TOC: Is SDP Misunderstood, misguided or misaligned?

[Porfirio Rubirosa]

SDP: Misunderstood, misguided or misaligned?
Tuesday, 25 November 2008, 5:16 pm | 613 views
By Kelvin Lim / Writer

The Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) is arguably Singapore’s most controversial political party, boasting a colourful history involving ideological clashes with the government, inter and intra-party disunity and facing an inundating surge of legal lawsuits and charges.

After years of negative reporting by the local media, the public standing of SDP seems to be permanently marred in the eyes of some Singaporeans.

A quick search into recent archives (2008) of The Straits Times on news pertaining to the SDP has indeed yielded a less than flattering picture.



Date
Headline in the Straits Times

22 August
Chees, five others charged with illegal assembly

2 September
Illegal assembly: Woman fined $650

14 October
Chees deserved jail terms for their conduct in court: Judge

14 October
PM, MM get $950k damages; Amount determined in part by ‘egregious’ conduct of the Chees

15 October
A-G takes trio to court for ’scandalising judiciary’

24 October
Two fined for taking part in illegal assembly


Raison d’être: Civil disobedience

It is tempting to dismiss them as politicians who are bent on breaking laws and creating trouble, but scratch beyond the rebellious surface and it might reveal more than meets the eye. The rationale behind their actions has been explained on their website, and also detailed by Dr Chee Soon Juan’s The Power of Courage.

The SDP states that the most fundamental objective for a political party is policy-making, followed by implementation of policies upon successful election into the parliament. But without free and fair elections, they rationalise that the only alternative path is “for citizens to exercise their rights through peaceful mass protests to compel the PAP to accede to the people’s demands for a free and fair election system”.

In a nutshell, they have been advocating political change through nonviolent action.

Nonviolent action is a means of social change that avoids the use of physical violence. Sometimes going beyond institutionalised methods such as petitioning and voting, it takes the form of civil disobedience. As the name suggest, civil disobedience involves a refusal to disobey selective laws and regulations which are deemed to be unfair and unjust.

Various famous historical examples of civil disobedience were the Salt Satyagraha by Mahatma Gandhi, the Montgomery Bus Boycott sparked by Rosa Parks and resistance against South African apartheid, led by Nelson Mandela.

Framing that principle in the Singapore context, Dr Chee purports that Singapore has its fair share of “unjust laws”, which aim to circumscribe basic human rights such as freedom of assembly and speech. To “overcome” these laws, he advocates breaking existing “unjust laws” even if it results in stiff penalties. He reasons: “The Government can jail 10 persons; it can even jail 100 persons but it cannot jail 10,000 persons.”

Liberalising the Speakers’ Corner: A fruit of civil disobedience?

Since Dr Chee was appointed as the Secretary-General of SDP in 1993, it remains debatable whether his confrontationist approach has yielded tangible results.

In a working paper published by Asia Research Institute titled “Calibrated coercion and the maintenance of hegemony in Singapore”, Dr Cherian George posits that these tactics are aimed at provoking a strong response so to expose “the repressive core of the state”. Yet, due to the Singapore’s small geographical size and its traditional economic strength, the People’s Action Party (PAP) has been able to respond to the multiple acts of civil disobedience with little visible political cost, by limiting legal action to organisers and speakers instead of the participatory audience.

On the other hand, long-time political commentator, Mr Alex Au points out the recent relaxation of regulation on public protests at Speakers’ Corner as a visible fruit of civil disobedience. During the IMF-World Bank Summit held in Singapore in October 2006, Dr Chee Soon Juan and Ms Chee Siok Chin engaged in a standoff with the police for three days and nights, and were prevented from marching to the conference venue. Predictably, it generated unfavourable press coverage worldwide and even earned stinging criticism from the World Bank president Paul Wolfowitz when the authorities tried to bar accredited activists from entering the shores of Singapore.

In any case, one may never know for sure whether the move towards liberalising public protest at Speakers’ Corner on 1 September was impelled by the SDP’s acts of civil disobedience by, or a deliberately-paced progression towards active citizenship.

