TOC: Why report on Viswa Sadasivan’s speech was removed from TOC

[Porfirio Rubirosa]

176) Papz on August 31st, 2009 5.51 pm Viswa is the CEO and founder of this company: http://www.strategicmoves.com.sg/clients.shtml

Look out for the clients list. It speaks for itself.
184) wayang NMP on August 31st, 2009 8.26 pm I think many past opposition political figures have been “sacrificed” because someone was also “self-preserving” himself. So it is justified to censor media, pass laws that curb the right of citizens, non-accountabilites, non-transparency, suing opposition till bankrupcy ……………………………… all because of “SELF-PRESERVATION”
188) c-p-k on September 1st, 2009 12.10 am Another controversy about NMP Viswa hot on the heels of his “highfalutin’” maiden speech in Parliament. Appears to me that he has either too big a mouth or too small a heart, or both. If he is so scared of the consequences of making his speeches then he shouldn’t make them in the first instance. Just bend with the wind and flow with the tide….

Frankly, I do not see anything at all wrong with his two speeches even though they may have ruffled a few feathers on some sensitive birds. He was simply stating some well known facts about Sinkapoor which were crying out to be said. What’s on earth is wrong with that?
189) FeverGUY on September 1st, 2009 12.32 am NMP thought he make a name for himself by focusing on the idealist concept, and believe it will be important as well as raising the bar in NMP standard as proposed by LHL and LKY. He did just that by pressing the “wrong button” and awaken the beast……….

I don think he is genuine in his speech if not he wont be afraid to retract what he had said. I come to think of it as a moment of folly by himself and must be cursing the very moment that why he never proof check his speech first or engaged the pappies stoggies to do the propaganda touched up. Politicising an ideology is what makes politics tick so sad that after he regretted what he said he will definitely become a hermit in parliament. I bet my pet “sparky” ’s dog food on it.

Really 2 step forward 5 steps back!
190) Lan on September 1st, 2009 12.49 am “177) Greg on August 31st, 2009 6.01 pm
–> 176 – Papz
99% of clients PAP-linked. LOL”

Ya.. interesting isn’t it? What if this whole episode was a scam to remind parliament and Singapore who is in charge?
193) Politically Immature Society on September 1st, 2009 1.44 am I simply cannot understand why a man who wants to be a Nominated Member of Parliament would fear so greatly that whatever he says become politicized.

Isn’t the fact that by becoming an NMP itself is already self-politicizing? If he is willing to step out voluntarily to politicize himself in Parliament (therefore in public too), why can’t others politicize on what he says, whether in Parliament, behind closed doors, or in his secret hide-out (if any)?

It is sad that I have come to realise that many, if not all, of our so-called politicians are so afraid of getting into trouble because of what they say.

It is very clear from this example alone, that Singaporeans have a very long way to mature politically. Though some leaders simply love to boast that we are a first world nation, there are, in actuality, so many areas that we are lacking far behind some third world countries, e.g.

1. Political awareness,
2. Political acumen and
3. Political rights of individuals and society as a whole.

I think over the last 50 years, the PAP has done our nation a very great dis-service for not cultivating, promoting and nurturing the above three crucial qualities upon the citizens. Without such qualities in its citizens, the nation will not survive in the long run. When there appears a relentless and prolonged external threat, Singapore will simply fall like a durian.

So, whoever wants to become a politician, please have the guts to stand up and be counted on whatever you dared to say, whether in public, parliament or behind closed doors. Otherwise, people will perceive whatever you may say later on as mere “playing politics” or “wayang”. You want the cake and eat it? You can’t. You have lost your credibility. In future, I for one will think that you simply have no balls!.
194) sheldon on September 1st, 2009 4.41 am @gemami

wrote

“An no, Sheldon, it is not a process. It is a PAP tool to prevent the Opposition from gaining a foothold on Singapore politics.”


oh, an engagement.

frankly, i am not concerned with any wayang, i am more fascinated by people’s response to it. i am interested in the singapuran mindscape, whether in the whites or non.

i am going to vote for the opposition anyway. i mean, who cares if it’s a pap tool. it’s still a process involving the tool’s mind, the tamogochi master’s , and the audience cum participants’.

i just have a sneaky suspicion that a lot of people who cry foul , besides expressing their personal displeasure, are also warning people not to fall into that trap, and i am just not sure how much thought they put into their presentation of warning and have they defined their target audience, or they just do it like how the pap would do it, i.e. premising that people other than them, ‘elites’, are dumb. i mean, the dumb ones will vote for the pap no matter what, so…

yeah it’s still a process. minds are fluid, they can change, unless one is like tribal lee who believes in genetic determinism.

put it this way, even if mr v’s a tool, he has a mind that still may sway depending on the singapuran mindscape engaging him. is the mindscape emphasizing ‘fear’ leading him to further ’self preservation’ recourse, or is it one encouraging openness and unforgivingness. that’s the bottom up approach that i am more interested in. who knows, once the mindscape becomes open enough, members within the pap may start coming out of their closets- i mean, everyone has a mind.

 

[Porfirio Rubirosa]

195) Eric on September 1st, 2009 5.10 am I think several members may have conflated some issues in their response. For what it’s worth, here are my views.

