judge and not a witness when answering questions posed by Francis Seow.

And Francis Seow giving LKY the 'rasberry'.

Classic stuff, wish there was YouTube for posterity.

The debate was lost when old and glenn knight (his sidekick then) began the debate conducting character assasinations.

The end result was stripping the law society of all its meaningful powers and creating the law academy. .

Yes, other brave lawyers like Roslina Baba must be none too pleased.

Can you imagine the anger within the law society when SDP tried to paint them as cowards. To many this was the last straw. Ghandi Amabalam was press journalist at that time and of all people would have known that it was the law society that attempted to protect their rights by fighting the Newspaper and Printing Presses Act of 1986. For which some of the lawyers like Francis and Teo Soh Lung were detained. They paid a heavy price, Ghandi did not, he chose to go prison by refusing to pay the fine for marthydom. People can tell the difference and sadly he bit the hand that tried to feed him.

 

[scroobal]

I recall a young Namazie being raked over the coals for apparently "copying the answers" in the PLC exams before being called to the Singapore Bar, when actually it appeared that all the candidates were given the answers.

AG Tan Boon Teik playing 'St Peter' by denying knowing JBJ very well in UCL, "I saw you, you saw me" when in fact they were apparently quite good mates in UCL.

Speaker Yeoh Ghim Seng being 'instructed' via whsipers from the late Eddy Barker.

Late CJ Wee squirming in the 'stand' while giving testimony even thinking that he was still a judge and not a witness when answering questions posed by Francis Seow.

It was farce and people's family, background were dragged in. People who watched it on TV were just amazed. Subhas was peeing in his pants that he gave up fighting the govt from that day on. He had to evetually plead to obtain his citizenship despite being born here, raised here, studied in RI, called to the bar here.

Then comes along an idiot with no inkling of political history, walked thru the wrong door signed for the wrong party, then again went thru another wrong door signed again for yet another wrong party, became pals with Bob Sim, then comes out to fight the law society for free legal work.

So what do you think, change of heart, 3rd chance, benefit of a doubt or let him continue to abandon cases after each press publicity. Heard of any other other lawyer doing that.

 

[cleareyes]

One must be careful not to assume that someone who opposes the PAP is good and honest. That is a fallacy.

i guess this is the best and most realistic sentence i have read so far.

but i guess its in a way how some people want to do PR, showing the public one knd of face when reality is far far different

 

[scroobal]

i guess this is the best and most realistic sentence i have read so far.

but i guess its in a way how some people want to do PR, showing the public one knd of face when reality is far far different

Unfortunately some people have great difficulty working out if the equation is right or if it actually benefits the PAP.

The good news is that most people can.

 

[lockeliberal]

Dear Scroobal

The law society was defanged as a source of opposition by the PAP. Professionals were signaled by Dr Chee F Seow and TLH to be whiter than white with regards to their conduct before they stepped forth. And on a distinct note we have Andre Kuan the CFO of JTC who was a PAP cadre but heck the example stands Of course how many saints are there out there who are willing to join and support the opposition ? Are the law society cowards or are the limitations set forth by a PAP government to blame ?

God knows we need good quality people to come forth, contribute, lead and join the opposition, but at this moment there is a lack of a clear figurehead to rally ard. JBJ and Dr Chee might have been it but ' Give me liberty or give me bankruptcy " is not a call that will go down well with the professionals needed to lead. LTK CST and SL have a long long long way to go,




Locke

 

[scroobal]

Dear Scroobal

God knows we need good quality people to come forth, contribute, lead and join the opposition, but at this moment there is a lack of a clear figurehead to rally ard.
Locke

Thats seems to be the issue. Hopefully something will emerge this time around. One possibility is FT turned Singaporean coming to the fore. As it is there is a Singaporean of African descent that is working the ground in marine parade.

 

[ahbengsong]

One act that truly tells the colour of old man and the PAP is bringing in the tax dept to sniff tax evasion. CPC clearly requires reasonable belief before someone can be investigated, detained or arrested, yet they went after Tang and Seow.
Its was a clear sign and signal to the well heeled and the professionals that any attempt to take on the PAP will be met with tremendous force. People may have been dutiful citizenz in fulfilling their tax obligations but a slip up or an error can be turned against them.
In professionals circles this was the single factor that impeded good professionals from stepping forward.

LKY is a lawyer... and he is a good legal gangster...

 

[leetahbar]

Then comes along an idiot with no inkling of political history, walked thru the wrong door signed for the wrong party, then again went thru another wrong door signed again for yet another wrong party, became pals with Bob Sim, then comes out to fight the law society for free legal work.

it was a blessing for my li'l brother actually. he was a bigger idiot who happened to meet that small idiot who unwittingly changed his views in local politic. LTS is a monk wannabe who hated the paps like anything until his encounter with that smaller idiot and realised how easy many could be deluded, exploited and instigated to do works for other's hidden agenda or motive. in other words, many were misled to be pawns of other's dubious scheme.

if we believe paps are doing that then we better believe that small idiots are doing the same to bigger idiots. LOL!:p

 

[Porfirio Rubirosa]

Ouch! Perhaps you may have been observing Chia Ti Lik more closely than me. But I tend to agree that on the credibility issue Chia appears to have problems, heck I note that of late he even appears to be giving out financial advice.

Then comes along an idiot with no inkling of political history, walked thru the wrong door signed for the wrong party, then again went thru another wrong door signed again for yet another wrong party, became pals with Bob Sim, then comes out to fight the law society for free legal work.

So what do you think, change of heart, 3rd chance, benefit of a doubt or let him continue to abandon cases after each press publicity. Heard of any other other lawyer doing that.

 

[Porfirio Rubirosa]

That is just one part of the equation. What about one who is relatively "good and honest" who "opposes PAP" but really cannot make it as a competent and able politician to effect good governance?

i guess this is the best and most realistic sentence i have read so far.

but i guess its in a way how some people want to do PR, showing the public one knd of face when reality is far far different

 

[Porfirio Rubirosa]

I think the answer probably lies more in the middle of both ends.

Are the law society cowards or are the limitations set forth by a PAP government to blame ?

Locke

 

[leetahbar]

That is just one part of the equation. What about one who is relatively "good and honest" who "opposes PAP" but really cannot make it as a competent and able politician to effect good governance?

to start the PAP OPPOSING MOVEMENT, we must start from the ward, win the hearts of peasants and show them the sincerity that the incumbent really is for them and nothing else.

that small idiot actually thought more for himself, the benefits and fame that are waiting at the other end and scheme to exploit "pawns" to do the dirty works.

when the plot crumbled, mutiny would be the next best exit. usually, the head is very hot; the tail ends up very cold.