A clash of ideals

Former NTUC Income chief, Mr Tan Kin Lian is by far, the most successful organiser in attracting record breaking numbers to the Speakers’ Corner, and advocating justice for unwitting investors who have invested in complex structured products especially those linked to the collapsed Lehman Brothers.

On 14 October, much to the dismay of the SDP, Mr Tan highlighted the importance of investors staying within the laws. He cautioned of “groups that wish to expand their anarchical ranks and would happily urge you to break the law”, and bluntly warned against doing “what many stupid and selfish politicians in Singapore have done and seek self destruction.”

In a reply posted on the SDP website, the party accused Mr Tan of joining in with the voices of scaremongering. Rhetorically, they asked where Mr Tan could have assembled the DBS investors, if activists had not campaigned for freedom of assembly. Rather than disparaging civil disobedience, fighting for political and civil rights could “come in very handy in [the] future”.

There is much debate over the validity of what the SDP has been fighting for, such as whether current laws are really unjust in the first place. Furthermore, people who support ideals pertaining to freedom of assembly and speech may not be willing to intentionally go against established laws which restrict its very definition.

SDP on a tightrope

In March this year, SDP launched a series of “Tak boleh tahan!” (Malay for I can’t take it anymore!) campaigns to protest against rising inflation which resulted from price hikes including the GST increase. Conducted at HDB estates such as Toa Payoh Central and Bishan, it was a calculated move towards engaging heartlanders on bread-and-butter issues.

In the months that followed, the SDP also tried to reach out to local university students at National University of Singapore (NUS), Nanyang Technological University (NTU) and Singapore Management University (SMU).

Of late, the public outreach process has all but stopped as the SDP and some of its stalwart supporters had been besieged by a series of charges and lawsuits. With hefty compensation sums awarded to Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew and Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong in recent defamation lawsuits, the SDP faces possible bankruptcy and deregistration as a political party.

The party is placed in a more precarious position than ever before. While it has managed to win supporters through the Internet, it remains to be seen and tested whether the newfound support might translate into substantial public support to prevent its demise.

Combined with a lack of consensual support between opposition parties and an ever evolving PAP, SDP must find a way to leapfrog ahead of the current conundrum while maintaining continual contact with Singaporeans, both online and offline.

Dr Chee recognised that “no campaign or movement can guarantee immediate and automatic success”. Whether or not SDP translate its grandiose political ideals to reality without going under is anyone’s guess.

Kelvin is an honours-year Bioengineering student at the National University of Singapore. His interests range from Wei Qi to wine but his course of study is definitely not one of them. Occasionally, he blogs incoherently atPsychobabble.

Clarification: In the article, it is mentioned that the PAP has not taken legal action against the “participatory audience” of SDP’s protests. TOC would like to clarify that SDP supporters have also been implicated with charges as well. We apologise for the misrepresentation.

 

[Porfirio Rubirosa]

VictorSun from DelphiKopitiam strikes! Who is VictorSun?

1) Singapore Kopitiam - Voices of Singaporeans on November 25th, 2008 7.27 pm Hi Kelvin Lim:

Your list of news published in the Straits Times pertaining to the SDP is incomplete. You missed out all the Tak boleh tahan protests, as well as court proceedings.

I you were to visit SDP’s website, you should be able to pull out a complete list without too much effort.

On the subject of civil disobedience, Dr. Chee Soon Juan is less successful than Mr. Tan Kin Lian in attracting crowds to Hong Lim Speakers’ Corner. Do you know why?

For more than a month now, SDP website has never posted any news or articles on the investors losing money on Minbonds, DBS High Notes, Pinnacles and Jubilee Notes, nor has it posted news on Mr. Tan Kin Lian’s gatherings in Hong Lim Speakers’ Corner.

It does make one ponder why.

Regards,
Victor Sun
Singapore Kopitiam - Voices of Singaporeans

 

[Porfirio Rubirosa]

My response to the TOC article “SDP: Misunderstood, misguided or misaligned?”

Written by Ng E-Jay
25 November 2008

This is my response to the TOC article entitled “SDP: Misunderstood, misguided or misaligned?” written by Mr Kelvin Lim and published on TOC’s website on 25 Nov.