To me, the key issues are, first, to what extent is Mr. Sadavisan at fault for requesting TOC post to be removed? Next, based on his speech and subsequent actions, can we accuse Mr. Sadavisan as being a false representative of the people?
Let me tackle the first issue. We have to bear in mind the rules of the journalistic game. Yes, besides the editors, no self-respecting journalist will allow an article to be vetted by interviewees. But, what if the reporter has already agreed to that request of vetting? Then it becomes a matter of integrity. Based on Mr. Sadasivan’s and TOC’s account of the exchange, it seems that the TOC reporter did agree to that arrangement, albeit a verbal one. An agreement has to be honored.

Next, the Chatham House rules were in force for the event. The rules are practiced around the world, especially in international affairs. This allows all parties in the forum to present their most honest opinions without fear of attribution (and retribution).

Depending on the newspaper policies and agreement with the organizers, the journalist may report the event, but he or she cannot attribute quotes to individuals. In this instance, given the thrust and content of TOC’s article, Chatham House rules were breached. Hence the issue is one that concerns appropriate ethical, professional conduct. Even if the subject matter is something less controversial or Mr. Sadasivan has not made the request, TOC is still obliged to take it off the website.

To that, I feel that both TOC and Mr. Sadavisan resolved the issue in a civilized and professional manner. Definitely we cannot expect the residual emotions from this episode to be positive, but I believe it says a lot about the maturity and civility both parties displayed in this disagreement.

Claiming that his request for removal is based on cowardice is a matter of interpretation. I’m fine with people presenting their opinions, of course, but just not under the banner of facts. But to just present opinions without careful reading of the issues and reliable evidence only adds fuel to the high emotions, yet not helping everyone to understand the issues.

As for whether Mr. Sadasivan misrepresented himself as a representative of the people, this is an interesting issue. It is a situation created by the incumbent – A non-elected representative speaking in Parliament for his or her assumed constituencies. Who are Mr. Sadasivan’s assumed constituencies then? He made it very clear that they are Singaporeans.

One may be cynical and suspicious of his intent if he’s really that laudable. It’s a fair and pertinent question. The due process will be to look for evidence (perhaps his clientele) to suggest that he harbors less-than-altruistic ambitions.

We are conflating the issue of authentic intention with official/legal political representation. If he’s a self-serving politician, Mr Sadasivan should be taken to task even if he is an elected MP. But we should not disparage him just because he’s a NMP. He’s working within the formal political system, no matter how unfair it is, to contribute based on his expressed intent. The hostility towards non-democratic, arbitrary political representation should be directed at the incumbent party, at the complicit non-PAP MPs and the bureaucrats, but not at Mr. Sadasivan.

I’m sure many will not agree with me. That’s ok. But we should present our case based on logical and clear arguments even if the basis of our contention is an emotional one. Correct my flawed logic. Reveal my erroneous sources. Present another side of the story that I have missed. That way, we can engage one another in a civilized, intelligent and constructive manner, even though the debate can be a hugely uncomfortable one.

If we can do that, it shows great promise that we can engage in heated, even polemical debates and yet coming out of it, deeply aware that all of us are ultimately Singaporeans, regardless of our political, moral or religious positions. We may disagree on how to make Singapore better, but we share the same vision of making it a more equitable, livable and compassionate nation. We are here to build a home, not erect a house or to manage a hotel.

At the end of the day, I hope that regardless of where we stand, we can all end the session with kopi or beer at the kopitiam, because after all we are Singaporeans, here to make it better.

Sincerely,
Eric
196) JC on September 1st, 2009 5.44 am Another oxy-moronic example of our ministers in a dressed-up, mock parliament:

1. Fact that he is MP, regardless of nominated or elected, means he is representative in a government. The fact that he delivered the speeches in the parliament AND in the LKY School of Public Policy are meant to be politicized, unless he SHUTS HIS MONTH on both occasions.

2. Not knowing who he is, I am assuming being a Nominated MP means he must be on the good side of someone well-connected in this totalitarian government. To kick-up such a stir would have reflected badly on everyone in the Establishment. I am not surprised that he should request the site to remove his speech. Another establishment kid with no balls to go against the draft and his higher-ups. Sad!
203) patriot on September 1st, 2009 10.48 am Dear Observer(SG-HK);

it’s always good to have your level-headed views.

Rereading throught the Article and the Comments again, i am in full concurrence with Eric #195 who had given us a very comprehensive analysis of the Events(speeches made by VS) and the relationships of his(VS) appointment as NMP with the Regime and the People. Eric has also given us many of his well thought opinions.

Up to this point, I am comforted by the fact that VS had raised Issues of significant relevance to the People and the Country. Be it that he is suspected for his political(party) leaning, i will credit him for having done something that no other parliamentarians, be they Elected Opposition Members, Riding on Coattail and or Backdoor Entry PAP Members, NMPs or the Others had ever raised.

With his Response in this Thread with declaration of his neutrality between the Ruler and the Citizenry, i feel he(VS) has sincerity, again he may still be suspected of wayang(acting), however, i will give him the benefit of doubt and the time for him to prove his integrity. Dare i say, i will not regret should development(s) moves in the opposite of my belief(in VS) and wishes.

