Originally posted by lionnoisy:
Said by Atobe:
"they(LAU and CHIAM) will stand their ground when
they know they have been wronged - (meaning they have successfully
brought members of the ruling political party to court, as GCT had
also to apologise for errors said).
Lastly, of course, being docile opposition members - they are not
seen as an immediate potent threat to the established system, as
they are seen to be playing by the rules created by and for the
benefit of the Ruling Political Party.
CSJ challenged those arbitrary rules set by the POWER OF ONE, and
he dare to question the established operating system with an even
sharper focus on the issues then JBJ.
Similarly, like JBJ, CSJ had to be methodically and punishingly
extinguished to prevent any other Singaporeans with like minded
bravado in mind."
........................................................................................
Docile:1. easily managed or handled; tractable: a docile
horse.
2. readily trained or taught; teachable.
1.If GCT apologised to opposition party.Then PAP is not above the
laws.
No, PAP was not sued, GCT was
sued.
GCT's apology shows that he believe that HE is not above the
Law.
2.'' being docile opposition members "Is it a
insult to these 2 gentlemen?
The first priority of opposition party is to survive.
Like playing games,dunt make mistake.
There is no point to be a good horse but locked up!
i would rather to be an average horse and still can run.
CSJ made mistakes on purposes.Thats why he is OUT of the game.
Unfortunately, the members of SDP
looking at CST's track record did not see it in the same manner,
and decided to vote against CST when CST refused to support CSJ's
attempt to clear the 'supposedly
false trump-up charges' made against CSJ by PAP's Vasso -
who was the Head of the Faculty where CSJ was working.
LTK has taken worst insult then this mild critique of calling him
as 'docile'; and it speaks
volume of his character.
Can you - or those whom you give blind support to - truly
understand the depth of the word 'insult' ?
Can anyone understand CSJ's game plan ? I would not attempt to
interpret him, as I will have to be in his shoes to truly
understand him; and I do not wish to do so.
3.LAU and CHIAM also'' challenged those arbitrary rules set by the
POWER OF ONE.'' BUt they do it in way to survive and continue
airing the voices for
people supporting them.
They do so in a very meek way;
with Singaporeans not even knowing about their efforts on any main
public issues that are spoken louder in this
sgforum.
4.It will be suprised to me if government do not respond to[b]
From the Editor: FEER Oct 2006,last
issue in Spore
[quote]In this issue, academics Michael Barr and Garry Rodan take
on two taboo subjects in Singapore: the racial composition
of its educational system and the governments control of
the local media. Mr. Barr examines whether Singapores claim to be
a meritocracy stands up to scrutiny given the striking inequality
between the races as shown by the educational advantages enjoyed by
ethnic Chinese. Mr. Rodan looks at how the government controls the
flow of information for the purpose of protecting and reinforcing
the founding myths of the PAP regime.
These articles go straight to the heart of some of the most
sensitive issues the Singapore government doesnt want
discussed: race, language, religion and culture.
These topics are sometimes said to be out of
bounds. As Mr. Lee Sr. once explained, They are not
cerebral matters which we can discuss in a Western salon. In our
society, these are visceral matters. People take their religion
very seriously. It is extremely dangerous to treat this just as
another conversational subject.
You should be surprised if the
government will respond to this article, as the facts of the matter
is as clear for all who have gone through the Singapore experience;
unless you have sleep-walked through it all.
If the First Family truly believes in meritocracy, then let
themselves be tested on foreign grounds before returning to
takeover positions in state run companies.
5.Mr Restall is really the saviour of oppressed 1.3
billion
Chinese in PRC
........................................................................................
In comments reported by Singapore's The Straits Times newspaper
Tuesday, Restall said the magazine planned to vigorously defend the
lawsuit and hoped it would send a message to other countries such
as China about controls over the media.
"That's one reason why it's important to fight this case, to
prevent China from believing that if it adopts the Singaporean
model, the international media is going to roll over and accept
that, and tone down its coverage," Restall was quoted as saying in
a talk on Monday to the Foreign Correspondents' Club in
Beijing.----''FEER questions S'pore courts' right to hear Lees'
lawsuits''
The Associated Press,10 Oct 06.
Someone, somewhere should test the
Lee's lawsuit out of the Singapore Judiciary system under
independently minded legal minds, even if we to based on Singapore
legislations.
With every judges' appointment, performance and term of
office being decided by the Political Leadership,
can there be any independence of the Judiciary ?