Mr Lim begins his article by describing SDP as a party which is “arguably Singapore’s most controversial political party, boasting a colourful history involving ideological clashes with the government, inter and intra-party disunity and facing an inundating surge of legal lawsuits and charges.”

I have no qualms with SDP being described as colourful or controversial, since throughout history many initiators of great social and political change have invariably been described thus by their fellow men, but I take issue with Mr Lim’s inclusion of the phrase “inter and intra-party disunity”.

Perhaps by “intra-party disunity”, Mr Lim was referring to Mr Chiam See Tong’s disagreements with Dr Chee Soon Juan’s over the latter’s hunger strike as a means of protesting against his high-handed and unjust sacking from the National University of Singapore as a lecturer. In 1993, Mr Chiam had called for the Party to censure Dr Chee, who had been elected to the post of assistant secretary-general earlier in February that year. However, none of the Central Executive Committee (CEC) members supported Mr Chiam’s motion, whereupon the former Party leader tended his resignation, citing that he had lost the confidence of his colleagues.


A few weeks later, Mr Chiam gave a speech at the Singapore Press Club making unprovoked and highly insensitive attacks on the Party’s leadership. The CEC had little choice but to vote to expel him. Mr Chiam sued the CEC for wrongful dismissal and won. Clearly in this instance, the source of whatever “intra-party disunity” originated from but one man, and was not a widespread phenomenon with many parties taking different or opposing sides, as the term “intra-party disunity” would normally suggest. (More information on this can be found here and here.)

[Was Chiam the only party member to leave SDP at that time?]

Or perhaps by “intra-party disunity”, Mr Lim was referring to Mr Ling Hoong Doong’s and some other CEC member’s disagreements with Dr Chee over whether they should apologize for allegedly defamatory remarks made against PM Lee Hsien Loong and MM Lee Kuan Yew in 2006 during the run-up to the General Elections over the NKF saga in the face of a pending lawsuit. In this case, the other CEC and Party members did not put any pressure on anyone not to apologize. Apologies by Mr Ling and few others appeared in the mainstream press just before polling day. Any perceived conflicts within the CEC or the Party were entirely drummed up by the mainstream media who took full advantage of the situation.

[Are people like Ling, Wong and Cheo still with SDP? If not why did they leave?]

As for “inter-party disunity”, I would like Mr Lim to clarify exactly what he means by that, because to the best of my knowledge, there has never been any “inter-party disunity” between SDP and the rest. From my vantage point, any so-called “inter-party disunity” is between clones and supposed supporters of Opposition parties in internet forums hiding behind anonymous nicks. That should hardly count as “inter-party disunity”, but merely mindless entertainment initiated by brickbats who might have no connection with Opposition parties to begin with.

[Which "clones" 'belong' to WP?]

If Mr Lim was by any chance referring to SDP’s disagreement with Ms Sylvia Lim’s comments at the IBA Conference in 2007 that Singapore’s laws are fair and just and are a good benchmark for international standards, may I point out that free and fair criticism of one another does not in any way amount to “inter-party disunity”. As Opposition parties, we should be willing and in fact eager to accept fair and objective criticism from each other. If not, wouldn’t we be exactly like the PAP, intolerant of criticism and quick on the hatchet?

[What was SDP's intention in publishing its invitation letter to WP and SPP amongst others viz the public forum on electoral reforms?]

Mr Kelvin Lim also listed a series of Straits Times headlines illustrating how the media has portrayed SDP negatively over the years. However, his list of headlines is slightly misleading as not all persons mentioned in the headlines are SDP members (although they were participating in activities initiated by either SDP members or SDP supporters). For example, the headline “Illegal assembly: Woman fined $650″ dated 02 Sept 08 referred to an SDP supporter (not a member) who helped distribute flyers in 2006 in conjunction with the WB/IMF meeting. For the headline “A-G takes trio to court for ’scandalising judiciary’” dated 15 Oct 08, two of the three people involved, namely Muhammad Shafi’ie Syahmi Sariman and Isrizal Mohamed Isa, are not SDP members. For the headline “Two fined for taking part in illegal assembly” dated 24 Oct 08, one of the two fined was me, and I’m not an SDP member.