In an issue where and when no concrete result has been established, i think it is only fair to discuss subject matters in calm and less emotional spirit and it is best that we could agree to disagree in our friendly exchanges here and elsewhere of course.

patriot

206) Omygod on September 1st, 2009 11.32 am 176) Papz
“Viswa is the CEO and founder of this company:

http://www.strategicmoves.com.sg/clients.shtml

Look out for the clients list. It speaks for itself. ”

So he IS with the PAP all the time..I was ’shocked’ to observe the list of his clients….most of them are pappies! He is ‘funded’ by them?

So, what can we expect from this ‘Gentleman’?

I don’t believe this !
We were ‘fooled’ into thinking that he spoke our language!

Thanks to TOC, without the above issue, otherwise, this wouldn’t have come to light.
Many singporeans are thinking that he is ‘God-send’ , now we know that he is a PAP ( faithful) sent to divert us totally from more serious issues.

So, most of you are right, this is a’ Wayang’ and he is the lead actor (out from the horse’s mouth). These NMP’s have lost my trust completely, from now on, no matter what they say, we will know that it is just another ‘ drama’ scripted & being staged by the the ruling party.
Wow, lky is a genius!

212) GABRIEL on September 1st, 2009 1.00 pm TO set the record straight: Viswa spoke on two occasions — once in Parliament when he made his maiden address and the second time, at the LKY School of Public Policy.
For his views in Parliament on the Pledge, which, I feel, many of us support, he was taken to task by LKY. Was the old man justified? That’s up to the people to decide. He has been right many times, but surely, he cannot be right all of the time.
At the LKY School, Viswa spoke, among other things, about the timidness of the MSM in not being more vigorous in their reporting. He could be reasoning out that a more independent MSM would provide for better development of democracy.
That could be a matter of opinion — but who knows, hitting out at the powerful MSM could be construed as libel, defamation and what have you.
For sure, Viswa appears to have kicked opened a nest of hornets. Let’s see how he continues — many will be waiting to see how he performs and what he says the next time round. Both the public and the PAP.

 

[Porfirio Rubirosa]

216) Eric on September 1st, 2009 1.35 pm Thanks to “Observer (SG-HK),” “patriot,” “Chatham House Rules forbid the release of the speech,” gemami and several others for your gracious remarks, I deeply appreciate it.

The issue of whether Mr. Viswa Sadasivan is a coward, a government mouthpiece or both keeps cropping up in this forum.

Some feel that he is a sell-out because (1) he enters the political arena as a NMP, and (2) that his clientele is heavily government-based. Some even feel that as authentic reflection of his political fervor, he should use Hong Lim Park as the rightful platform.

I have talked about (1). That criticism should be directed at the incumbent party and all those who are complicit in this, including the non-PAP MPs. (I don’t fancy the term Opposition at all – if we pay closer attention, it’s a label that the media and the incumbent party tag other parties to reduce their legitimacy. These parties do not oppose Singaporeans at all; they offer an alternative voice, albeit a rather subdued one.)

Instead, let’s work this through together, starting with the Hong Lim Park option. In terms of reach and efficiency, which option will serve Mr. Sadavisan’s purpose best to reach more Singaporeans? In terms of legitimacy, does speaking up as an NMP or speaking up as a member of the public in Hong Lim Park lends more credibility? Furthermore, which is more daunting? Speaking up in Hong Lim Park, or to move a motion in the Parliament where his every word and action are duly archived and scrutinized by us and by the authorities? (In fact, how many NMPs have moved a motion? I believe he’s either the first or one of the few to do so.) Which needs more effort and more courage?

Next, let’s look at his clientele base. I completely agree that his clientele base may be more worrisome than impressive. However, I also cannot just conveniently ignore the large private corporations like BMW, HP, KPMG and OCBC that his company serviced as well. (Seriously, one hardly counts OCBC as pro-establishment, especially for folks in the know.)

Furthermore, it is also in the nature of the business of strategic communications to be sought after by large organizations. What organizations would seek professional advice at that level? How many organizations of that size and stature, private and public, exist in Singapore? Let’s think a little deeper about it.

Furthermore, from another point of view, who would you want to be speaking for Singaporeans in the Parliament? One who has no clue about the inner workings of the government, especially senior leadership’s thinking on communication and public engagement, or do you want someone who has swum in the deep ends with the sharks? From a purely strategic perspective, the answer is obvious.

Next, I don’t want a martyr. I want someone who is alive, understands that political engagement is a marathon and not a sprint, and knows to choose and fight worthy battles and not engage every skirmish. I want someone who knows the system, has worked in the system and willing to change the system from within. We are all too familiar with what happened when change not only comes abruptly and unthinkingly, but also externally. Look at how USSR crumbled in 1989. Look at how Indonesia crumbled during the last financial crisis.

I’m acutely aware that to a large extent it’s my personal preference for this brand of change, but I have also stated my reasons why I think it is too harsh, too foolhardy to expect Mr Sadasivan, a veteran observer of Singapore’s political history, to simply ape strategies of other political parties or political activists.

And yes, I am very concerned about his close government contacts and his involvement in several government forums too (e.g., he was also in the Government Parliamentary Committee for Defence and Foreign Affairs as a Resource Panel member). However, to simply brand him as a government mouthpiece just because of that connection is, may I dare say, somewhat one-dimensional.

