-
IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here. The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.
the hideous vileness our evil chee soon juan exposed!
- Thread starter leetahbar
- Start date
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2008
- Messages
- 15,744
- Points
- 83
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!
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!
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2008
- Messages
- 15,744
- Points
- 83
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.
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.
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2008
- Messages
- 15,744
- Points
- 83
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
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
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2008
- Messages
- 15,744
- Points
- 83
it's all very simple actually.
just ask chee a simple, direct and straightforward question:
CHEE, WHERE DO U GET YOUR FUNDING FROM AND FOR WHAT PURPOSE?
his answer would be: oh, it's for my research work for "human behaviour" in sgp.
ya, right! foreigners pay a local to do research work on their own locals. either chee is LOCA or those foreigners have too much money to throw.
SO WHAT ARE THE FOREIGN FUNDINGS TRANSFERRED INTO CHEE'S PRIVATE BANK ACCOUNT PAID FOR?
think la! use your blain!!
just ask chee a simple, direct and straightforward question:
CHEE, WHERE DO U GET YOUR FUNDING FROM AND FOR WHAT PURPOSE?
his answer would be: oh, it's for my research work for "human behaviour" in sgp.
ya, right! foreigners pay a local to do research work on their own locals. either chee is LOCA or those foreigners have too much money to throw.
SO WHAT ARE THE FOREIGN FUNDINGS TRANSFERRED INTO CHEE'S PRIVATE BANK ACCOUNT PAID FOR?
think la! use your blain!!
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2008
- Messages
- 15,744
- Points
- 83
if u find reading the chinese report too strenuous, let me shorten for u:
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。”
translated: both chee n wifey wee not working, how to feed your family - asked reporter.
chee: i m a scholar, sometime i join FOREIGN research fund. my works sometime win awards and sometime i join FOREIGN RESEARCH SCHEME.
reporter asked: what kind of research? is it related to SDP 's research?
chee frivolously aswered: yes, could be related to "human behaviour" and such....
craps isn't it?
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。”
translated: both chee n wifey wee not working, how to feed your family - asked reporter.
chee: i m a scholar, sometime i join FOREIGN research fund. my works sometime win awards and sometime i join FOREIGN RESEARCH SCHEME.
reporter asked: what kind of research? is it related to SDP 's research?
chee frivolously aswered: yes, could be related to "human behaviour" and such....
craps isn't it?
- Joined
- Apr 5, 2010
- Messages
- 33
- Points
- 0
Dear Frens,
to be honest, Chee Soon Juan has done alot of damage to the Opposition, with his antics and 'stunts' like hunger strike etc. However, CSJ has also done some 'good' with various activities like the Tak Boleh Tahan etc. The way the police came down on him was a real embaressment to the COPs.
Right now, I hope that SDP gets wound up that way the Opposition and Singaporeans will have a chance against the PAP.
to be honest, Chee Soon Juan has done alot of damage to the Opposition, with his antics and 'stunts' like hunger strike etc. However, CSJ has also done some 'good' with various activities like the Tak Boleh Tahan etc. The way the police came down on him was a real embaressment to the COPs.
Right now, I hope that SDP gets wound up that way the Opposition and Singaporeans will have a chance against the PAP.
got problems with his hunger strike?
he got ask you not to eat and starve with him.
His hunger strike cause electricity, water prices to rise?
what's the big deal?
The hideous vileness is your evil Lee Kuan Yew!
Dun believe? Why not do a poll?
Who is the most vile, the most cruel, the most brutal, the most merciless, the most crooked, the most shameless, the most unloved, the most evil, the most hateful, the most untrustworthy, the most cunning, the most unforgiving... LKY or CSJ?
The answer... without a doubt is... your woeful MASTER!
Dun believe? Why not do a poll?
Who is the most vile, the most cruel, the most brutal, the most merciless, the most crooked, the most shameless, the most unloved, the most evil, the most hateful, the most untrustworthy, the most cunning, the most unforgiving... LKY or CSJ?
The answer... without a doubt is... your woeful MASTER!
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2008
- Messages
- 15,744
- Points
- 83
it was an undeniable fact that CHEE SOON WAS ONE VOTED CHIAM OUT OF SDP. he could also be the one that instigated the rest to do the same except for one or 2.
chiam was a blessed man to have quit SDP. it proves that SDP was synonymous to chiam. without him, SDP is a freak show run by chee's circus of clowns.
chiam carries on winning back POTONG PASIR. and what happen to chee? fainted during the GE when he realised he got the lowest votes. damn cartoon!
chiam was a blessed man to have quit SDP. it proves that SDP was synonymous to chiam. without him, SDP is a freak show run by chee's circus of clowns.
chiam carries on winning back POTONG PASIR. and what happen to chee? fainted during the GE when he realised he got the lowest votes. damn cartoon!
Similar threads