Mr Kelvin Lim goes on to explain why SDP practices civil disobedience and non-violent action, and I found his explanation to be very good. The jist of the reason given is that in the absence of free and fair elections that allow Opposition politicians to compete for Parliamentary seats on an equal footing with those from the ruling party, the only way for alternative voices to be heard and for political pressure to be put on the ruling party to enact reforms to better the system is through civil disobedience and the deliberate breaking of unjust laws, such as those that unconstitutionally deny citizens their basic civil and political rights, such as the freedom of speech and assembly.

Mr Lim asks says it is “debatable whether (Dr Chee’s) confrontational approach has yielded tangible results“, and I would agree with him that the jury is still out on this one, although I would not describe Dr Chee as confrontational. It is not confrontational to speak the hard truth about what is wrong with our political system, but intellectually honest.

[How about Dr Chee's acts of NVCD which in effect breaks the laws as it now stands? Is this "confrontational"?]

Mr Lim writes: “… due to the Singapore’s small geographical size and its traditional economic strength, the People’s Action Party (PAP) has been able to respond to the multiple acts of civil disobedience with little visible political cost, by limiting legal action to organisers and speakers instead of participatory audience.”

Again, this is a misleading statement. Legal actions have been taken not only against SDP members, but also SDP supporters like myself who were present at events like the Tak Boleh Tahan Protest outside Parliament House on 15 March this year. I neither organized the event nor gave any public speech during the protest itself. I gave my moral support to the cause by wearing the protest T-shirt and taking a group photo with the rest. I also took other photographs of the event for my personal consumption. When the police gave the order to disperse, I complied. Yet I was still charged for assembly and procession without a permit.

[Is Ng E-Jay now repudiating his guilty plea in court?]

Similarly, for the 2006 WB/IMF rally, even those who were merely distributing flyers at Raffles City Shopping Centre a week before the actual event were charged for illegal assembly, despite that fact that they did not gave any speeches at that time. The flyers were intended to publicise the rally and march that was to be held at Speakers’ Corner, Hong Lim Park, on Sept 16 that year.

Hence, contrary to Mr Lim’s comments, legal action has been initiated against participants, observers, and even first-time supporters of SDP protests.

Mr Lim opines that “one may never know for sure whether the move towards liberalising public protest at Speakers’ Corner on 1 September was impelled by the SDP’s acts of civil disobedience by, or a deliberately-paced progression towards active citizenship“. To me, the liberalisation of Speaker’s Corner, is as Alex Au has asserted, mere tokenism that gives Singaporeans a space to air their grievances and conduct their campaigns, but which fails to ultimately recognize that they have certain rights granted to them under the Constitution that they are denied to this day.

I would say that SDP is grossly misunderstood, but clearly not misaligned or misguided. I hope Mr Lim realizes the wool that the mainstream media has pooled over everyone’s eyes in tainting the SDP as a rogue or maverick party with little political agenda apart from breaking the law.

[Only time shall tell whether Dr Chee/SDP is really "misguided"]

 

[Wisely]

Ng Ejay says "we should be willing and in fact eager to accept fair and objective criticism from each other." Then why did he write this crap letter?

He or Avantas will not come to answer you any more.

 

[Porfirio Rubirosa]

From WayangParty

This is the editorial stance of The Singapore Enquirer :

“Our editorial position is consistently supportive of justice, human rights, democracy, freedom of speech and good governance, with focus on socio-political issues which are neglected by the mainstream media.

As the only independent online daily in Singapore, we strive to bring you news which are fair, balanced and objective.

We are strictly non-partisan in nature, thus we do not support any political parties - whether ruling or opposition parties. However, that does not mean we are apolitical and we will speak out on matters which contravene our principles.”

We hope you will continue to support The Singapore Enquirer as much as you have lent your support to Wayangparty.com.

Today, Wayangparty.com has exceeeded Talkingcock and Yawning Bread in terms of traffic ranking according to Alexa. and we are still moving up. This will not be possible without our readers.

We started out as a “watchdog for WP” to a “watchdog for PAP moles in cyberspace” and now, a “watchdog for the mainstream media”.