Some people move the world by being in the forefront, lending the charge, providing a voice and personality to the movement. Others work quietly behind the scene to effect change. Both are admirable, but right now, by legitimizing one way over the other, we are privileging one over the other. Can we surely say at this point in time which method, and only one method, works best for Singapore?

We should watch Mr. Sadasivan carefully, but at the same time, mindful that he is stepping out, putting his reputation on the line and subjecting his personal life to scrutiny. (Just look at how we jump at his professional CV). The scrutiny is necessary and no one, including our political leaders, should be placed on a pedestal. I am all for that level of scrutiny.

Before we burn Mr. Sadasivan at the stake for one singular move, let’s take a step back, suspend our criticisms for the time being and monitor if he will remain authentic to his cause.

Sincerely,
Eric

 

[Perspective]

Then we are both playing blindfold ping pong. Too much reliance on precedents of history, we will never get to see missed opportunities and possibilities in the future turns of events.

I will believe it when I see it. It's up to the voters to create the opportunities but up to interested players to gun for them.

 

[Porfirio Rubirosa]

Dear Scroobal,

your analysis and insight in this thread has got my political intrigue juices flowing...as they say follow the dots...follow dots...on the flipside what you opine has also made me depressed with this possible truth that leads to 'the heart of darkness'...oh "the horror, the horror":(

PS. look forward to more insights and nuggets after your prata chinwag:p

 

[scroobal]

I used the term doe eyed for that reason. There is hunger to contribute, a release valve is needed so you "allow" and "facilitate" things.

Alex Au in his website had made some revealing and interesting arguments but nothing like that ever comes from TOC. Have they ever revealed anything controversial or did an expose. Its 3 years. Its civil, organised and orderly. What then is their purpose. Their high achievement must be reporting Chee and GY having an internet exchange. More like a Political Snippets found in back pages on most papers.

In this business you never show your hand. There were 3 chaps in the early stages with 2 clearly in the PAP fold and one admired PAP initially before joining an opposition party and then resigning. I am pretty sure one of them is politically savvy and knows what he is doing and we all know who that is.

Dear Scroobal,

It is an interesting perspective. But how do they control TOC? I mean, if you want a covert ops in media, then some form of control must be in place.

Yes, the timing of the formation of TOC and PAP's announcement of marching into the cyberspace is too much of an coincidence. And so far, the positioning of TOC is pretty interesting. I know Andrew is one of the key person that pushed for the formation of TOC but I didn't really know how the positioning is being conceived initially.

The Choo Zhengxi incident has made a remarkable impression on the "PAP connections" but there are still insufficient evidence so far to clearly point to the covert nature at all.

On the other hand, we have a "rivalry site" Wayangparty.com which is now renamed to Termasek Review. Wayangparty.com is less open so far where most of the key players are not known in public. However, its positioning is far from favorable to PAP and established opposition like WP.

Although there are some bickering between Wayangparty people and me but it seems that they are more open now. They have even covered my Minibond speeches and posted some translated articles of mine on their site. Wayangparty has announced the departure of its original creator but the people behind this website is still unknown. Is there a third force, beside the established opposition and ruling parties, wanting to play a role in the socio-media-political sphere?

Interesting time indeed.

Goh Meng Seng

 

[Porfirio Rubirosa]

Dear ChaoPappyPoodle

thanks for your hardhitting analysis...calling it like you see it...perhaps what Alex Au wrote on the day Roundtable called it quits maybe applicable to this present day Viswa debacle, to some extent at least, and hardly surprising i should add...Harry has alot to answer in his twilight years...

April 2004
Roundtable group disbands

For a small band of people, the Roundtable has certainly had an impact. But earlier this week, its members decided to close shop.
The ‘Today’ newspaper quoted political scientist Ho Khai Leong of the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies expressing a common sentiment, “The Roundtable may not have been very high-profile. But in Singapore's civil society, even a small step backwards is significant, because we have so little to begin with.” [Today, 13 April 2004]

When 10 persons applied to the Registrar of Societies in 1993 to set up a non-partisan political discussion group called the Roundtable, it was a bold move. The government viewed it with such suspicion that they dithered over the application for nearly a year, until lawyer Chandra Mohan Nair threatened the Registrar with a writ of mandamus [source: Chandra Mohan’s own words at the NUSS forum on 29 March 2004]

Even when the approval came, there was a condition attached: the Roundtable must not hold any activities involving non-members.

I don’t know whether their original plans included such activities, so it’s hard for me to say if this restriction had any significant impact on their goals.

However, what we could observe over the years was that much of their energy was invested in writing papers, which our press carried from time to time. They were well thought out and well argued, and quickly earned them respect among thinking Singaporeans.

Generally, they had a moderate voice even as they took issue with some government policies, but as time passed, I suspect, individuals began to grow in different directions.

James Gomez was the most prominent critic of the government, and he eventually left the Roundtable to join the Workers’ Party. Three others, Simon Tay, Zulfikli Baharudin and Chandra Mohan were co-opted into Parliament as Nominated MPs. Raymond Lim joined the ruling PAP and is now a junior minister in government. Journalist Cherian George and constitutional lawyer Kevin Tan have remained independent and quite critical of many government policies.