In a way, Wayangparty.com is coming close to maximizing its potential and it is time for a new vehicle to take us further.

The Singapore Enquirer is not a continuation of Wayangparty.com, yet it is an embodiment of values shared not only by us, but by many others as well.

Together, we believe we can usher in a new dawn for Singapore journalism with the eventual registering of a company to manage an online daily staffed fully by professional, trained journalists committed to fair, objective, balanced, accurate and credible news reporting.

Ng Ejay says "we should be willing and in fact eager to accept fair and objective criticism from each other." Then why did he write this crap letter?

He or Avantas will not come to answer you any more.

 

[lockeliberal]

Dear Porifirio

God what a load of contradictory crap :_)) "We do not support any political parties and yet we are not apolitical " with a lineage tracing back to the clones of Avantas and the Wayang Party :_)) and attacks on the TOC and Remy Andrew etc and all linked in the way all roads lead to Rome and to Ng E Jay .............I remember when the website was not live and UNDER construction the only two blogs ref on it were surprise surprise Ng E Jay and Wayang Party.

All I can say is if you want to build a better mousetrap then go ahead but no need to slime in some form the builders of other mouse traps.



Locke

 

[Porfirio Rubirosa]

Just taken from Singapore Enquirer itself. They appear so keen to launch this site that it appears to have been launched even before the official date

Man these chaps sure sound smug and self-righteous

About Us


Launched on 29 November 2008, The Singapore Enquirer offers daily news and views in a simplified, concise and easy-to-read form for online readers.

Our editorial position is consistently supportive of justice, human rights, democracy, freedom of speech and good governance, with focus on socio-political issues which are neglected by the mainstream media.

As the only independent online daily in Singapore, we strive to bring you news which are fair, balanced and objective.

We are strictly non-partisan in nature, thus we do not support any political parties - whether ruling or opposition parties. However, that does not mean we are apolitical and we will speak out on matters which contravene our principles.

While our political stand is reflected in our editorials, Singapore Enquirer journalists are nevertheless fully committed to accurate and credible news reporting

Dear Porifirio

God what a load of contradictory crap :_)) "We do not support any political parties and yet we are not apolitical " with a lineage tracing back to the clones of Avantas and the Wayang Party :_)) and attacks on the TOC and Remy Andrew etc and all linked in the way all roads lead to Rome and to Ng E Jay .............I remember when the website was not live and UNDER construction the only two blogs ref on it were surprise surprise Ng E Jay and Wayang Party.

All I can say is if you want to build a better mousetrap then go ahead but no need to slime in some form the builders of other mouse traps.



Locke

 

[scroobal]

Just taken from Singapore Enquirer itself. They appear so keen to launch this site that it appears to have been launched even before the official date

Despite a personal lecture by Locke, he still has no clue about the term Non-Partisan. Look at his response to Kelvin. He managed to put all his personal irrelevant issues with everyone including the forum into that response that covers SDP.

There are days that I shudder at his articles. Mostly motherhood statements, irrelevant issues and mostly disjointed ideas if any.

Only the SPH seems to recognise his as a blogger and then again they have a qualified pyschiatrist.

 

[scroobal]

Dear Porifirio

God what a load of contradictory crap :_)) "We do not support any political parties and yet we are not apolitical " with a lineage tracing back to the clones of Avantas and the Wayang Party :_)) and attacks on the TOC and Remy Andrew etc and all linked in the way all roads lead to Rome and to Ng E Jay .............I remember when the website was not live and UNDER construction the only two blogs ref on it were surprise surprise Ng E Jay and Wayang Party.

All I can say is if you want to build a better mousetrap then go ahead but no need to slime in some form the builders of other mouse traps.
Locke

Makes your hair stand on end.

 

[chewed]

Ng Ejay says "we should be willing and in fact eager to accept fair and objective criticism from each other." Then why did he write this crap letter?

He or Avantas will not come to answer you any more.

dun worry, still got guavatree here....

 

[Wisely]

dun worry, still got guavatree here....

Idiot Ng Ejay is also likely behind those guys, but they target the other idiot Bob, and that's none of my business.