One can suspect it was increasingly difficult to find enough consensus to carry on writing papers as a group.

In addition, there were rising expectations among Singaporeans for more political and civil space. Just writing papers, especially couched in gentle language, increasingly failed to match hopes for a more robust political debate.

As social activist Constance Singham said to ‘Today’, “As a group they have been rather disappointing. When they were formed, hopes were high that they would help create more political discussion in the society.”

“But they have not been very open and tend to be secretive and a bit elitist. Neither have they been very egalitarian in their selection of members. In many ways they function just like the PAP," she added.

I don’t think she was aware of the condition that the Registrar of Societies imposed. Like many, she might have expected the Roundtable to organize seminars and talks in order to raise the level of political consciousness and improve the sophistication of political debate here. But this was not possible under the constitution that the Registrar required.

So, in a sense, the reason given by Roundtable’s President, Harish Pillay, for their disbandment, was correct. He told Today, "We have decided that the vehicle of the Roundtable has fully run its course.".

"The purpose of the Roundtable has been achieved,” he added. “We have helped in some sense to open up the political space and define the modus operandi, although we don't hold any exclusivity in civil society. We have already tried our best to achieve what we set out to do, as far as we were permitted to under our constitution.”

You would have noted a special reference to what was permitted under their constitution.

* * * * *

But to the Straits Times, Pillay said rather more. However, I thought those words rang hollow.

'Our modest objective was simply to carve a space where Singaporeans were free to discuss policy issues without being told to join a political party,' its president, Mr Harish Pillay, said yesterday. 'We wanted Singaporeans to feel they had ownership of the political processes and institutions in their own country through active participation in the political system.'

But at the group's 10th annual general meeting on Sunday, members voted to dissolve the entity because they felt 'the vehicle of the Roundtable has fully run its course'.

'For what we wanted to achieve, we think we have already done what we can. So let's move on to something else,' Mr Pillay said.

Established three years after Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong took over with his brand of consultative politics, 'the Roundtable showed that the system was opening up', he added.

At that time, it took the group almost a year to get registered officially. 'But now, the process has eased up,' he said, referring to the introduction of a fast-track registration scheme in 2002 for some types of groups, allowing them an 'in-principle' legal status within two weeks.

- Straits Times, 13 April 2004



All of us involved in People Like Us think this fast-track registration scheme is more wool over Singaporeans’ eyes. Once again, efficiency is deliberately being confused with substance. It’s good to be efficient, but those groups who are now getting registered within 2 weeks were never the issue in the first place. They are the stamp-collecting associations, jazz-band fan clubs, and hamster protection leagues. Even before the Roundtable, they were not going to be denied registration, and that today they are waved through represents no substantive advance.

People Like Us was denied registration in 1997. Seven years later, in 2004, we are denied registration again. We are the test case for fair governance, and so far the government is failing the test miserably.

This whitewash which the Roundtable seems to have fallen for is very similar to many complaints made about our compliant judiciary. Every time someone points out this defect, the government rolls out some finding from an international business organization or publication pointing to how highly rated Singapore’s judicial system is. Alternatively, they point out how speedy is our judicial process compared to the long waiting lists in other countries. It is a shameless ruse. No one says our judicial system is unfair when it comes to commercial cases. No one says that there is injustice in Singapore arising from justice delayed. It’s the political cases we’re all pointing at and have been pointing at for decades. And in that area, nothing has changed.

A lawyer friend of mine put it succinctly: "Indeed justice is delivered quickly, but of what quality?"

* * * * *

I will now put on record the one occasion when People Like Us’ orbit grazed the Roundtable’s. Be warned, it’s not a pretty tale.

I think it was sometime like 1999 or 2000, certainly a while after the first registration attempt by People Like Us, when the Registrar refused even to disclose a reason why he turned our application down. PLU's Russell Heng was in communication with Roundtable’s Cherian George, an old friend from their journalism days. George was already quite familiar with the PLU saga, but Russell prodded him a little and suggested that the highhandedness of the Registrar was the kind of issue that the Roundtable might want to address as part of their mission.

My understanding from Russell was that George felt this to be so, but he needed to sound out others in his group.

A few days later, the answer came back. Apparently, one member of the Roundtable said he was completely opposed to the Roundtable taking up this subject because he was a Roman Catholic! He threatened to resign from the Roundtable if others in the group persisted in looking into this matter. [1]

This intemperance was rather curious for a group that wanted to lead intellectually when it came to political awareness. After all, it's not a novel invention to distinguish between agreeing with our aims, and defending our rights of expression and association. These rights are fairly fundamental to a healthy polity. Speaking up for these rights would not have required you to agree with our aims.

Well, it was their group, and they had the right to decide for themselves what their agenda was. But I, for one, knew from that day on, that the Roundtable was never going to amount to much more.

At least, not as a group.

Individuals have been supportive. I know Kevin Tan, Cherian George, Zuraidah all believe that the Registrar of Societies has been less than correct in his dealings with People Like Us. And I will acknowledge here that Simon Tay was instrumental in eventually getting the Registrar to reveal (in April 2000) his reason for the 1997 rejection.