 

[Avantas]

Porf, I notice you have been fishing for information, are you from some organization ?

VictorSun from DelphiKopitiam strikes! Who is VictorSun?

1) Singapore Kopitiam - Voices of Singaporeans on November 25th, 2008 7.27 pm Hi Kelvin Lim:

Your list of news published in the Straits Times pertaining to the SDP is incomplete. You missed out all the Tak boleh tahan protests, as well as court proceedings.

I you were to visit SDP’s website, you should be able to pull out a complete list without too much effort.

On the subject of civil disobedience, Dr. Chee Soon Juan is less successful than Mr. Tan Kin Lian in attracting crowds to Hong Lim Speakers’ Corner. Do you know why?

For more than a month now, SDP website has never posted any news or articles on the investors losing money on Minbonds, DBS High Notes, Pinnacles and Jubilee Notes, nor has it posted news on Mr. Tan Kin Lian’s gatherings in Hong Lim Speakers’ Corner.

It does make one ponder why.

Regards,
Victor Sun
Singapore Kopitiam - Voices of Singaporeans

 

[Avantas]

Scroobal:

Why haven't you emailed wayangparty ??

You think I got so much time like you to remind you again and again and again....

Got the mouth to badmouth others behind their back, but no balls to even email them ???

Aiyoh, you afraid your IP kanna traced ??

What a useless piece of shit you are !

Makes your hair stand on end.

 

[Avantas]

Mr Marcus Yap:

What proof do you have ? Aren't you a nick yourself ?

Why not you write in to the ST Forum to complain about wayangparty and Ng E Jay instead of whining here like a faggot ?

Dear Porifirio

God what a load of contradictory crap :_)) "We do not support any political parties and yet we are not apolitical " with a lineage tracing back to the clones of Avantas and the Wayang Party :_)) and attacks on the TOC and Remy Andrew etc and all linked in the way all roads lead to Rome and to Ng E Jay .............I remember when the website was not live and UNDER construction the only two blogs ref on it were surprise surprise Ng E Jay and Wayang Party.

All I can say is if you want to build a better mousetrap then go ahead but no need to slime in some form the builders of other mouse traps.



Locke

 

[The_Latest_H]

You know I don't mind all these websites sprouting out, stating their perception about the issues of the day.

But when I see one webmaster of a site attacking another for not being agreeable to his political party, then that's when I find it silly. I mean, these websites are created to form a basis of diverse views right? And if a webmaster that has been attacked was attacked because his website was created to be non-partisan, then what's the point?

People can disagree without being disagreeable, and people should empathise others even if one doesn't share the views of the other. But when one takes things so personally just because the others strive to be non-partisan, then I think that is pretty disappointing. You all should be finding opportunities, and not finding and creating enemies everywhere.

 

[cleareyes]

You know I don't mind all these websites sprouting out, stating their perception about the issues of the day.

But when I see one webmaster of a site attacking another for not being agreeable to his political party, then that's when I find it silly. I mean, these websites are created to form a basis of diverse views right? And if a webmaster that has been attacked was attacked because his website was created to be non-partisan, then what's the point?

People can disagree without being disagreeable, and people should empathise others even if one doesn't share the views of the other. But when one takes things so personally just because the others strive to be non-partisan, then I think that is pretty disappointing. You all should be finding opportunities, and not finding and creating enemies everywhere.

in politics, there is no such thing as non-partisan. everyone takes sides and those who are sit on the fence were usually accussed as been siding with one side or another when actually they are not. and in the end, forced top take sides even when they are unwilling to. so what gives??

democracy and freedom of expression has lost its orginal meaning. sad but this is showing how true things have become.

 

[The_Latest_H]

in politics, there is no such thing as non-partisan. everyone takes sides and those who are sit on the fence were usually accussed as been siding with one side or another when actually they are not. and in the end, forced top take sides even when they are unwilling to. so what gives??

democracy and freedom of expression has lost its orginal meaning. sad but this is showing how true things have become.

Well, there's gonna be websites that will strive to be non-partisan, simply because they are an alternative news source, and have to expand readership by means of including columnists of all political colours.

Thus, TOC does that as a service.

Similarly, if SDP supporters decide to set up a hyper-partisan website that is pro-SDP, and anti non-partisan, then its their right too. But in politics, when there's a common opponent, its better if we find opportunities and common ground to work together, rather than treat everyone who doesn't share their views as potential enemies.

SDP's issue is that in every opportunity, they are, apparently, finding it more suitable to attack even their fellow brethren for not being SDP enough, not knowing that these are supposed to be your allies, or at least they would have remained neutral.

In the end, if other opposition parties remain suspicious of the SDP and feels aggrieved at the backbite, and the back-snapping, SDP shouldn't feel surprised if its left isolated by all other opposition parties, while SDP remains in trouble due to the courts.

 

[one2unite]

SDP's issue is that in every opportunity, they are, apparently, finding it more suitable to attack even their fellow brethren for not being SDP enough, not knowing that these are supposed to be your allies, or at least they would have remained neutral.

In the end, if other opposition parties remain suspicious of the SDP and feels aggrieved at the backbite, and the back-snapping, SDP shouldn't feel surprised if its left isolated by all other opposition parties, while SDP remains in trouble due to the courts.

Can you be more specific and give examples of attacking "even their fellow brethren for not being SDP enough"?

What is your take on the person who had called a fellow opposition "mad dog"? What about someone who had said Singapore's judiciary is fair, independent and world class when SDP and other activists are facing countless trumped up charges in LKY's kangaroo courts?

When SDP does something, it's called criminal but the same act by CASE is termed legal. Where is the rule of law?

 

[scroobal]

SDP's issue is that in every opportunity, they are, apparently, finding it more suitable to attack even their fellow brethren for not being SDP enough, not knowing that these are supposed to be your allies, or at least they would have remained neutral.

In the end, if other opposition parties remain suspicious of the SDP and feels aggrieved at the backbite, and the back-snapping, SDP shouldn't feel surprised if its left isolated by all other opposition parties, while SDP remains in trouble due to the courts.

I think you got the story wrong. SDP itself has not attacked anyone in opposition. I am one of their ardent critics but that is on their style, tactics, strategy and in particular Chee's character.

I think you referring to couple of chaps who are supporters but do not want to be members.

In fact their only attack that was not against the govt was against the Law Society and in that case Chia whose purpose in life he himself is not aware appears to the lead. Probably obtained franchise right for the TBT event.

The forummers here more or less can differentiate between SDP and a select of supporters.

 

[The_Latest_H]

Can you be more specific and give examples of attacking "even their fellow brethren for not being SDP enough"?

What is your take on the person who had called a fellow opposition "mad dog"? What about someone who had said Singapore's judiciary is fair, independent and world class when SDP and other activists are facing countless trumped up charges in LKY's kangaroo courts?

When SDP does something, it's called criminal but the same act by CASE is termed legal. Where is the rule of law?

When you fling missiles at the opposite side for being not SDP enough, do you not expect people on that side to fling it back?

Me? I just wanna point out the obvious that these to-and-fro exchanges are not helpful, and its clear this issue wasn't about one hand trying to clap; it was both. So both sides have to share the blame.

Besides magazines like the Economist have noted that until the opposition parties unite and stop being petty, PAP would continue to rule this country. We have to see the bigger picture. Getting immersed in this squabble and now lambasting the messenger isn't gonna help your side even more.

I think you got the story wrong. SDP itself has not attacked anyone in opposition. I am one of their ardent critics but that is on their style, tactics, strategy and in particular Chee's character.

I think you referring to couple of chaps who are supporters but do not want to be members.

In fact their only attack that was not against the govt was against the Law Society and in that case Chia whose purpose in life he himself is not aware appears to the lead. Probably obtained franchise right for the TBT event.

The forummers here more or less can differentiate between SDP and a select of supporters.

Well, I hope they will understand. As I know, personal perception and opinion can be mistaken, and as such I never insist I was right. I think I'm right- but I'm entitled to my own opinions but not to the facts. As such if someone thinks I'm wrong, I will go back and ponder. This is to ensure that I know the difference between opinions and facts.