So perhaps Harish Pillay was right when he said, they had already done what they could and it was time to move on.

© Yawning Bread

 

[ChaoPappyPoodle]

THere are no heroes. There is no golden goose. THere is only selfishness and monetary gain in SG politics.

Viswa should resign from his NMP post and ask those in parliament who still belive in the pledge to join him to fight the next election to ensure that the country belongs to the people.

No politician should be enriched to multiple generations wealth for the sake of working for the people. That is a sham.

YOu all think you won. But to the majority of Singaporeans the pappies won and they will always win as long as things move in a one step forward, one-step back routine.

SO, VIswa, resign and at the same time ask those that support the pledge to join you and others to form a new party. A party that is pro-Singaporean for the short term and the long-term.

Enough of this raising taxes to help the poor and not enough money to build a stadium. Enough of this housing subsidies nonsense. Enough of this tyrant and his familee. Enough of everything that isn;t simething for the people - rich or poor. We are all Singaporeans. Rich or poor, we all deserve better. Rich or poor, we all deserve a government that WANTS to help us and protect us from tyranny.

We want democracy! So that people can speak without fear. So that politicians can hear and do something. We want justice so that no one is above the law.

We want a new government. We want a new political party that is not tainted with the PAP.

When do we want it?

... .

 

[scroobal]

I am really upset with most of the Netizens who have responded negatively to what Viswa had done. He is no coward. He has realised belatedly what is going on and was honest enough to point out the self preservation angle (really brave when most people will be denial in order to save face). These idiots do not realise that his comments at the LKY School of Public Policy is not covered by Parlimentary privileges. He clearly stated that he could be sued for libel.

Many don't understand libel laws of Singapore. If you have deep pockets, you can screw an individual real bad financially just to defend the case. SPH could hang Viswa to dry. I was not surprised that Davinder backed down against Balji and the only idiot that took on SPH was Durai who thought he was King and God.

Sad.......

Dear Scroobal,

your analysis and insight in this thread has got my political intrigue juices flowing...as they say follow the dots...follow dots...on the flipside what you opine has also made me depressed with this possible truth that leads to 'the heart of darkness'...oh "the horror, the horror":(

PS. look forward to more insights and nuggets after your prata chinwag:p

 

[scroobal]

I will be the first to admit that Viswa was a fool. But he did raise the stakes. What did the other arseholes who were appointed NMPs do.

THere are no heroes. There is no golden goose. THere is only selfishness and monetary gain in SG politics.

Viswa should resign from his NMP post and ask those in parliament who still belive in the pledge to join him to fight the next election to ensure that the country belongs to the people.

No politician should be enriched to multiple generations wealth for the sake of working for the people. That is a sham.

YOu all think you won. But to the majority of Singaporeans the pappies won and they will always win as long as things move in a one step forward, one-step back routine.

SO, VIswa, resign and at the same time ask those that support the pledge to join you and others to form a new party. A party that is pro-Singaporean for the short term and the long-term.

Enough of this raising taxes to help the poor and not enough money to build a stadium. Enough of this housing subsidies nonsense. Enough of this tyrant and his familee. Enough of everything that isn;t simething for the people - rich or poor. We are all Singaporeans. Rich or poor, we all deserve better. Rich or poor, we all deserve a government that WANTS to help us and protect us from tyranny.

We want democracy! So that people can speak without fear. So that politicians can hear and do something. We want justice so that no one is above the law.

We want a new government. We want a new political party that is not tainted with the PAP.

When do we want it?

... .

 

[Porfirio Rubirosa]

and you wonder why Tan Kin Lian wanted 100K signatures to proceed further on his political odyssey...

oh and since you mentioned singapore's infamous libel laws and davi in particular...have you read gopalan nair's recent fruity and mischievious post on a fragrant blossom?...bit of a low blow by gopalan now targetting all and sundry...

I am really upset with most of the Netizens who have responded negatively to what Viswa had done. He is no coward. He has realised belatedly what is going on and was honest enough to point out the self preservation angle (really brave when most people will be denial in order to save face). These idiots do not realise that his comments at the LKY School of Public Policy is not covered by Parlimentary privileges. He clearly stated that he could be sued for libel.

Many don't understand libel laws of Singapore. If you have deep pockets, you can screw an individual real bad financially just to defend the case. SPH could hang Viswa to dry. I was not surprised that Davinder backed down against Balji and the only idiot that took on SPH was Durai who thought he was King and God.

Sad.......

 

[scroobal]

When SDP raised the issue of NKF and the failure of the govt to act, which I thought was fair comment as the Govt did fail to act on 2 occasions - one by the then Minister of Health after it was raised as a concern by an NMP and the second by the deputy secretary of the ministry. Yet SDP ex-co members like Ling settled. Purely for practical and financial reasons in view of the libel laws.

Tactically though it should have raised during the hustings.

Gopalan should send an account of all donations received from Singaporeans , expenses incurred including sailing, alcohol consumption etc. Or else he is not different to Ho Ching not been transparent. You know his digging the bottom of the barrel with Ms Hing's write-up.

and you wonder why Tan Kin Lian wanted 100K signatures to proceed further on his political odyssey...

oh and since you mentioned singapore's infamous libel laws and davi in particular...have you read gopalan nair's recent fruity and mischievious post on a fragrant blossom?...bit of a low blow by gopalan now targetting all and sundry...

 

[scroobal]

Bro, I know I did not answer all your questions and I can't but you have to draw your own conclusions. I am sure all TOC chaps and possibly except for one thinks that they are neutral.

Will share with you one incident because it paints a good picture. This chap who was an A student became a President of a University Society (not NUSSU). A few days later, his parents received a visit from ISD at their HDB flat while this chap was attending classes in NUS. The parents were "asked"{ to encourage him to focus on his studies. The process is to remove those that are not part of the agenda. When you remove or discourage those who cannot be part of the Agenda, what is left are those will naturally be for the Agenda whether they realise it or not. By the way its was the time of ViV B and Simon Tay hold on Nussu.

Be a keen observer and watch the ducks line up and the dots linked.

As to Wayangparty/Temasekreview, there is nothing worry about. Its just one chap who is personality driven and nothing to do with politics. He targets those who reveal their identity as they are forced to engage so there is dialogue and attention. He also cannot reveal himself in view of being sued by so many parties. He is just looking for a profile and make some money from ads. Its not going anywhere.

He does not cover PAP politics not because he is for them but has little clue about Singapore politics in general. Look at the people that he associates with. He ended with a group of netizens who were into sci-fi "darkness" story-telling etc. Remember he also dabbled in Malaysian politics with no substance.

You know the type - got all the latest soccer gear, turns for all the training but can't even make the bench.

Dear Scroobal,

It is an interesting perspective. But how do they control TOC? I mean, if you want a covert ops in media, then some form of control must be in place.

 

[scroobal]

Bro,

read these 3 articles on the same topic - first 2 by by Alex and one by TOC's Andrew /Khairulanwar.

1) http://www.yawningbread.org/arch_2009/yax-1030.htm

2) http://www.yawningbread.org/arch_2009/yax-1035.htm

3) http://theonlinecitizen.com/2009/06/the-ncmp-cat-among-the-opposition-pigeons/

I am sure you can draw your own conclusions and you know which is the more popular website. The topic is fundamental to what we believe is wrong in Singapore and a good example to assess the quality of the arguments or if there was an argument in the first place. There is one article where no arguments were put forth at all - Guess which one.

I have alot of respect for Khairul but he is young and quite impressionable. He should not accept compromises.

Dear Scroobal,

It is an interesting perspective. But how do they control TOC? I mean, if you want a covert ops in media, then some form of control must be in place.

 

[scroobal]

Bro, here are the guts

- this was a setup and I am told for all the right reasons. Its stems from LHL's changes to parliament on 18 non PAP seats announced in May. Strong feelings within the younger political establishment that they were being looked down (rightly so) by foreign counterparts, business associates and even younger family members that the current state of play is looking more ridiculous let alone been despotic and oppressive. In fact the 9 guaranteed opposition seats was considered a major unexpected concession by the young establishment turks.

- the desire was to lift the game of NMPs ( but must be non-partisan) and allow them to move into real politics and in view of their past "responsible" background to provide responsible but alternative views. It was apparent that Intelligentsia wanted no part of opposition politics.

- Viswa was most apt candidate having been feedback chairman and therefore had access to genuine and empirical concerns of the populace, hence the comprehensive laundry list. However parties are not prepared to state if it was implied and Viswa inferred (which I suspect is the case) or directly encouraged. Parties are also not prepared to state if it was officially sanctioned by party apparatus or driven by one or few well meaning chaps. What is clear is that old man had no clue and everyone including party were stunned. There is a definite blackout on further discussions on the well worn excuse of race sensitivities ( completely ignoring all other matters that were raised but not addressed).

- this one came out of the blue. Don't be surprised that in view of the guaranteed 9 opposition seats for the next elections, a new and "politically" responsible independent candidate or candiates or political party emerges. Apparently, Singaporeans averse to risk is well known and high barriers twarting entering of "politically responsible" candidates is most unlikely and thus the recent changes. Like the Presidential Elections, candidates endorsed by the PAP and candidates not endorsed by the PAP but encouraged by the PAP like the Chua Kim Yeow affair is the scenario.

- this came out also out of the Blue. Looks like Low of WP guessed or had wind of the Viswa matter and thus his reaction. Its does make sense.

but something you might gently ask abt and see the answers you get seeing that I probably can't hear the sort of whispers u hear

 

[Goh Meng Seng]

Dear Scroobal,

I get your drift.

I missed Alex Au's article on the NCMP issue. He obviously has more depth than most writers on the internet. And he did put up an argument of what he believes in.

As for TOC, it is just merely a reporting methodology, no stand taken. But I believe the previous opinion put up by other writers have a superficial analysis on the issue.

It is really an interesting twist in my view. TOC supported NMPs like Siew and Viswa which implicitly means that they support the NMP scheme. It is also strange that TOC choose to talk about the NCMP scheme instead of the NMP or making comparison between the two.

Alex Au has hit it right in his analysis. If we are working towards Proportionate Representation, we should accept NCMP while rejecting NMP scheme.

This is something that is bugging me for quite some time now. There is something not right in TOC's positioning. Something so fundamental about the political system, there is no views from TOC at all. This does not fit the initial profile of TOC at all. Maybe they have their own considerings as some of their associates are NMPs to start with. Or that they are not meant to initiate reform or change to the present system but just merely providing alternative voices that does not topple or even rock the boat at all.

Interesting observations that warrant reassessment for the overall development. Interesting time indeed.

Goh Meng Seng

Bro,

read these 3 articles on the same topic - first 2 by by Alex and one by TOC's Andrew /Khairulanwar.

1) http://www.yawningbread.org/arch_2009/yax-1030.htm

2) http://www.yawningbread.org/arch_2009/yax-1035.htm

3) http://theonlinecitizen.com/2009/06/the-ncmp-cat-among-the-opposition-pigeons/

I am sure you can draw your own conclusions and you know which is the more popular website. The topic is fundamental to what we believe is wrong in Singapore and a good example to assess the quality of the arguments or if there was an argument in the first place. There is one article where no arguments were put forth at all - Guess which one.

I have alot of respect for Khairul but he is young and quite impressionable. He should not accept compromises.

 

[hairylee]

If he comes out and form a political party, stand up to LKY in public, I guarantee his party will be in parliament by next election; something that pondan Steve Chia could not do.

 

[scroobal]

Yes. The point and claim by the ruling PAP on TIC is that there is indeed an independent online media that it touches on politics with no restrictions. Most people however have little understanding journalism and their important role as the fourth estate.

If the govt states that Apples are coloured orange while Oranges are coloured Red which is outright false, Alex Au or any other reasonable person including you immediately state that it is false. TOC will state that Govt thinks that Apples are coloured orange and Oranges are coloured Red while WP has no position on it while SDP thinks that Apples are Red while Bananas are yellow. I suppose it called "neutral" and they have indeed stated facts. I am citing an extreme example but when politics is rather grey for most layman, TOC damage to democracy as it is literally a monopoly is immense.

Alex Au is really good at political anaysis and in seeking the truth and there is none better than him in Singapore. However he too has his flaws like all geuine human beings. For instance in this article on film cenesors he was wrong and bias. And thats human. He however has built credibility overtime and consistently and he is more right than wrong.

http://www.yawningbread.org/

I say that he is wrong in this article is that no authority is generally going to return the tape because someone might release it online and if the subject matter for instance is offensive to religion the harm can be quite bad. So a general rule is applicable. No Authority will carry a list of trustworth and untrustworthy applicants.

Overall he is the best thing that we have.

As for TOC, it is just merely a reporting methodology, no stand taken. But I believe the previous opinion put up by other writers have a superficial analysis on the issue.

 

[Goh Meng Seng]

Dear Scroobal,

Yes, the important essence of the role of independent journalism as the forth estate is really missing in TOC. Well, this has made me review my blog's web link list today. Ironically, I am going to put up Temasek Review link on my blog while taking down TOC for the moment.

This is in view of the fact that even though Temasek Review has unclear motivation but the substance on the web so far is pretty much closer to the kind of role I would wish a media to play for Singapore's democratic development.

Goh Meng Seng

Yes. The point and claim by the ruling PAP on TIC is that there is indeed an independent online media that it touches on politics with no restrictions. Most people however have little understanding journalism and their important role as the fourth estate.

If the govt states that Apples are coloured orange while Oranges are coloured Red which is outright false, Alex Au or any other reasonable person including you immediately state that it is false. TOC will state that Govt thinks that Apples are coloured orange and Oranges are coloured Red while WP has no position on it while SDP thinks that Apples are Red while Bananas are yellow. I suppose it called "neutral" and they have indeed stated facts. I am citing an extreme example but when politics is rather grey for most layman, TOC damage to democracy as it is literally a monopoly is immense.

Alex Au is really good at political anaysis and in seeking the truth and there is none better than him in Singapore. However he too has his flaws like all geuine human beings. For instance in this article on film cenesors he was wrong and bias. And thats human. He however has built credibility overtime and consistently and he is more right than wrong.

http://www.yawningbread.org/

I say that he is wrong in this article is that no authority is generally going to return the tape because someone might release it online and if the subject matter for instance is offensive to religion the harm can be quite bad. So a general rule is applicable. No Authority will carry a list of trustworth and untrustworthy applicants.

Overall he is the best thing that we have.

 

[scroobal]

This is a quote from Gilbert Goh in the discussion on the Viswa matter and note his comments in bold. Talk about being naive and dumb. He writes for TOC.


http://theonlinecitizen.com/2009/08/why-report-on-viswa-sadasivans-speech-was-removed-from-toc/
69) Gilbert Goh on August 30th, 2009 5.15 pm Actually i was surprised when Mr Viswa allowed his speech to be published here before he spoke on Parliament. It is like he ignored parliamentary proceedings.

Moreover, TOC is painted as an anti establishment political blog and no NMP wanted to be aligned with the site.

Anyway, we all have eyes to see and the report was to me factual and with no hidden agenda.

Keep up the good work TOC. You did well too Mr Viswa with your maiden speech which also attracted our MM Lee Kuan Yew to defend himself in Parliament for a long time. Good work!

Dear Scroobal,

Yes, the important essence of the role of independent journalism as the forth estate is really missing in TOC.
Goh Meng Seng